[sounding]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by sounding

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

[ThirdOfFive]

Dunno. Some of that "science" resembles the Wicked Witch of the West consulting her crystal ball.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

Why are the GNP folks hiding the last 7 years of glacier data, especially when they previously produced those reports every year?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

Ahhh, but they claim the statement is only PARTLY FALSE. The decimal point was in the wrong place, BUT it still shows some cooling, even if not as much as stated. AND there is no absolute proof that suggests that it is mankind's cause that any change has occurred.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by sounding

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

This must be the fifth or sixth time, so PLEASE, stop confusing the indoctrinated die-hard climate change activists WITH THE FACTS

[Tvflguy]

Things are getting a bit hot here… might add to Global Warming. err I mean Climate Change. I forgot that they switched…. That way, any Up/Down would apply then.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

Short, because I don't want to be part of this argument....

- If the last 7 year shows cooling and there is no doubt it will show warming again then it certainly isn't a data point for your argument.

- Yes, it is curious, but it does not show a conspiracy. There could be other explanations like a lack of budget to provide the data, a lack of interest, or a suspicion that the data is being intentionally misinterpreted and misused. It is also possible that it could be an attempt to hide the data but asserting only that possibility seems very much like confirmation bias.

- Why is cooling happening yet CO2 is skyrocketing? By your own admission and, I believe previous assertions, climate change cannot be measured over a small number of years. One cold winter is not an indication of an impending ice age any more than one hot summer is an indication of global climate change. Small cycles are not significant.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend

Cherry picking data.

And Fact Check is totally correct and accurate all the time! It's on the internet so it has to be legitimate and truthful.

[fdpaq0580]

Many years ago, Carl Sagan demonstrated the difference between climate and weather. A man walking slowly and steadily up a beach represented the climate, while his dog , represented weather, ran ahead of him then behind in a random pattern. Weather can be local and seem erratic and change rapidly over short periods of time. Climate is more stable and changes over longer time periods.
Some are using short term weather phenomena to debunk climate change. Cherry picking weather data to disprove climate change is misusing and misrepresenting the reality of what has been going on with climate change globally.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Short, because I don't want to be part of this argument....

- If the last 7 year shows cooling and there is no doubt it will show warming again then it certainly isn't a data point for your argument.

- Yes, it is curious, but it does not show a conspiracy. There could be other explanations like a lack of budget to provide the data, a lack of interest, or a suspicion that the data is being intentionally misinterpreted and misused. It is also possible that it could be an attempt to hide the data but asserting only that possibility seems very much like confirmation bias.

- Why is cooling happening yet CO2 is skyrocketing? By your own admission and, I believe previous assertions, climate change cannot be measured over a small number of years. One cold winter is not an indication of an impending ice age any more than one hot summer is an indication of global climate change. Small cycles are not significant.

So why is the earth cooling?

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by sounding

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Could be a variety of explanations, but, if you have been a careful observer of the dissemination of "statistics" on a wide variety of subjects and areas of interest, be it weather, the economy, immigration, Covid information, etc. etc. etc., you have surely noticed that the "flow" of accurate statistical information depends on if supports the political policy of the day, or runs counter to the desired "official" policy. Or to put it another way, it's more the George Orwell world of statistics control. In other words, maybe right now it would not be "good" for common folk in the masses, to know all the details of exactly what the situation is concerning glaciers of North America. As tax payers, we undoubtedly finance a great deal of statistical measuring and recording concerning celestial bodies also, but what part of the would be "good" for us to know, and what would be considered "unwise" to share with the masses, who knows ? That's why we have such a wide, deep, gulf in our political views in this country: the difference in the classic sense of the "progressive", in which the elite own a kind of debt to society in general (the masses) to guide them in the correct direction, to make decisions for their own good, in a kind of government/citizen relationship modeled after a benevolent parent/child relationship. The opposite philosophy would be to promote universal education, and create not just a "democracy", but a government format that promotes individual decision making and personal responsibility, could be called a democratic REPUBLIC to distinguish it from a "democracy" ? Long answer but, that may be why we the people, we the tax payers, have "parents" (government) who protect us by selectively choosing which information it would be best for us to have, and which would not.