OK, well that's good news!  But...  From the article you cited:

 
Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.[/size]


 


 

OK, again, that's good news...  No warming for 18.5 years...  Yes, it absolutely merits consideration.  

 

What about California, in and all the droughts.  I think I remember even Atlanta going through some major droughts with lakes and water reseviores drying up.  Isn't that something to be concerned about?

Despite not getting any rain, we're actually having a fairly cool summer.

---

OK, well that's good news!  But...  From the article you cited:

 

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.

 

 

OK, again, that's good news...  No warming for 18.5 years...  Yes, it absolutely merits consideration.  

 

What about California, in and all the droughts.  I think I remember even Atlanta going through some major droughts with lakes and water reseviores drying up.  Isn't that something to be concerned about?

 

Spells of bad weather happen. They've always happened. 
 You must have read about the "Dust Bowl," that was much worse. The current drought in California is certainly something to be concerned about, but nothing unusual for California climate. 

 

Part of the current problem is that California has more people using water than ever before, and the storage facilities haven't been expanded to keep up. Ten million foreigners living in California isn't helping either.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

OK, well that's good news!  But...  From the article you cited:

 

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.

 

 

OK, again, that's good news...  No warming for 18.5 years...  Yes, it absolutely merits consideration.  

 

What about California, in and all the droughts.  I think I remember even Atlanta going through some major droughts with lakes and water reseviores drying up.  Isn't that something to be concerned about?

 

Much like in The Lord of the Rings, it seems that the trees speak:

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Exactly. This whole thread is about a half a degree.

Lol you really are a trip.

---

Spells of bad weather happen. They've always happened. 
 You must have read about the "Dust Bowl," that was much worse. The current drought in California i
s certainly something to be concerned about, but nothing unusual for California climate. 


 
Part of the current problem is that California has more people using water than ever before, and the storage facilities haven't been expanded to keep up. Ten million foreigners living in California isn't helping either.

I'd agree with this.


Over the past couple years, we're also averaging something like 50,000 acres of new crop plantings a year but we haven't developed any water storage facilities to keep pace when we hit a drought, which we're in like 50% of time.

---

Danged old new world government at it again:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century'>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century</a>


Fear not! They aren't actually going to do anything

---

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-be-sued/


This is a natural end to argument. Proof will be in the pudding.


Ultimately it may be the insurance companies who save ourselves from ourselves, however. I like this line of thinking tho.

---

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...s-be-sued/


This is a natural end to argument. Proof will be in the pudding.


Ultimately it may be the insurance companies who save ourselves from ourselves, however. I like this line of thinking tho.

 

It's the lawyers, not the scientists. No surprise.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It's the lawyers, not the scientists. No surprise.

Just more people with financial incentive to prove AGCC is a real thing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's the lawyers, not the scientists. No surprise.

 

So there are no scientists that have done research that support climate change?  Or, maybe you're saying that the majority of scientists actually are proving that climate change is not occurring?

 

Come on Malabar, you're way better than this...

 

Just more people with financial incentive to prove AGCC is a real thing.

 

Oh, OK.  So those that are saying climate change does not exist have no financial incentive?  They are just doing it for the betterment of society?  

 

You see your lack of self awareness, right?

---

So there are no scientists that have done research that support climate change? Or, maybe you're saying that the majority of scientists actually are proving that climate change is not occurring?


Come on Malabar, you're way better than this...



Oh, OK. So those that are saying climate change does not exist have no financial incentive? They are just doing it for the betterment of society?


You see your lack of self awareness, right?

I'm not saying there no financial interest for the Realists, but what we stand to lose to this fraud is much more important.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So there are no scientists that have done research that support climate change?  Or, maybe you're saying that the majority of scientists actually are proving that climate change is not occurring?

 

Come on Malabar, you're way better than this...

 

I was responding to Oface. He doesn't link to scientific papers or quote any actual scientists, only left-wing press releases. Getting one's way by lawsuit is a typical tactic of the left. It doesn't require actually being right, or even winning a case. Just piling up a lot of court costs can do the trick.
 

Of course there are scientists. Most of them went into the field in the first place because they believed in man-made Global Warming Climate Change to begin with. Whether it's science, politics, or religion, very few believers change their minds about their beliefs just because the evidence disagrees with the belief, unless the evidence is truly overwhelming.


 

In a statistical field like climatology there will never be overwhelming evidence one way or the other. As far as temperature measurements are concerned we're talking about fractions of a degree. In the case of temperatures before 1979 (before satellites) the 'global temperature' comes from a bunch of poorly-spaced measurements that were originally read to the nearest degree at best. Even now the believers always refer to the non-satellite measurements while skeptics use the satellite measurements. I think the skeptics have the high ground here, since the satellite results are actually global.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I was responding to Oface. He doesn't link to scientific papers or quote any actual scientists, only left-wing press releases. Getting one's way by lawsuit is a typical tactic of the left. It doesn't require actually being right, or even winning a case. Just piling up a lot of court costs can do the trick.

Of course there are scientists. Most of them went into the field in the first place because they believed in man-made <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change to begin with. Whether it's science, politics, or religion, very few believers change their minds about their beliefs just because the evidence disagrees with the belief, unless the evidence is truly overwhelming.


In a statistical field like climatology there will never be overwhelming evidence one way or the other. As far as temperature measurements are concerned we're talking about fractions of a degree. In the case of temperatures before 1979 (before satellites) the 'global temperature' comes from a bunch of poorly-spaced measurements that were originally read to the nearest degree at best. Even now the believers always refer to the non-satellite measurements while skeptics use the satellite measurements. I think the skeptics have the high ground here, since the satellite results are actually global.

Stop trying to discredit scientists. That's disingenuous and a cop out. You know full well if what you purport about the motives of scientists were true, absolutely no science could ever be done. But there has been plenty of science done. We have the plastics, the computers and, yes, the climate models to prove it. If you need to re-visit the scientific method, I suggest you retake 4th grade.


I'm not going to speak to this point again.

---

Just more people with financial incentive to prove AGCC is a real thing.

You are incredibly naive. Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

---

You are incredibly naive. Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

Funny, you're the one buying the fraud.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

OK, well that's good news! But... From the article you cited:

<span style="background-color:rgb(232,235,236);">Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.</span>



OK, again, that's good news... No warming for 18.5 years... Yes, it absolutely merits consideration.


What about California, in and all the droughts. I think I remember even Atlanta going through some major droughts with lakes and water reseviores drying up. Isn't that something to be concerned about?

Flooding in Texas

---

I'm not going to speak to this point again.

 

Since you know nothing about it, I can only say: Thanks!

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Just to chime in for you fellas, we set her records highs in multiple places across the state today I believe.


107 in my hood, yikes!

---

Just to chime in for you fellas, we set her records highs in multiple places across the state today I believe.


107 in my hood, yikes!

If you were telling us this in November or December, then there's a concern.  It's June. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

If you were telling us this in November or December, then there's a concern.  It's June. 

 

On the surface, I would agree.  Weather is not climate.  Now if you stack up the weather points over time and we see a trend towards a rising of the average temperature over say, a year when compared to previous years, that would be cause for concern...

---