Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
That article is horse shit...Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
The seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in Antarctica has been fairly stable over the length of the satellite record. There is a slow growth of sea ice from a minimum of ~3x106 km2 in February to a maximum of ~19 x106km2 in September in February before a relatively rapid fall in the Antarctic spring.
But this year something different is going on.
Below is Tamino's image for the Southern Hemisphere, the red line is 2016 up to 16 November 2016.
The annotated seasonal extent of sea ice in the Southern hemisphere. From Tamino's post Sea Ice, North and South.
From January up to September the sea ice extent follows all previous data.
But what happened in September?
After that date it dipped low, to reach historic lows by the end of October.
Well, there goes Antarctica argument the loserterians had.
Mr. Westwall claims to be a Phd Geologist. I have met many Phd Geologists, none that make the claims that he does. Nor any that show the inability to read scientific papers, as he has demonstrated on this board many times.
Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is. They ALL are making millions for pushing it. The politicians want it because it gives them power. Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians. Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 YearsMr. Westwall claims that all the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America are dishonest frauds. Kind of like the people that always are claiming that they can show how Einstein was wrong. And, if you dispute them, you are a dirty commie. LOL
Since he first started on this board, he has predicted every year that we are going to see a cooling period very soon. Soon just keeps getting further away.
Mr. Westwall claims that all the scientists in the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America are dishonest frauds. Kind of like the people that always are claiming that they can show how Einstein was wrong. And, if you dispute them, you are a dirty commie. LOL
Since he first started on this board, he has predicted every year that we are going to see a cooling period very soon. Soon just keeps getting further away.
Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is. They ALL are making millions for pushing it. The politicians want it because it gives them power. Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians. Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.
That doesn't answer my question. A scientist can't make money funding their own research. What can they hope for to make money back? A Nobel Prize? What's the odds of doing that? So how else do the scientist fund their research without government help? So how can these scientist be taken seriously by the deniers if all the deniers dismiss research that is obtained from government funded research? Sounds like this is some kind of...circle jerk thing where scientist can't win in the eyes of deniers.
Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is. They ALL are making millions for pushing it. The politicians want it because it gives them power. Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians. Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.
That doesn't answer my question. A scientist can't make money funding their own research. What can they hope for to make money back? A Nobel Prize? What's the odds of doing that? So how else do the scientist fund their research without government help? So how can these scientist be taken seriously by the deniers if all the deniers dismiss research that is obtained from government funded research? Sounds like this is some kind of...circle jerk thing where scientist can't win in the eyes of deniers.
Ask Mann how he managed to amass a 30 million dollar plus nest egg as a professor sometime.
Why? I assume that maybe he is a pretty smart fellow.Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is. They ALL are making millions for pushing it. The politicians want it because it gives them power. Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians. Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.
That doesn't answer my question. A scientist can't make money funding their own research. What can they hope for to make money back? A Nobel Prize? What's the odds of doing that? So how else do the scientist fund their research without government help? So how can these scientist be taken seriously by the deniers if all the deniers dismiss research that is obtained from government funded research? Sounds like this is some kind of...circle jerk thing where scientist can't win in the eyes of deniers.
Ask Mann how he managed to amass a 30 million dollar plus nest egg as a professor sometime.
Why? I assume that maybe he is a pretty smart fellow.Ok serious question. Some of the people here say that what climate scientists report is bullshit because they get money from the government to fund their research. Well since there is no money to be made doing your own research and footing the bill yourself... how else do you expect the researchers to fund their studies in order to find out what is going on and why?
Take a look at the ones pushing the AGW fraud, for fraud it is. They ALL are making millions for pushing it. The politicians want it because it gives them power. Thus you have a nexus of poor scientists, funded by power hungry politicians. Just like there is a military/industrial complex, there is likewise a political/climatology complex.
That doesn't answer my question. A scientist can't make money funding their own research. What can they hope for to make money back? A Nobel Prize? What's the odds of doing that? So how else do the scientist fund their research without government help? So how can these scientist be taken seriously by the deniers if all the deniers dismiss research that is obtained from government funded research? Sounds like this is some kind of...circle jerk thing where scientist can't win in the eyes of deniers.
Ask Mann how he managed to amass a 30 million dollar plus nest egg as a professor sometime.
The normal yearly average in Svalbard, an island group midway between the North Pole and continental Norway, is minus 6.7 C (20 F) and the warmest year until now was 2006, when the average temperature in Svalbard was minus 1.8 C (29 F), Isaksen said.
"Svalbard is a very good spot to show what's happening in the Arctic at the moment," he said, noting that each of the past 73 months has been warmer than average.
If that were true then there should have been an immediate decrease of 7C in temperature when CO2 dropped from 3500 ppm to less than 1000 ppm. There wasn't. It took 12 million years for that to occur. 12 million years.CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO2 does not drive climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Say it enough times and it might come true. And all the physicists in the world will stand amazed. Publish why this is so and win a Nobel.
View attachment 99781
European Forecasters Warn Winter 2016 – 2017 Will Be “Coldest In 100 Years”
Published on October 11, 2016
Written by mesastuces.net
European weather forecasters believe that the inhabitants of the old world should start now making provisions for sweaters and winter coats. The German meteorologist Dominik Jung said the 2016-2017 season promises to be “unusually cold.”
European forecasters warn winter 2016 – 2017 will be “coldest in 100 years”
