I tell everyone that. When it comes to shit like a Polar Vortex, be skeptical. Hell, be skeptical about most climate related crap these days.
Of course that makes it fucking difficult to do any science, if you can’t trust the data itself. Like GISS, if you can’t trust the data, then all the analysis from it is fucked.
Even so, using GISS, which always shows more warming than any other measurements, you can still see the problem for current AGW theory.
Even more telling, we should see a lot of warming for winters in the NH, a key prediction of AGW theory (it’s because of physics), but instead we see long term cooling. for large areas of the NH.
Short term is extreme in the amount of cooling, rather than the expected warming. So much that the global balance for winter is negative for the last 11 years, due to the areas showing extreme cooling trends for winter.
FYI I put links in there backing up every last thing I said about the trends. If somebody just claims something, but offers no evidence, I tend to discount their opinion.
No, what you have there is pseudoscience, you should be aware that pseudoscience loves to abuse real science reports and you demonstrate that you are only a pretender, only a deluded fellow like you can see at the data that the experts manage and come a different conclusion from the one the experts from GISS itself continue to report.
FYI I previously posted the reports from experts telling us that using only recent data to avoid looking at the real trend is being deceptive, and you continue to be.
Science works, misleaders like you only pretend to use it and in this thread you are even attempting to tell to others to ignore that even pizza guys know that AGW deniers are also in the same pseudoscience column as creationists and deniers of tobacco smoke being harmful.
I think it was quite a good OP. Teach the controversy, but also teach the bullshit that gave rise to the “controversy” in the first place. Teach kids about, say, evolution and the metric fucktons of evidence that supports it, and then teach creationism or intelligent design, which is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and then teach the problems that both theories may have. Educate kids about the one or two niggling questions that evolutionary theory may not yet have gotten around to answering (assuming such questions even exist) and then teach kids about the myriad problems inherent to both creationism and intelligent design, and then let the kids make up their own minds. Seems fair to me.
Yeah, the OP could have been briefer, but he makes a good point.
No, he really didn’t. There is so much babble in that OP that it becomes a Rorshach test. You suspect that there’s something there, so you see patterns in the chaos. I would not say it was a good or even a coherent point.
Nearest I can tell is that he is complaining that his teachers didn’t spoon feed him critical thinking skills. I can’t respect that.
I like it. A historical approach would be pretty fucking cool as well. teach HOW science advances, how new discoveries led to old beliefs being abandoned, make it interesting, like a good story. Tell the conflicts as they happened, don’t cover it up.
With evolution the really big problem for bible thumpers and the like is that it of course makes a mockery of their story, and if that story isn’t true, then obviously the whole story might be just old bullshit. Hence the controversy at it’s core.
Then there is the really big bull elephant smashing about the living room. Global warming. Fuckheads want to tell you it’s all settled and only fools and deniers and paid shills would question any of it, which is complete horseshit.
teach the controversy and people gain understanding. The problem is, the people with a lot to lose from actually looking at the scientific evidence don’t want their to even be a controversy. They don’t want the controversy to even be aknowledged, much less examined and taught.
For example, extreme warming for February, shows up clearly. Global warming (for the most part), the kind that is almost predicted by the models (and theory)
Cooling for February, something NOT predicted at all by the models (and theory).
We should see the same sort of trend as the first link shows. But instead there is drastic cooling in large areas. This can’t be argued away, it can’t be dismissed as “my conclusion”, nor can it be put down as bias, it’s goddamn GISS data for fucks sake.
Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. So they ignore it, and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail.
A teachable moment, declarations like this one fall into what many are calling “not even wrong”
It is a myth the ones that push climate denial continue to repeat. Scientists are not saying that it is settled, only that the like-hood of finding contrary evidence is diminishing constantly just like scientists in Evolution are telling us.
It is a lie that I did not counter that before, as shown before in previous posts and even here:
Lie again.
On the contrary, it is clear that you only go for simple answers to keep your delusion.
It is, people that for a living help educators defend the teaching of evolution have found that liars like you are very active also in denying the human causes of the current warming, it has become so insidious that they have changed their mostly defense of evolution to include also the defense of teaching climate change properly.
Nah, it does, just not the way people think. The “problems” are in the specifics - not the overall. It’s a living theory - meaning that it is still being adjusted.
That doesn’t give alternate explanations more credence, of course, it just means that the mechanics of the theory is pretty fucking complicated and are still up for debate. I believe in God, but I sure don’t believe in creationism. I also have a B.S. in molecular biology (not much, I know, but hey) and what I learned is the old trope of “survival of the fittest” doesn’t cut it. It’s way more complicated than that.
So evolution has it’s problems, but it is the best explanation we currently have. That’s what science is. There are always problems with scientific theories. That’s how science works. Shoot, there are problems with our current theory of gravity.
Notice how GIGO just tries to ignore how the extreme warming for February, shows up clearly. Global warming (for the most part), the kind that is almost predicted by the models (and theory)
Cooling for February, something NOT predicted at all by the models (and theory).
We should see the same sort of trend as the first link shows. But instead there is drastic cooling in large areas. This can’t be argued away, it can’t be dismissed as “my conclusion”, nor can it be put down as bias, it’s goddamn GISS data for fucks sake.
Fuckheads like GIGO see that and they have no way to counter it, as it’s just facts. So they ignore it, and there is some controversy right there. But the GIGOs of the world don’t want such things taught, much less explained in detail.
the current science says clearly the cooling trend in the NH winters can not be explained as “natural variation” at this point. It goes back to 1988.
Speaking of Evolution, the NCSE has a note on controversy, many times the controversy the pseudoscience pushers want to be taught in school is not what the lesson of controversy the educators should use.
A lie as usual, it is not ignored, only your delusion is telling you that. When the final tally on global temperature is made, the anomalies you press here are taken into account in the big picture.
See the video of the cite and let a scientist like Latif explain it, or not, as it is clear that you are declaring all climate scientists to be fuckheads, anyone can see that the tactic of lying and insulting experts will not get you far.
More on the NCSE guidelines on teaching controversies:
On that, it is clear that creationism or ID has the problem of the scientific controversy not existing or even diminishing as time goes by, As talkorigins put it recently: “sure you want to teach the controversy, so where is it?” It has been years since people like Behe had published his “definitive” book against evolution and a look at the academic sources showed how pathetic his footprint or influence in academia was really after 10 years, but this is not an exercise on popularity, research would by now had supported many of his ideas against evolution, but the only thing we got was even more evidence that evolution was and is real.
Similarly, if we want to pretend that there is controversy in climate science at least a cite from a scientific organization should be produced that agrees that recent local cooling incidents override the expert conclusions that an apparent cooling in recent years tell us that we should dismiss what scientists found for more than 100 years:
