[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

To quote someone above, "Here we go again"

First of all, calling an individual a fool is an insult, referring to a large group of people who embrace a myth "indoctrinated" is simply factual. You are in essence objecting to someone calling Jim Jones' followers "cultists".

So accept the conclusions of WHICH scientists? Obviously, the ones that promulgate the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Then marginalize the rest???? And don't quote that bogus 90% agree garbage. We all know who gets the government grants and who gets the tenured university positions. Even a college student who raises his hand and states he doesn't believe in climate change caused by man will get slammed by the professor.

Which scientists? The ones you don't want to believe.
Embracing a myth? What if you are wrong and it isn't a myth, but truth? Would it be an insult then? Since we accept the evidence as correct, then your "indoctrinated" comment is an insult.
Government grants? Hmm? Are you intimating an International Climate Conspiracy? That is kind of what it seems like to me.
One thing we can both agree on is, I will not change what you believe, and you will not change what I believe.
So, I wish you a birdie on every hole but one. On that one hole, I wish you an Ace.y

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

call a meeting and your entire group can vote its outrage next tuesday

Thanks for identifying how science becomes corrupted -- by voting. Voting is not used in the Weather Club -- only data -- and how data confirms or rejects theories. Voting is used in politics to create consensus, which of course is not how science works. As Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Which scientists? The ones you don't want to believe.
Embracing a myth? What if you are wrong and it isn't a myth, but truth? Would it be an insult then? Since we accept the evidence as correct, then your "indoctrinated" comment is an insult.
Government grants? Hmm? Are you intimating an International Climate Conspiracy? That is kind of what it seems like to me.
One thing we can both agree on is, I will not change what you believe, and you will not change what I believe.
So, I wish you a birdie on every hole but one. On that one hole, I wish you an Ace.y

Thank you for the golfing best wishes

And I do accept the evidence as correct----but the evidence shows little to no impact on climate due to human activity---so no "insult" there.

International Climate Conspiracy? I don't think so, but it is pretty clear that government grants, tenured professorships, and even an "A" in a college course is highly dependent on proposing the political "flavor of the month" theories. I guarantee you, that today, if you apply for a grant to prove mankind has nothing to do with climate change, YOU WILL BE DENIED. Same for applying for the chair of the paleoclimatology department at UCLA. Fifty years ago, you would have denied a grant if you proposed that the world would not run out of oil in 20 years. That's just the way it is.

[OhioBuckeye]

You didn’t really think they were paying for it did you? That’s what we’ve been trying to tell everyone, the tax payers pay for everything!

[Vermilion Villager]

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.

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......

Everything I say I can back up with data ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afa6mMMuZhg

[Hardlyworking]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......

Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020 - CNN

I’ve been there many times and remember seeing the signs and displays.

[RiderOnTheStorm]

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 it be that the facts don't align with the Left's narrative?

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by RiderOnTheStorm

Could it be that the facts don't align with the Left's narrative?

And that reply just about describes why it's impossible these days to have a sensible disagreement, or debate, on any subject.
Politics!

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

And that reply just about describes why it's impossible these days to have a sensible disagreement, or debate, on any subject.
Politics!

Yes it is possible -- for those who are willing to look at the data -- which is why the Weather Club grows in numbers after each session.

[Rodneysblue]

Originally Posted by Byte1

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.

And they say it’s too short of a period of time. I say only going back to 1880 is not long enough either in order to get a true picture.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

Cherry picking data.

It's become a "disease", a "pandemic" actually; if it supports MY personal view, it's a FACT, if it supports a different view or opinion, then it's "dis-information" ! We don't even question the fallacy of using that method to determine "fact" any more. What will happen to the ACTUAL scientific method of investigation ? Will it not even be taught any more ? Everything seems to have gone emotionally based, all decisions, all facts, all arguments on all subjects from "effectiveness to masks" to the results of warming and cooling trends on earth, seem to be based on just "emotional feelings" ! ! I think we are in real trouble when we confuse science with emotions, and we vote, make purchases, choose our personal philosophy solely on FEELINGS ?

[ThirdOfFive]

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.

What matters is whether the "facts" being presented validate the point of view of the person reading them.

Or not.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

Cherry picking data.

It was recently explained to me on this very site that a fact checker is someone, usually with pink hair, that owns a printer and a computer.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

Here he goes again.

A fool will never admit his foolishness. What does it matter. He will die before things get serious enough for him to worry about it. It's his grandchildren's problem. The thing is the 150 years mark the time when the Industrial Revolution began and that's the problem.

The industrial revolution is a problem?