No, it’s a basic criteria. You seem to have an observation based on the facts that runs contrary to the climatological consensus. So publish it, and then maybe we’ll grant it the same credence you grant, say, Michael Mann’s extensive library of published research (which includes some of the most-referenced and most-vetted scientific literature in the history of climatology - there are almost no papers that have undergone as much scrutiny as Mann’s “hockey stick”, and very few that have undergone such scrutiny have been so clearly vindicated by the evidence). Because, I’m going to be frank here.
I do not trust you.
I do not consider you a credible source. I do not think your interpretations are valid, I do not think your “research” has any bearing on reality, and I do not think that your claims would hold up to any scrutiny by people who are trained in scientific analysis in general and climate science in particular. I am not trained in scientific research.
Encouragement to take your shit and publish it. Fulfill the most basic requirements for a scientific hypothesis to be taken seriously before spamming it all over the forum.
Well, we have some rather annoying denialists who won’t stop propping up pseudoscience…
Your so-called cooling trend has been debunked by no less than two people in multiple threads on this forum. Give it a rest. As for the extreme cold, guess what: not that new. It’s certainly bizarre to present this as a “new” story when it’s at least four years old by now.
I don’t even know what to say to this. This is so fundamentally wrong that there’s really not left to do beyond shake my head and say, “Yep, that’s denialism in action”. You don’t seem to understand arctic amplification or are misusing the term; it simply refers to the fact that the poles, in particular the Arctic (the Antarctic has dampening factors), warm more quickly than the rest of the planet. I have no idea where you got this idea that “you can’t have global warming without it”. As for blaming anything on global warming… Well, newsflash: sometimes, when we blame things on global warming, it’s because global warming is causing them. Do you see why I don’t trust you to offer any sort of rational analysis of available data? At all?
Have you considered getting your head out of the tabloid press? You might be slightly less misinformed. But please, by all means, point out where scientists in peer-reviewed journals have blamed all of above on global warming.
I’ll wait. Just like I’ll wait for your explanation of why climategate is a big deal. :rolleyes:
You are completely clueless.
Yeah. However, coming to a rational conclusion based on the data in a highly complex system with a large error bar and a lot of statistical noise? That’s hard as hell. It’s something that many people just can’t do. And as said, if you think I’m going to trust you to provide a reasonable analysis of the data…
…
Dude, you fucking believe climategate is meaningful. What are you even doing here?