Americas Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

`
I never gave my opinion on "Climate change", I'm still a fence sitter. However, if I want accurate information on that topic, the last place I'd look it is on a political forum. I have no interest at all in data or theories that have been regurgitated through an ideological screen. It's hard enough to understand it by itself without it being bastardized by people with political agendas.

 

Really? Please tell me what my qualifications are.

 

`
I will agree with you on that. I also happen to know that climate is so dynamic, we still don't have computers powerful enough to deal with the steady or real-time flow of data.

 

...El Nino, that's Spanish for...The Nino...

 

Its because their cries of global warming arent really about a warming globe.

Its about their lust for anothers possessions, and forcing the government to confiscate those possessions under the pretense of social or environmental "justice"

 

Who knows may be the most honest answer given on this forum to date and you earn my respect for bringing it up. But giving people more money when money may be the corrupting influence in bunk science may not be the wisest choice. Furthermore, steps are being taken to reduce pollution of all kinds and the United States has infinitely better air quality than we did in the 1960s. Is there anything we can actually do about AGW even if it were true? Not really? So why throw money at the problem when throwing money at the problem may be the real problem?



This is a wise choice if the scientists were being empirical and above reproach but you have already pointed out that the studies may be bunk. So who do you choose to trust?[/QUOTE]

while I think we as humans are having an effect on Climate, I think we are no were near knowing the long term effects, they could be good for all we know as we may be postponing the next ice age

I do think science is being influenced by politics... just like cigarette and Marijuana, ect.... research have been, people only want negative results, so that is what the scientists look for and only those results are released, refusing to even mention other alternatives results

I do not think we should be taxing carbon usage, I do not think we should have changed albuterol inhalers, ect... were not to that point of certainty yet

I personally think if there is an issue, the cure will come from science, not people changing their habits (co2 type scrubbers or something)

.

 

Anyone who says that the "U.S." is in an extended cooling phase doesn't understand global climate change. Anyone who uses 10-year trends doesn't understand binning (you have to look at much longer trends).

 

I find it more frustrating than interesting, but that's just me. The one thing about climate changers is they can't ever be wrong now, because, as we all know, the climate is always changing. So, cooling, warming, whatever, doesn't really matter because they'll always have data to support "climate change", blame it on some man-made source and argue that only more government intervention will solve the problem (as if regulatory policy will lead to climate control??) while painting anyone who disagrees as "science deniers" who support dirty water and polluted air. Dumb, but it's working.

Climate change is THEE most dangerously deceptive, regressive agenda on the planet, IMO. When you ask yourself what's the one element of daily life shared globally, climate ranks pretty high. It's universal. So, when you consider the push for "climate change policy" it's pretty clear every one of them revolves around top down control of nearly every aspect of our lives, from flushing toilets to light bulbs, from the cars we drive to the power grid. There is virtually nothing out of reach of government control via associating the need with something, anything, climate-related and that's where we're headed.
In the end, what we'll end with if this agenda succeeds is mega corps who've been able to financially deal with the regulatory and tax burdens governments impose. Small business, especially manufacturing, will be crushed. So will many other small businesses. Because of regulatory cost, start-ups will be harder and harder deploy. The middle class (what's left of them) will find upward mobility more difficult and for the poor it'll become nearly impossible. And this will all be done under the "we're protecting you" from adverse "climate change".
Who knew, right, that when the EPA was established they'd be put in charge of climate control? Amazing. They deserve the "exceeded expectation" bonus, don't you think?

 

Yeah, going by that graph posted that covered temps over millions of years, we do not stay in cooling eras very long at all, and for most of our history as a planet with life on it, it has been much warmer than today.


I never could understand the alarmism of the AGW folks. Climate changes, life adjusts, and most times flourishes. I think we should be concerned with stopping all of the wars which will kill more people than a little warming. But we never have been able to set intelligent priorities.

 

Life used to be so much easier when climate change was only summer, winter, spring, and fall. Now the doomsday cultists have make a mess of it all...

 

As a confirmed and consistent skeptic, I refuse to pump CO2 into the air as remediation (or any other proposed 'solution') until all economic issues are well defined and based upon proven physical models.

 

Anyone that sez the US will be hammered by more frequent and more intense hurricanes doesn't seem understand global climate change either. Al, I'm thinking of you, baby.

 

You can't be a skeptic anymore, in the eyes of the true believers, you are a DENIER. That's how bad it's gotten...

 

It all started with a sealed birth certificate.

 

I contend that we may never be able to deal with computer modeling of such a chaotic Charlie Foxtrot as climate.

 

They just expect you to realize that they have ceased claiming global warming as an overall statement. They have changed it to "climate change" so that they can claim to be correct about whatever happens. You know, like the seasons.

 

Along with that you would then have to understand how everything works and know how to model it. That is not even true today.

 

Just out of curiosity, when exactly does a trend begin? Do we have to wait 100 years to call it a trend, or as in politics is it a trend when we decide it is a trend?

 

No, it doesn't. The US is just a tiny part of the Earth, by square miles.

That's assuming this article is true. It was 109 degrees where I live this past Saturday and we just experienced one of our warmest winters.

 

You mean an even smaller part of the US.

 

So let me get this straight. 9.8/10 scientists agree global warming is very real. We've seen many and varied circumstances as a result of it.


And the right is STILL denying its existence?


It's like some sort of sick freak show nightmare.

 

Stop the 97% propaganda. It isn't true.

 

If you want to look at the impact of fossil fuels then you should go back before the use of fossil fuels became widespread.

Here's an example: