We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030

[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!

[sumdumguy]

I'm wonder if you read the "retraction"?

The woman is an Astrophysics PhD doing ongoing research about the sun that many don't seem to want to hear about at this time.

Unlike climate change the science is not all in.

Can you imagine the "hate" she had to endure from social media crusaders when they saw that "click bait".

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

HER LIFE was proably on the line. The heat from ‘global warming’ has warped some brains.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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!

It is worse than I thought, you truly have no concept of how the scientific method actually works do you? If consensus was all that was required for a theory to be written in stone, the world would still believe ( note, this is the word believe used in the correct context) in creationism, an earth centric universe, animicules, alchemy, witches, bad blood, global cooling, human sacrifice to appease gods etc. etc. Do you want a lesson in the scientific method, it may be a good place to start, without that basic knowledge, the rest of the discussion is very much pointless?

To quote Einstein, Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

[jazz]

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!

Climate skeptics aren't making nay claims therefore we have no burden of proof. We simple doubt the science and not enough definitive evidence has been put forth, nor has any of the past predictions born out, therefore the theory is suspect until a tangible prediction is made from it that is shown to be true. Statue of Liberty under water by now was one. Ice free arctic was another.

[fjlip]

THEY think we NEED the 100 authors/97% of "climate" scientists to beat the LIE into us! All the doomsaying is really hard to "believe" without CONSTANT bombarding the public with another scary scenario. It is endless and so far NOTHING in 50 years Has come to pass! Hello little red hen...the sky NEVER fell!

[newguy]

Extremes for sure.

[jazz]

Extremes for sure.

Those extremes are normal for the prairies. Those numbers were hit in the 30s and 60s too.