We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

And more importantly have you seen the sensational headlines the media creates every time a new alarmist report is released, particularly by the IPCC in their own summary for policy makers, which has little in common with the actual report it is supposedly based on, yet we see no retractions or apologies.

[chuckChuck]

Thanks for the daily dose of optimism on a cold snowy morning Chuck. For humanities sake, I really hope you are right.

But, please for your own credibility, stop using the word consensus in regards to anything scientific, we have been through this before. You have done a good job of avoiding using the word believe in this context lately, which is good progress. Just trying to be helpful, so that you can be taken seriously when you discuss these issues.

Anytime you want to provide scientific evidence from climate scientists that humans are not causing climate change and challenge the consensus you are welcome to do so.

We have been waiting for many months for you do this but you have always been too busy! But apparently not too busy to write several posts a day with almost nothing in the way of science to back up your opinions.

[Horse]

well Mother Nature is making it increasingly obvious as is shown on your US temp charts , -11 here again
lots are saying , even some on here , what a warm winter it's been
it's like they have their head shoved firmly up their ass

Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Anytime you want to provide scientific evidence from climate scientists that humans are not causing climate change and challenge the consensus you are welcome to do so.

We have been waiting for many months for you do this but you have always been too busy! But apparently not too busy to write several posts a day with almost nothing in the way of science to back up your opinions.

You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory.

[jazz]

All within the margin of variability in a chaotic non-linear non-determinant system.

[Guest]

Speaking of heads up asses you do understand that weather goes on beyond your fence line (dont you ??).

Tell that to 90 % of the world that doesnt have a stupid f$&king carbon tax so they can give millions to their buddies
How has your carbon tax worked out for you last few years. Did you cool the world lol

[chuckChuck]

You just used the word consensus again, it is a good thing I am patient with slow learners. After all, it only took a couple of years to explain to you that belief is not a part of the scientific method. Science is not a democracy. It only takes 1 piece of contrary evidence to disprove a popularly held theory.

Really! One piece of evidence can completely change the thousands if not millions of other pieces of current evidence that human caused climate change is real? If you believe that, then your understanding of science is limited.

But hey, go ahead show us the one piece of evidence from a climate scientists that disproves human caused climate change. We are still waiting!

[dmlfarmer]

All the "retraction" did was minimize the sensationalizing of the original headline.

If you believe that was all the retraction did I suggest you read both a lot closer. This is not a journalism or reporting by any stretch of the imagination. The writer, whoever it was, did not interview the researchers before writing the article and admits in the article "it was not possible to evaluate the research." It appears they based their story, and the misleading headline, on an article written in "The Telegraph" and does not even credit the writer of The Telegraph article.

Second, we do not know if they called to interview the researcher after publication of that opinion piece or if the researcher called them to set the record straight and ask they write the retraction. But the important things to note that the researcher actually said were that the research did not bring up the impact on weather or climate. So this study of sunspots drew no conclusions about the impact on weather. When questioned, the researcher said that a climatic impact was POSSIBLE; not probable or if it was going to happen.

Third, the most important statement made by the educated astrophysicist in the actual interview was: "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening."

Finally, I consider the first article nothing more than spin doctoring to present a preconceived position, typical of what happens in the climate debate. I note that the second article, in which there as a semblance of journalism by interviewing the researcher was shared 281 times. But the original story where there was no interviews and in fact they admit the research was not even evaluated, was shared 9954 times. No wonder facts get lost about climate change when such dubious reporting is used as proof of your position.

[farming101]

More weather is happening as we speak.

[Guest]

Same as my on my fenceline lol

[fjlip]

More weather is happening as we speak.

[ATTACH]4144[/ATTACH]

Oh NO the climate is CHANGING! The sky is falling in 12 years or 20 or 50 or maybe a 100...adapt, adapt, adapt...is the only correct advice. All just guesses, NOTHING can be proven into the future, the past data is easy but all can be fudged for $$$$, fortune tellers?

[fjlip]

All within the margin of variability in a chaotic non-linear non-determinant system.

Why is all the doomsday estimates/guesses not given with a + or - % chance? Yes variability 1C is SFA.
Regina is 5C warmer than me, and they are not burned up to cinders!