Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t James Delingpole / Breitbart; One of the most widely mocked alarmist predictions ever :- In the year 2000, Dr. David Viner beclowned himself by announcing that thanks to Global Warming, “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” (see the web archive – the original was deleted). Now Dr Lizzie Kendon of the UK MET office has followed Viner’s footsteps, by suggesting “much of the snow will have disappeared entirely” by the end of the century.
Snow may not settle in most of UK by end of century, study suggests
Climate crisis likely to cause warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, says Met Office
PA Media
Mon 7 Dec 2020 18.34 AEDT…
If this trend continues only very high ground and parts of northern Scotland will experience freezing temperatures by 2080.
The Met Office stressed there is year-on-year variability with temperature and some years will be colder or warmer than the trend.
…
Senior Met Office scientist Dr Lizzie Kendon told BBC Panorama: “We’re saying by the end of the century much of the lying snow will have disappeared entirely except over the highest ground.
“The overarching picture is warmer, wetter winters; hotter, drier summers.
“But within that, we get this shift towards more extreme events, so more frequent and intense extremes, so heavier rainfall when it occurs.
“It’s a big change … in the course of our lifetime. It’s just a wake-up call really as to what we’re talking about here.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/07/snow-may-not-settle-in-most-of-uk-by-end-of-century-study-suggests
The Panorama Episode is available here, but is restricted to UK viewers.
The big question – why do alarmists keep doing this to themselves?
The reason as far as I can tell is they utterly, totally believe in the wild global warming predictions of their computer models.
In 2011, The Register claimed John Mitchell of the UK MET said “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.“
In 2015, then UK climate change secretary Amber Rudd organised a party of Royal Society alarmists to meet with prominent skeptic members of parliament Peter Lilley and John Redwood, and then GWPF Chairman Lord Lawson, to see if the Royal Society could persuade the skeptics that Climate Change is a problem.
Breitbart reports the main stumbling block was the Royal Society scientists apparently refused to accept contradictory observations as evidence their models could be wrong. When challenged, they claimed they would need an additional 50 years of contradictory observational evidence, we would all need to wait until the year 2047, before they would consider admitting they had a problem.
There is not much you can do to persuade people who appear to openly admit they discount the value of observational evidence which contradicts their computer models. Though such people do have some entertainment value, when they solemnly share their latest predictions.
re: “The big question – why do alarmists keep doing this to themselves?”
Because …
A capitalist walked into a bar, sat down between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Just then the 10 o’clock news came on. The lead story was of a man on a ledge of a skyscraper preparing to commit suicide by jumping off of it. Bernie looked at the capitalist and said, “You think he’ll jump?” The capitalist replied, “Yep. I bet he will.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie both shot back, “Well, we bet that he won’t.” The capitalist put 10 bucks on the bar, said, “You’re on.” Just as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders placed their money on the bar, the guy did a swan dive off the building. He took a plunge toward room temperature. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie were very upset, bitterly, bitterly tried not to hand their money over to the capitalist. They didn’t want to do it. They felt somehow they had been cheated, screwed, tricked.
With a slight smile, the capitalist said, “Look. I can’t take your money. Keep your money. I saw this earlier on the 5 o’clock news, and I knew the guy jumped. It’s the 10 o’clock news. It happened earlier today. I’ve already seen this.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shot back, “Well, we saw it, too, but we didn’t think he’d do it again.”
“We saw it, too, and we didn’t think he would do it again.”
ROFL 🙂
My official prediction…
In all of the U.K., by the end of spring all the snow will have vanished.
Though with some seasons being colder and others being warmer snow will be hit or miss throughout the year
Children just aren’t going to know what summertime snow is
I must admit, we don’t get much summertime snow down here on the NSW coast !
Must the fault of all that CO2, hey !
They could in 1975. see https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jun/01/weatherwatch-freak-snow-stopped-cricket-on-2-june-1975
Any of you guys want photos of my April snow? Frozen pumpkins in September?
Just askin’. Some people think they come from “the store”, whatever that is.
Double the bet, watch it again, keep the money.
Yes, you already stole the work and the money. Keep it along with all you gay Bees.
What?
I imagine that actually made sense while it was still in your head.
Obviously some disconnect between neurons and morons
Although the poster could have simply had too many gluons stuck to their quarks
Oh, put more simply: they were off their meds.
Small but essential correction:
A capitalist walked into a bar, sat down between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Just then the 10 o’clock news came on. The lead story was of a man on a ledge of a skyscraper preparing to commit suicide by jumping off of it. Bernie looked at the capitalist and said, “You think he’ll jump?” The capitalist replied, “Yep. I bet he will.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie both looked shocked. “You bet on other people’s life??? What kind of person are you??? You motherfokker!!!” Our capitalist started to explain his position quoting some libertarian bullshit but AOC tore his dick off and Bernie handed it back to him in a paper bag. He looked very presidential.
In the end our capitalist did win something with his bet but not quite he’d expected. He gained _experience_ in human decency beside his dick in bag. AOC gave him one last thought, free of charge: “Only losers bet. And see, you’re now a miserable loser. Yeah, you motherfokker!”
Isn’t it fascinating how all progressives spend their time thinking of ways to maim and kill those they disagree with.
Hardly surprising that progressives managed to kill 100’s of millions in the last century.
Billions more this century once their policies start to ramp up.
Plus a bunch for a dose of reality.
They are very negative people.
It’s a psychological problem.
As Michael Savage wrote…
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
(Available on Amazon)
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437?ref=silk_at_search
> how all progressives
> spend their time thinking of ways to
> maim and kill those they disagree with.
Sorry, I’m not a progressive. Neither the rest applies to me.
“Sorry, I’m not a progressive. ”
But you are obnoxious for using the language you used in the post above. I don’t appreciate your language and I imagine I’m not alone. Young people read this website. How about setting a good example for them?
Your words bely your claim.
Sorry, I’m not a progressive.
True, but only in the sense that progressives are actually regressive. Otherwise you are known by your actions (in this case your post). when you walk like a duck and quack like a duck it should not come as a shock to learn that other people will think you are a duck no matter how much you may insist otherwise.
Here’s another life lesson for you nyolic –
“there are no prizes for coming in second”
except for golf and tennis…
– JPP
and many other elite professional sports.
But for lame, cringe-worthy ‘contributions’ to a discussion – not so much.
Points for getting close with atom bombs too
A progressives first reaction to an idea that it disagrees with is always extreme violence.
As is being demonstrated across the country this year.
> A progressives first reaction to an idea […]
> As is being demonstrated across the country this year.
Now apart from the titles, have you ever thought about whether those people might be a bit justified in their outrage? And I’m talking about literal and quite often lethal violence against them meted out as a matter of routine. Apart from crippling poverty. Furthermore they were quite patient, these conditions have been present for decades.
You pathetic little VICTIM !!
No wonder you hate yourself so much.
Why are you bringing up abortion?
Are you talking about the attacks on Trump supporters by Antifa?
Dear nyolci.
In the first joke the the poor man death was worth something.
In you joke, a man was destroyed for nothing.
Once again, the person who denies being a progressive, demonstrates that she is a progressive.
There is nothing wrong with being outraged. However by immediately assuming that being outraged entitles you to maim others indicates just how psychotic you have become.
Poverty is not caused by capitalism, it is caused by people making stupid choices.
BTW, Black Lives Matters is based on a complete lie, and the only people who don’t recognize that are you progressives.
Your reply says much about you. Much.
You need to check a mental health specialist. I’m serious. Fantasies about violently killing and castrating people don’t belong in a civilized conversation. They’re also a bit of cringe.
But you’re a self-confessed communist, so I’m not surprised, knowing the bloodthirsty ways of your people from my country’s history.
> Fantasies about violently killing and castrating people
Just out of curiosity I’m asking you: where was I fantasizing about violently killing etc.? Perhaps you see too much in a riposte. (Actually, seeing too much into something CAN be a sign of mental health problem.)
> But you’re a self-confessed communist
At least you got this one right. Arguably the only such (half)sentence in your writing.
“Actually, seeing too much into something CAN be a sign of mental health problem.”
Says the person who believes castrating someone is an appropriate response to an off taste joke.
The first joke was funny , your update was crass and pointless.
Agreed, thankyou.
http://www.moralidividualism.com/smear01.txt
Given the fascination with other people’s man parts, I’m guessing female.
Broken link!
“crass and pointless.”
Don’t think I have every seen one of his/her/its posts that WASN’T crass and pointless. !
ITYM “s/h/its posts.”
JF
Who knows which it is ! Do you ?
fred I think you missed Julians point/joke. look at the phrasing “s/h/its posts” but ignore the slashes.
Julian was putting your his/her/its into a funnier form rather than disagreeing with your means of address.
”Small but essential correction:
A capitalist walked into a bar, sat down between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Just then the 10 o’clock news came on. The lead story was of a man on a ledge of a skyscraper preparing to commit suicide by jumping off of it. Bernie looked at the capitalist and said, “You think he’ll jump?” The capitalist replied, “Yep. I bet he will.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie both looked shocked. “You bet on other people’s life??? What kind of person are you??? You motherfokker!!!” Our capitalist started to explain his position quoting some libertarian bullshit but AOC tore his dick off and Bernie handed it back to him in a paper bag. He looked very presidential.
In the end our capitalist did win something with his bet but not quite he’d expected. He gained _experience_ in human decency beside his dick in bag. AOC gave him one last thought, free of charge: “Only losers bet. And see, you’re now a miserable loser. Yeah, you motherfokker!”
What are you 12? As Seinfeld said….You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock. Thinking about you, having conferences , observing you, like they did with the elephant man.
That’s the only way you’re going to get better.
Ironically, nyolci is proof that children visit this site.
A child’s mind perhaps, but with overtones of an extremely sick and oppressed personality disorder.
This is the sort of deeply “disturbed” person that wishes they could emulate Pol Pot !
The utter hatred for all humans, but mostly them self, is palpable. !
I’m wondering why nyolci assumes that the capitalist in the story is a man. Nothing in the story indicates gender?
Sounds to me like nyolci has a deep seated hatred towards men along with her many other psychological issues.
Have to remember, the little nyholist thing really hates itself as much as it hates everything around it.
A deep seated spite for all living things, but MOSTLY for himself.
I think Freud had several things to say about such castration fantasies.
> Nothing in the story indicates gender?
??? Who the fcuk cares about this? 😉
> Sounds to me like nyolci has a deep seated
> hatred towards men
You apparently have a talent for bad conclusions. Work on it!
Ok, so you don’t know which gender you hate most..
Which ever gender you chose to be at any particular moment, hey !
nyolci
Seek help.
Isn’t it fascinating how full of hate your average communist is.
Their hatred of people who aren’t failures has become pathological.
MarkW
Stalin and Mao killed millions of their own people. nyolci and his cult are deluded enough to believe they will be one of the elite, rather than in the Gulag.
A deluded movement dreamed up by a champagne swilling member of the social elite.
nyolci’s comment reads like a terribly crude pathetic rewrite by a frustrated serial murderer.
Fractured phonetic spellings do not hide the intended cruelty, crudity or foulness.
At least, nyolci’s horribly bad comment should be deleted.
Or has WUWT given up all pretense of a family oriented site?
They are paid Alarmist and fools.
Maybe the Earth isn’t flat. Maybe we rotate around a Sun which emits solar flares which can effect our seasons.
Then there is the geo proof, the Earth has been hot, it’s been a frozen ball. Then there’s plate movement which effects oceans and their currents.
The list goes on and on. All points to Alarmist need to study more before taking their tests.
Poifection!!! Thanks you, __Jim!!!
Excellent joke, being it’s the old kind. One that mocks, as humor used to.
I’m a geologist, a cynical one, and I’ve known the scam was bullshit from the point they cut the air-conditioning off for Hansen’s dog & pony show way back when. ClimateGate, etc, etc.
I do begin to fear they are going to pull it off, one regulatory and one coordinated piece of media bs at a time. The growing mass of college educated, but dangerously stupid, Humanities majors… Humanities being a stand-in for all non-STEM majors… is likely going to heave the whole thing over the finish line.
Hello catahoula. The dangerous thing about Humanities majors is that they allow themselves to be taught opinions as if they were facts. You can’t get a degree in English Lit unless you pretend to like books you really don’t. I was an Engineering student who was required to take first year English, and I could say right out loud that I didn’t like reading Shakespeare and therefore he couldn’t have been such a great playwright. If you’re an English major, you have to say that is just a fact that Shakespeare is a great playwright, whether or not many people like him. Or you flunk the course.
I had one woman, who was high school English teacher, try to tell me that the rules of Mathematics were arbitrary, and had no basis in reality. Her example: Zero multiplied by any number yields the product zero. So I told her, multiplication is just repeated addition. If you multiply zero by five you’ve either got zero fives, which adds up to zero, or five zeros, which also add up to zero. This didn’t work, and she remained unconvinced. I was young then, and I didn’t understand that many people are impervious to certain kinds of reasoning.
Or try to explain to a religious person why any religious story can’t be true. It just can’t be done. Not to pick on Christianity, exactly, but that’s the one I was taught as a child, and am most familiar with. You ask a devout Christian, why would God make belief in the Resurrection a necessary condition for salvation? What about people who are never exposed to\Christianity and therefore have no chance to accept or reject Christian belief, such as the inhabitants of Mexico before men with swords and guns showed up form Europe to convince them of the divine need to love their enemies and treat each other as they would wish to be treated themselves? This just gets you nothing. They just tell you God has a plan for everybody, even if He didn’t inform Jesus, as Jesus seemed to require belief in His divinity for salvation.
Bingo
The savage to the missionary: so, you tell me that people who never heard of the messiah will also go to heaven. Yes, says the missionary because the lord is fair and will not blame those who are innocently ignorant. The savage: then why did you tell me about him?
“They just tell you God has a plan for everybody”
Lots of people presume to speak for God.
What does God say?
I read last night that the structure of the human brain closely resembles the structure of the universe. Make of that what you will.
Tom Abbott
I find it uncannily coincidental that shortly before the planet nearly extinguished itself during the last ice age with atmospheric CO2 falling to ~180ppm, humankind pitched up and started burning stuff.
I have no reason to believe, or disbelieve that God exists, but if someone of a religious nature ever admitted that God could have made a mistake, and created mankind to help sort it out, I couldn’t disagree.
If you wish to make GOD laugh.
“Tell him your plans.”
I signed up to get regular emails from God, and he sends them several times a week. He’s very fond of me and approves of most of what I do. He’s a little ticked off with the rest of you though. And that’s why you’re all going to get hemorrhoids.
I had a similar English teacher several times.
One told me that every time scientists got a new piece of evidence everything in mathematics changed and that made it mutable.
While she claimed that English was immutable and the rules/laws never changed.
I was gobsmacked by that claim. Then again, I had a male Latin teacher who claimed that Latin as a dead language never changed. His opinion was that we should all return to speaking writing Latin.
” Jesus seemed to require belief in His divinity for salvation”; I don’t know which form of religion taught you, but there is no evidence of that claim in the New Testament.
Jesus knew his part right through the crucifixion and the parts of his followers, Romans, Pharisees and Herod.
Jesus did ask people to have Faith in God.
At no time or place did Jesus demand or request belief that he himself was divine.
Problem is, it’s infiltrating STEM too.
Here follows a bit of a general reply. Apparently my “tale” hit a nerve with you 🙂 Actually, the thing is that you reacted in a typical petite bourgeois manner, almost like a caricature. A few things to clarify:
1. Betting on other people’s life is extremely inhuman (someone was confabulating about “humanity” here). It very likely trigger outrage in the normal population. In related news it turned out that the management of a big corporation literally bet among each other how many of their workers would die due to COVID when they resisted lockdown and denied sick leave.
2. “Capitalist” is almost like a synonym for “sociopath”, and this is supported by empirical studies (prevalence of serious sociopathy is like 25% among CEOs and less than 1% among the general population).
3. People are getting really desperate. Now the talk about guillotines is quite normal. There’s an old saying, something like if you make reform impossible you make revolution inevitable. Bernie and AOC are no radicals, they are kinda capitalism’s only hope to avoid something much more radical. FDR was the same, who (I suppose) you all hate. He saved capitalism in the US. Bernie and AOC are proposing things that are commonplace in other capitalist countries like single payer and are considered extremely mild.
You are a moron. Your first post is exactly who you are.
WOW, what a sad pathetic little self-hater you really are.
You HATE everything about yourself and anything around you.
You certainly do seem to be totally desperate….
How do you get through each day with that sort of mental dysfunction ??
Get some serious psycho-logical help ASAP !!!!!!
Or move to North Korea where you may find a tiny amount of happiness to your pathetic existence.
Like most progressives, nyolci can’t accept that fact that she is a complete loser. As a result she has to find someone else to blame for all the failures in her life.
Can’t land a job, it’s the fault of capitalists.
Can’t keep a boyfriend, it’s the fault of capitalists.
Having a bad hair day, it’s the fault of capitalists.
> As a result she has to find someone else to blame
Huh, you’ve destroyed me 🙂 You’re showing very apparent sign of gender sensitivity (or wattafcuk this is called). Okay, I’m sorry to hurt your feelings. Did you major gender studies? Just a question.
That I, and everyone else here, has been wiping the floor with you is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is your ability to deal with any form of reality not accepted by Marx.
@MarkWokeQueen
> That I, and everyone else here, has been
> wiping the floor with you is not in doubt.
Yes, as you say… Just kidding! 😉 Okay, dead seriously, you and your fellow deniers come up with some BS, I tell you the current scientific position. Usually most of you understand that you can’t argue with it, so you in turn reflect to some completely tangential thing (like wording or the 70s-80s childhood), and when you completely run out of steam you enter ad hominem land.
The problem my dear, is that what you claim to be the scientific position, is nothing of the sort.
There are a handful of scientists who agree with you. There are even more that don’t.
However you refuse to look at the work of anyone you disagree with.
It’s a common theme with progressives, be it climate, sociology, economics. Whatever the science, if it doesn’t support what they desperately want to believe, they ignore it and demand that anyone who doesn’t agree with them be silenced.
Communism has destroyed every country where it has been tried. It has never worked, yet you always want to try again.
Capitalism has resulted in untold wealth for everyone on the planet, but you reject it because it doesn’t guarantee you the life you believe you are entitled to.
“Bernie and AOC are no radicals,”
Now you really are being TOTALLY DELUSIONAL !!
Hilarious ! 🙂
She’s so far to the left that she considers Lenin and Mao to have been moderates.
Given her violent tendencies, she probably considers Pol Pot to have been a piker.
Once again, the progressive/communist demonstrates that she has no knowledge of anything other than extreme marxist nonsense.
For example, betting on other people’s lives is wrong, none of these people did anything to place the object of the bet in that situation. Most of the time when people get outraged over such things, it’s because the betters bear some responsibility for the situation the object is in. Such as forcing people to fight to the death.
Secondly, the belief that her outrage entitles her to attack and maim others is quite typical of modern progressives.
As to your claim about managers of a big corporation betting on how many workers will get COVID is complete bullshit, it never happened. Just because you hear something insane from your fellow nut cases is not proof that it actually happened.
Capitalism is just people freely interacting. The fact that you feel the need to denegrate people who just want to live their own lives is more evidence of how psychotic you have become.
Your belief that 25% of CEO’s are sociopaths just demonstrates how out of touch with reality you have become. Like most progressives, you simply declare that disagreeing with Marx is proof of a mental illness.
The only people who are getting desperate are the hard core Marxist/Maoists who see that the rest of the world is leaving them behind, so they have to become all the more violent in order to keep the attention on them.
> he has no knowledge of anything
> other than extreme marxist nonsense.
What is “extreme marxist”? Do you know anything about Marxism at all?
> As to your claim about managers of
> a big corporation betting on how
> many workers will get COVID
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/19/936905707/tyson-managers-suspended-after-allegedly-betting-if-workers-would-contract-covid?t=1607545174454
> Capitalism is just people freely interacting.
Well, you don’t just eat bullshit, you love it 🙂
> Your belief that 25% of CEO’s are sociopaths
> just demonstrates how out of touch with
> reality you have become.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/psychopaths-ceos-study-statistics-one-five-psychopathic-traits-a7251251.html
20% in the specific study but I think you get it. And this is just one in many studies demonstrating this.
> The only people who are getting desperate
> are the hard core Marxist/Maoists who see
> that the rest of the world is leaving them behind
Well, what is leaving us behind is communist China. And now I’m dead serious. The US (or the Western bloc in general) won the Cold War and it had a free hand to form the world up to at least the late 2000s. It could dictate from an unquestioned position with economic and extreme military superiority (and extreme violence when it felt fit). And somehow the US is looking like a defeated country. I want to emphasize the fact that it had no serious adversary for around 20 years, furthermore it robbed the old Soviet bloc blind. And now it’s all gone. My family back in the old Soviet system was in the opposition, we were, I suppose, very close to some libertarian tendencies. My father and two uncles defected to the West etc. In 10 years after 1990 I realized almost anything those communists had said about capitalism was true. And before you begin your bullshit, I was (and still is) in the “winner” pack.
Psychologists are able to prove everything except their own sanity.
Anyone who would take any paper written by them as suitable for anything other than covering the bottom of bird cages would definitely fall for any fallacy she wanted to believe in.
Why am I not surprised to find out that nyolci gets her news from places even more psychotic than she is?
That’s true, Marxism in general is extreme. I should have said psychotic Marxist. That better describes you and your hatred for everyone who has succeeded in life.
OK, one person did something bad, in your pathetic excuse for a mind, that indicts everyone who was ever a manager.
Just because you have been taught a bunch of bullshit is no reason why everyone has to accept your distorted view of reality.
I repeat, capitalism is nothing more than free people interacting freely.
Marxism on the other hand is pure slavery, except for those at the top.
If you think China is communist, then you are even more delusional than you have portrayed yourself so far. Regardless, China didn’t start moving forward until they started ditching communism. At this time, in many ways, they are more capitalistic than are many parts of the US. Definitely more capitalistic than just about anywhere in Europe.
@MarkWokeQueen
> That’s true, Marxism in general is extreme.
🙂 I think it’s evident now that you know shit about this. FYI 99,9% of the output of marxists is the analysis of capitalism.
> Just because you have been taught a bunch of bullshit
I’m not marxist because of my education. We were opposition in those times. Capitalism made me a marxist.
> At this time, in many ways, [China is] more
> capitalistic than are many parts of the US
🙂 like eradicating poverty? And then why is the constant bullshiting about the CPC, ChiComms, etc.?
Capitalism made me a Marxist
Translation: I was a failure at getting a job (and life in general) so now I want the government to take care of me.
Watching other people do what they want, made you desire to control those other people?
Yes, all of the eradication of poverty in China came after the dumped communism.
You really don’t keep up with reality very well.
On the other hand, communism is famous for taking wealthy countries and impoverishing them. Cuba was the wealthiest country in Latin America prior to communism. Now it’s a basket case.
Venezuela had a sizeable middle class, now only those who run the country have enough money to live.
@MarkWokeQueen
> Watching other people do what
> they want, made you desire to
> control those other people?
Now I really lost track. What are you talking about here? What are you reflect on? I don’t think I’ve ever said I want to control people.
> Yes, all of the eradication of
> poverty in China came after
> the dumped communism.
Okay. When did a capitalist country did something similar voluntarily? FYI the Western bloc has increased the standard of living in the post war period ‘cos they wanted a loyal working class against communists. When the Cold War was over, this was over too, please watch the pervasive impoverishment at home. Literally 10s of millions of US-Americans are food-insecure etc.
> On the other hand, communism is
> famous for taking wealthy countries
> and impoverishing them.
Really? 🙂 Cuba and Venezuela? And what other countries?
> Cuba was the wealthiest country
> in Latin America prior to communism.
> Now it’s a basket case.
What do you know about Cuba? Because it’s surely not a basket case. I bet you can only hear propaganda at home. Cuba is much better off than any of its Latin American neighbors, and this is despite commercial sanctions etc.
> Venezuela had a sizeable middle class,
> now only those who run the country
> have enough money to live.
You are truly a believer. No, Venezuela has substantially decreased extreme poverty and poverty (these are official categories of people). The middle class was (and still is) a thin layer of compradores. Furthermore, Venezuela has suffered various coup attempts (one is still ongoing), commercial sanctions, attempts at blockade, _literal_ piracy of its commercial shipping by the US Navy, theft of parts of its gold reserves, etc.. The only thing missing is a contra war, or possibly a direct military intervention. But it’s stable ‘cos, well, it has popular support. ‘Cos that rich, middle class ladden old Venezuela was shit for most of its population. The same applies to Cuba.
You want communism. Communism is all about control. The elite control everyone else.
You reject capitalism and the freedom that come with it.
When did a capitalist country voluntarily eliminate poverty?
Try every single one. It was capitalism that eliminated poverty throughout the world. It was communism that brought it back.
Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe,. Every country that has adopted communism has collapsed economically.
Cuba is better off than the other Latin American countries? Really, do you ever read anything other than communist propaganda.
Ditto Venezuela
@John Endicott
Oh, I didn’t notice your “valuable” “contribution” 🙂
> Translation: I was a failure at getting a
> job (and life in general) so now I want
> the government to take care of me.
No, quite the opposite, and I was pretty sure some of you would try this particular bullshit. It was you, Johnny, I caught you 🙂 So, I don’t want to dwell into details, this is personal matter. Anyway, I was one of the “winners of regime change” (a direct translation from Hungarian, a commonplace and very familiar expression from the 90s). I simply didn’t like what I saw (and still see). I was from a liberal-libertarian background originally.
I was one of the “winners of regime change”
Suuuure you were.
@MarkWokeQueen
Suddenly changing opinions. First:
“Your belief that 25% of CEO’s are sociopaths just demonstrates how out of touch with reality you have become.”
And when I showed a study (among many, actually), you:
“Psychologists are able to prove everything except their own sanity.”
Congratulations.
All I’ve demonstrated is that you will believe anything that proves what you want to believe, and ignore everything that doesn’t.
You can lead a communist to facts, but you can’t make them think.
Jim,
Thanks for the joke.
Variations of it are older than vaudeville, but nevertheless enjoyable!
One popular variation among race goers has the First Punter saying to the Second Punter –
“ Well, why did you just back the second horse with me now to win when you had already seen the replay of the race?
Second Punter: I thought he would be improved by the run”.
Funny.
Global warming causes increasing numbers of AGW believers to beclown themselves when they never read anything outside their belief bubble, which causes them repeat the same idiotic predictions that royally embarrassed previous generations of AGW believers.
Historically, Muslim children didn’t see much snow anyway.
BS. Go to northern Pakistan, much of Central Asia, Iran, and Turkey and you will see a lot of snow and glaciers.
OK, I stand corrected. It remains to be seen whether they will in the U.K.
I don’t stand for being corrected.
I always sit.
Actually, I was reclining and was just thinking of all the Muslin countries I had been to and they they were all hot. But I haven’t been to any of their mountainous regions.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but Indonesia is the most populous (or one of the most populous) Muslim countries in the world. and I don’t think they get much snow.
As the narrative falls apart, the rhetoric stream becomes ever more absurd. They need those pens on paper to cement contracts based on the peak of hysteria. The propaganda stream will only become a torrent over the next few months.
It does not help that one of their aces, Greta Thunberg will be losing her status as the Child High Priestess of the Climate Cult of Doom and Gloom very soon when she turns 18. Her fibs and tantrums will no longer be acceptable. The countdown has started. We might have a little party in Sydney to celebrate the loss of one of their major propaganda puppets. Swedish Princess cake anyone?
WUWT,
Really, quoting The Grauniad? Bit like believing fact checking from Snopes or believing in the Tooth Fairy.
Don’t give them the bandwidth.
For purposes of mockery, only.
The Grauniad’s circulation figures for 2020 are nothing short of disastrous. The paper only just outsells the Daily Record, a Scottish downmarket paper only found North of the Border. Without the large number of copies sold daily to the BBC, their figures would be even worse.
I have a collection of stuff on my computer in a folder labelled “Climate Change.” I was going through this earlier today and found the following I had written a few years ago, which I present for your amusement as it appears to be as appropriate today as it was back then.
Lately we have had an exceptionally cold Thanksgiving and lots of snow and blizzards up north. Since carbon dioxide levels recently peaked at over 411 p.p.m., substantially above the purported global warming tipping point of 350 p.p.m., how can this be?
Perhaps our carbon is now defective to the point where carbon dioxide will no longer trap the heat. But carbon makes up all of our wood. Will our houses start to collapse as weak carbon from trees is used?
There are three isotopes of carbon. Maybe the problem is an excess of the carbon 14 isotope, which is known to rot. We humans generate a lot of heat internally, and our blood is loaded with carbon dioxide being carried to our lungs for exhale. If carbon dioxide containing that rotten carbon 14 is no longer able to trap our heat might we explode?
This could indicate the source of the flawed carbon. The place where defective humans are tending to explode is the middle east. We should stop importing their flawed carbon and use only good carbon approved by the E.P.A.
“Perhaps our carbon is now defective to the point where carbon dioxide will no longer trap the heat.”
You may have stumbled on the truth right there. See Dr. Happer’s latest study where he claims CO2 is now “saturated”.
Anyone who proposes to tax carbon dioxide or some other such foolishness related to CO2, like spending Trillions of dollars on Windmills, needs to have a long talk with Dr. Happer.
Vaguely related, currently the French ski resorts are closed “because of Covid”, but, as is usual with these things there’s a decent fall of snow at virtually every one.
Absolutely devastating for those mountain communities that rely on that income, yet another of our dear leaders stupendous decisions.
http://m.webcam-hd.com/les-saisies/nordique
Meanwhile, it’s been snowing in Australia. In the summer.
That Global Warming is amazing!
And not only S.N.O.W. in Australia during their 1st week of ‘summer’ downunder: next-door, here in New Zealand, we’re in for our 3rd snowfall of summer (SOS?) this weekend. Not a lot, admittedly, but hey, ‘experts’ told me it was history, a thing of the past, even in winter, yet here we are less than 2 weeks away from our summer solstice / longest day.
Maybe THIS was the ’emergency’ PM Jacindarella was referring to last week when she announced her UN-inspired Climate Emergency action-plan for NZ: every prophecy so far has failed! At least they’re consistent in their failure.
This reminds me of the Phineas and Ferb episode called “S’winter.”
Ah now, that was just rotten snow.
“Senior Met Office scientist Dr Lizzie Kendon told BBC Panorama: “We’re saying by the end of the century much of the lying snow will have disappeared entirely except over the highest ground.”
You just can’t trust that lying snow.
I imagine the lying snow goes away each spring.
Some call them pathological liars but they actually believe what they are saying is true.
Yep. That was the biggest surprise for me from Climategate. No reality check, no limits to groupthink.
Yep. Delusional, not evil. Most of them are useful idiots. Just the leaders are evil.
That’s the way I see it, too.
However, as nyolci demonstrates, there are a lot of them who do qualify as pure evil.
Hopefully, the birthday bash for Greta in Sweden when she turns 18 will have heavy snow. The Sydney party for Greta will not have snow, unless we can swing some artificial snow or equivalent stunt. This might just be dry ice bubbling away in a dispenser full of Grehito cocktail. The ingredients:-
Lime juice (symbolizes her green credentials and being a sourpuss)
Angostura bitters and citrus zest (also sourpuss enhancers and adds a depth of taste to the cocktail)
Rum (mix of troppo Malibu and Captain Morgan dark rum)
Bit of honey to sweeten things
Crushed mint (all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has been kind to our mint in the garden)
Lemonade or soda water-oh, the greenhouse gases!
Ice cubes (to compensate for the loss of the arctic sea ice)
Kiwifruit syrup (Chinese gooseberry-the Chinese influence to give extra flavour depth and colour )
Couple of drops of Curacoa in to the cocktail glass – gives little dark tentacles through the cocktail and gives that little aniseed kick at the end.
Cheers
Though such people do have some entertainment value, when they solemnly share their latest predictions.
If their lies were so consequential then they would be simply good entertainment. They’d be like a B-grade movie such as Independence Day when the world and humanity got wrecked by a fictional space aliens with big ships and blasters. Climate alarmists in positions of authority, like Dementia Joe, are like that ‘cept without the popcorn and a soda.
weren’t
At least she was smart enough to select a time frame such that she won’t be around to find out how wrong she was.
Exactly. Dr. Kendon is somewhere around her mid-40s, so by 2100 she’ll be well over 120 years old.
She did not make Dr. Viner’ mistake. Dr. Viner foolishly predicted that snow would be rare within his own lifetime. Oops.
In fact, he not only predicted that within a few years, “children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he also predicted that within 20 years (i.e., by 2020) it heavy snow would be so rare that when it does occur, “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time.”
2020 is here, and snow still hasn’t disappeared from the UK. But there is something which has mostly disappeared, in part because of CO2 emissions:
Famine.
When I was a child, horrific famines were frequently in the news, in places like Bangladesh, China, and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. But children these days just don’t know what famine is. Even Bangladesh now has food surpluses, every year.
Graph:
Web page: https://ourworldindata.org/famines
It is just about impossible to overstate the importance of that wonderful change. In Scripture, famine was the “third horsemen of the Apocalypse.” Throughout human history, famines — usually triggered by drought — were among the worst scourges of mankind.
Not anymore.
Rising CO2 level is not the only reason for that welcome change, but it’s one of the important ones. Most obviously, elevated CO2 (eCO2) improves crop yields through “CO2 fertilization,” making food more plentiful. eCO2 is highly beneficial for all major crops, and it is one of the reasons for improving grain yields:
graph:
Web page: https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
But eCO2 is also especially beneficial in drought conditions. The incidence of droughts has declined only slightly, but their destructive impact is significantly mitigated by today’s higher CO2 levels, because eCO2 reduces plants’ water requirements. Here’s a paper which mentions it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192310003163
EXCERPT: “There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.”
Here’s a paper about wheat:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390
Fitzgerald, et al. Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves, Glob. Change Biol, vol.22, pp.2269-2284, 2016.
Ending famine is a Very Big Deal. comparable to ending war and disease. For comparison:
● The 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of world population.
● WWII killed about 2.7% of world population.
● The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed an estimated 3.7% of world population.
So, even if English children have to endure slightly less frequent sledding weather in coming decades, in my judgment that will be a small price to pay for saving African and Asian children from starvation.
Dave this is the type of information the world really needs. CO2 is LIFE!
Although I am sure alarmists will tell you otherwise because deep down they are really anti human. Global warming…climate change…climate extinction is their religion where Nature is goD and humans are the devil.
“We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time.”
There are places where this DOES happen. Not because snow is so rare, but because they believed this BS and planned accordingly.
The “projection” by Dr Lizzie of less snow in 80 years time is not science, it is simply propaganda. Its purpose is to keep the money stream flowing to her career and to the Met Office.
A dramatic “projection” 80 years in the future:
(a) Is untestable in any meaningful timeframe and is therefore unscientific
(b) Is of no value to public policy or government planning
What Dr. Lizzie and her colleagues need to produce are very clear, simple, consistent and testable predictions for timepoints 5, 10 and 15 years into the future. If the Met Office had acted as impartial scientists and performed that function over the last 20 years we might actually have got somewhere.
Oh, and establishing a properly designed reliable climate data gathering service that doesn’t rely on weather stations at airports. But then they couldn’t claim that a new UK temperature record had been set at Heathrow Airport (again).
To that you can also add using rainfall stations up on mountains to claim records; using temperature stations that are not part of the MetO network and look to have WMO classification problems because you are desperate to have a warm record; using other tarmac sited stations such as the one where the ice cream van caused the warming; using gusts for windspeed when the Beaufort Scale is for constant speed……no doubt there are others. I suppose you could add stop publishing reports where your own data -none in the reports of course – contradicts you.
Mojib Latif told the same story in Germany in 2000 – and tells today he was wrong cited…. 😀
Source
Boy, won’t he be disappointed.
“If this trend continues only very high ground and parts of northern Scotland will experience freezing temperatures by 2080.
“It’s a big change … in the course of our lifetime. It’s just a wake-up call really as to what we’re talking about here.”
This is actually very good news for me, that my lifetime will extend until 2080. Just hope that Social Security, my pensions, Medicare and my retiree medical last that long.
These guys are not scientists, they are propagandists. Facts, logic, evidence and reason have nothing to do with it.
An accomplished liar becomes enmeshed in the lies. Sometimes they know they are lying, but mostly they just go down the list of currently active propaganda campaigns, chose one and mindlessly push it. No thought involved except the process of saying the same thing again in a slightly different cadence so it isn’t too obvious.
As a former Scientologist, you can take it from one who has been there-when facts and logic come up against cognitive dissonance the truth goes down in flames every time. It just hurts your brain too much to go even slightly against the group-think.
Go ahead and debate one of these guys – they are just waiting for you to pause for a breath so they can go on chanting their list of demands. There is no dialogue. It isn’t possible.
Like arguing with the Eliza program. Nobody is actually there on the other end, though arguably it passes the Turing test. Apparently possessing the intelligence of a Kant but in fact so buried in the cant that they can’t.
What year did he make his original prediction ? The article doesn’t say.
So how many years ago was that prediction?
– JPP
Oh, I thought he said: “by the year 2000 children. . . . ”
Never mind !
Reminds me of a news clip about a hail storm, where the excited young reporter breathlessly enthused in her piece to camera –
“I’ve never seen anything like this IN MY WHOLE LIFE!”
Turns out she was 19 years old.
In April was the jackal born
The rains fell in September
Now such a fearful flood as this
said he, I can’t remember.
Kipling
JF
Thanks to the Grauniad, NY Slimes, MSLSD, Communist News Network, Griff, Loydo, etc ad infinitum, kids will never know what science is.
Sure, Austrians won’t believe anymore the no more snow story:
Snow Chaos in southern Alpes
One of 9 photos
Guys, compared to my childhood (70s-80s) and in this specific area (Hungary) show has become negligible. For my kids (and not just the younger ones) snow is a few days of thin whiteness once or twice in a winter. We dug tunnels in the snow that lasted like two months. Relatives in Austria say without snow cannons ski regions wouldn’t function at all. NONE of them. So I think this prediction has already come true.
Yet a few hundred miles away, last year Turkey had massive snowfall.
https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/01/08/heavy-snowfall-disrupts-life-shuts-down-schools-across-turkey
These people have a memory like a sieve, and their cognitive dissonance is off the scales.
January 2019:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/winter-storm-blasts-europe-13-dead-amid-heavy-snow-gusts-n956291
February 2018:
https://xpatloop.com/channels/heavy-snow-in-budapest.html
January 2014:
https://dailynewshungary.com/roads-blocked-accidents-in-heavy-snow-in-western-hungary/
March 2013:
https://www.rt.com/news/snow-europe-hungary-tanks-333/
…..and on and on….
Yes, yes, yes, blablabla. But when I check when was the last time I could go out with my kids for sledging, well, it was years ago, for a few days. One single occassion. Actually, I’ve only did that once with the younger ones (teenagers now).
Even if true, which I doubt, it’s one location.
@MarkW
> Even if true, which I doubt, it’s one location.
This is a rare occasion we agree. I don’t intend to generalize from the Hungarian experience. But it’s a fact that in Hungary this prediction has come true at least 15 years ago.
You remind me of those people who declare every warm spell as proof of global warming and every cold snap as just weather.
You really don’t get this science thing, do you?
> last year
Eric, your reaction is almost comically symptomatic of science denial. Occasional cold years, heavy snowfall possible even when there’s pervasive warming. Climate scientists are very clear about this, perhaps you should listen. Furthermore if you had listened you would’ve noticed that I carefully qualified my statement. Hungary is essentially snow free (especially compared to 40 years ago) but this is a single geographic location, very likely not representative of even Europe.
NH has increasing trend of winter snow
Try not to HATE that fact. !
Thanks for that graph, Fred.
I searched and found the source (and a slightly newer version), here:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
(Click on the links on the left side of the page for other graphs of NH snow coverage.)
In both North America and Eurasia, fall and winter snow coverage are trending slightly up, but spring snow coverage is trending slightly down.
I imagine that The Grauniad and NPR can find a way to spin that as catastrophic.
I was curious about the fact that they already have graphs showing Fall 2020 Snow Extent, but winter doesn’t begin until the solstice, December 21. So I wrote to Dr. Robinson at Rutgers, and asked him about it. He replied promptly:
(Also, note that the year that they use when referring to winter is the Jan/Feb year; i.e., what their graphs call Winter 2020 is actually Winter 2019/2020.)
Hungary is well known for good wines, why ? 😀
The Puszta is a god example:
Snowdays
Nov 1, Dec 4, Jan 8, Feb 7, ar 2.
Puszta Climate
> Snowdays
Ooops, I was defeated… Just kidding! 😉 These were literally single days of minuscule amount of snow, gone the next day. Back in the good days snow was snow, it remained for weeks and weeks.
So tell me oh violent one, how does a couple tenths of a degree cause snow to go from many feet to fractions of an inch?
Classic progressive logic. You are only a scientist when you agree with me.
> You are only a scientist when you agree with me.
I’m a scientist though I very rarely agree with you 🙂
Your every post contradicts your claim to being a scientist.
A degree in gender studies and basketweaving does not make one a scientist.
She’s still PO’d that the Soviet Union collapsed and China gave up on pure communism.
Funny how it managed to come true with only a few tenths of a degree of warming.
Either you are lying, delusional, or not telling the whole story. Given the hatred shown for humanity in your earlier post, completely disconnected from reality can’t be excluded.
> only a few tenths of a degree of warming.
At least you’re starting to realize something! Good on you! 🙂 Even a few tenth of a degree (actually 1C with 1965-75 as a baseline) can mean huge differences. That’s why science is hard, and scientists learn their profession for years and years.
> Either you are lying, delusional, or not telling the whole story.
Now seriously, do you really think either of it is the case? Perhaps you are the one who is delusional.
“That’s why science is hard,”
Or in your case, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE !
scientists learn their profession for years and years.
yep, your half year in junior high just doesn’t cut it, does it. !
You poor thing !
My guess is that nycolci is a woman’s studies major.
In other words, you can’t defend your ridiculous claims.
BTW, agreeing that the world has warmed since the bottom of the Little Ice Age is not the same thing as agreeing that man is the cause of this warming.
We still haven’t gotten up to the temperatures that were enjoyed during the Medieval Warn Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period or the Egyptian Warm Period.
Current temperatures are well below the average temperature that the world has enjoyed over the last 10K years.
When you believe in things that are physically impossible, delusional is usually one of the nicer words to describe you.
> In other words, you can’t
> defend your ridiculous claims.
As a matter of fact I don’t have to “defend” these “ridiculous” claims ‘cos these claims are the claims of science. These have already been proven.
> is not the same thing as agreeing
This is not a matter of “agreeing”. Natural science is all about observations and mathematical models, no one asking you or me whether we agree to it.
> We still haven’t gotten up to the
> temperatures that were enjoyed
> during the Medieval Warn Period,
> the Roman Warm Period […]
You left out the Soviet Warm Period 🙂 Seriously, I cannot fathom how you can believe this. You deniers keep talking about these warm periods all the time and you don’t even notice how self contradictory you are. Because anything we know about these warm periods is the result of reconstructions like Mann’s. Now really, you would know shit about -say- the Minoan Warm Period without these reconstructions that were produced by exactly those climate scientists you claim incompetent (or whatever the current theory about them in denier-land).
They are the claim of some scientists. They are completely refuted by other scientists and by the actual data.
Natural science is about observation and experiments. Models are used to help you figure out what you don’t know. Beyond that, the so called climate models have been proven to be defective.
We only know about the warm periods because of reconstructions like Mann’s? Is there anything you know that is actually true?
We know about the warm periods because of all the proxies from all over the world that prove that they existed and were warmer than today. Mann took a bunch of proxies, many of which weren’t even temperature proxies, applied an invalid statistical technique and declared that both MWP and LIA never existed.
@MarkWokeQueen
> They are completely refuted by other
> scientists and by the actual data.
This is simply not true.
> Natural science is about observation
> and experiments. Models are used to
> help you figure out what you don’t know.
Okay, I see, you misunderstood this, “Model” is the scary word here. But this “Model” is not those simulation you think but the mathematical description of reality. The mathematical model is the F=m*a thing. Physics has 2+1 models (Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Relativity, and the plus one is the still widely used Newtonian mechanics). The presence of mathematical models (or at least some semblance of it) is the difference between natural sciences and humanities. Simulation, also called “Model”, must be confusing to outsiders like you, the thing you Fear the Most, is eventually a numerical approximation when the normal mathematical derivation is impossible in the mathematical model.
@MarkWokeQueen
Oops, I didn’t notice the usual denier-confusion thing of yours 🙂
> We know about the warm periods because of all
> the proxies from all over the world
Amazing. Deniers are pretty consistent in being inconsistent. So climate science is invalid because of some climate science. Please decide at last whether you accept. And no, Mann’s (and numberless others) doesn’t contradict “yours”. I’ve actually checked a few denier sites that had a collection of valid scientific papers but those papers didn’t contradict (obviously) climate science.
> Mann took a bunch of proxies, many of which
> weren’t even temperature proxies
It’s amazing again watching this convoluted thinking. A proxy is called a “proxy” precisely because it is not the thing itself. So a “temperature proxy” is a proxy used to reconstruct temperature. There’s nothing intrinsically “temperature” in these proxies.
>This is simply not true.
That is completely true.
>So a “temperature proxy” is a proxy used to reconstruct temperature. There’s nothing intrinsically “temperature” in these proxies.
Are you really this dumb, or is someone paying you to make a fool of yourself.
@MarkWokeQueen
> [you expressed disagreement with me regarding what a “temperature proxy” is]
Okay then, tell me.
@WokeMark
Hey, I’m still waiting for your explanation about how a “temperature proxy” is different from a “non-temperature proxy” (let’s name it like this). And at this point I do need your explanation ‘cos for science a “temperature proxy” is a data set that can be used to reconstruct temperature when direct measurement is impossible. It can be anything if you can demonstrate a very strong correlation. FYI Mann did exactly this, he tested various proxies (already published sets of data series), compared them to the 20th century instrumental data to discover the functional relationship between them and temperature, and eventually verified this relationship with the 1850-1900 instrumental data. If this verification failed he didn’t use the proxy.
Its so obvious that even a communist should be able to figure it out.
A temperature proxy can be used to estimate past temperatures, an non-temperature proxy can’t.
Science 101. When you get that far, you will realize how badly you have been embarrassing yourself.
nyolci wrote, “Even a few tenth of a degree… can mean huge differences.”
No, it can’t. (Well, except in the very specific case of a chilly night if temperature span straddles the freezing point, in which case a few tenths of a degree colder temperature can cause substantially more damage to plants.)
A few tenths of a degree of averaged warming is not even readily perceptible.
0.3 °C of warming moves temperature isotherms an average of only about twenty miles.
0.3 °C of warming is equivalent to an average altitude change of about 150 feet.
Farmers can typically compensate for that much average warming by planting about two days earlier.
nyolci, I hope it is obvious to you that you’ve been lied to. The wind & solar “renewables” industry wants you to think that a few tenth of a degree is a big deal, but that’s nonsense. (They also want you to think that buying their products can significantly affect those temperatures, which is also nonsense.)
In order to report a result in which warmer temperatures cause significant agricultural damage, you have to either:
1. Make wildly unrealistic assumptions, like assuming that farmers are too stupid to adjust their planting dates (which is what PNAS’s Zhao et al. 2017 did); or
2. Create ridiculously unrealistic conditions, like the Jasper Ridge wild grass study. They used heat lamps outputting 20 times the IR radiation that would be caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration — I’m not kidding, they really did! When even that proved insufficient to harm the plants, they increased the wattage to more the 60 times the IR radiation which would be caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 — and they got many peer-reviewed papers published based on such dreck.
> No, it can’t
Yes, it can. This is an average, as you very cleverly observed, it can cover extreme changes in distribution. But the point is not that, and I clearly said so to Mark, the Woke Queen. It was her who pulled out this value from her hat. The actual rise from the mid seventies is 1C, and it has an uneven spatial distribution, Northern latitudes (like Hungary) experience stronger increases. During my life, average global surface temperature has increased 1C, please get a grasp on this at last. FYI as far as I know average precipitation hasn’t changed in Hungary but its temporal distribution HAS and quite to the worse ‘cos now we have long dry periods punctuated by extreme rainfalls. So even zero change in the average can be shitty.
> nyolci, I hope it is obvious to you that
> you’ve been lied to. The wind & solar
> “renewables” industry wants you
This bullshiting is really tiresome. Global warming was a topic even in the 80s and 90s, when renewables meant hydroelectric. No, it’s not the Green Industry, neither the conspiracy of scientists nor I don’t know what bs is trending now among deniers.
nyolci wrote, “Yes, it can. This is an average, as you very cleverly observed, it can cover extreme changes in distribution.”
By that I guess you mean that even if globally averaged temperatures increase by only a few tenths of a degree, that does not preclude much larger warming in some particular places. Right?
Well, that’s true, of course. In fact, even with no change at all in global average temperature, some places can experience large temperature changes — regardless of what happens to CO2 levels.
But so what? That doesn’t mean “a few tenths of a degree” have significant impact, anywhere. In fact, it is basically an admission that “a few tenths of a degree” are not significant, because the significant impacts are limited to places with much larger temperature changes.
What’s more, “significant impacts” does not mean “harm.” There’s no a priori basis for assuming that changes are harmful. Changes can also be beneficial. When people assume that “climate change” is necessarily harmful, that’s a reflection of their prejudice, not science.
It has long been understood that “global warming” from CO2 emissions is a bit of a misnomer, because it really isn’t very “global.” The warming disproportionately occurs at chilly high latitudes, where it is obviously beneficial, because makes short growing seasons slightly longer, and harsh winters slightly milder.
The tropics are affected much less, which is nice, because they’re warm enough, already.
In other words, the temperature changes from “global warming” are largely beneficial. This has been understood by scientists for over a century. Here’s Arrhenius discussing it, way back in 1896. (Aside: he later lowered his estimates of what we now call climate sensitivity, from what he estimated in that paper.)
A few years later, in 1908 he wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/arrhenius1908p63
Here’s a recent paper (111 years later!) confirming the economic benefits of global warming. This study found that anthropogenic global warming is economically beneficial, even without considering the benefits to agriculture from CO2 fertilization:
Lang, Peter A. and Gregory, Kenneth B. (2019), Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming, Energies, 12, issue 18, p. 1-29.
nyolci wrote, “The actual rise from the mid seventies is 1C…”
Only by cherry-picking the starting date (at the chilly bottom of the 1970s cold period, after three decades of cooling), and by cherry-picking the temperature index, can you arrive at such a large figure. The actual temperature changes are so slight that they are very hard to measure — so hard that mainstream temperature indexes differ by as much as a factor of two w/r/t how much warming has occurred since the start of precise CO2 measurements. Note the contrast between these two graphs:
@Dave Burton
> But so what? That doesn’t mean
> “a few tenths of a degree” have significant impact
First of all warming is 1C from 1975. Secondly average can cover a wide spatial and _temporal_ distribution as well. Even a small average warming may mean a significant increase in the number of extreme sumer heat waves, for example.
> When people assume that “climate change”
> is necessarily harmful, that’s a reflection
> of their prejudice, not science.
Science has already given us a picture of the consequences and they are not pleasant.
> the temperature changes from “global
> warming” are largely beneficial. This has
> been understood by scientists for over a century.
See above.
1. It’s one degree since 1850
2. Models aren’t science.
3. There have been no negative consequences so far, there is no evidence that there will be even if the earth were to warm up by 3 to 5C and get back to the average temperature of the last 10,000 years.
The claims of more and stronger storms hasn’t played out.
The claims of more and bigger droughts hasn’t played out.
The claims of more and bigger floods hasn’t played out.
Not a single prediction made by your so called scientists has actually occurred, but the willingly blind will still continue to claim that only these failed prognosticators should be called scientists.
Now seriously, do you really think either of it is the case?
You are right, it’s not an either proposition. It’s most certainly an “and” in your case.
Your childhood lasted 20 years?
Jeez, I thought only Peter Pan could pull that kind of fantasy off.
Still, I suppose we are all now living in fantastic (literal meaning) times 🙁
fantastic:
adjective
conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre;
fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions:
imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational:
fantastic fears.
Fantastical times, and his fantastical story.
Define fantastical. fantastical synonyms, fantastical pronunciation, fantastical translation, English dictionary definition of fantastical. also fan·tas·ti·cal adj. 1. a. Based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal: fantastic mythological creatures; the fantastic realms of science fiction.
> Your childhood lasted 20 years?
No. Work on it! Common sense! Just try hard, even a denier can do that!
nyholists childhood is still all he has…..
and it BURNS him deeply…..
…. just wishing he could grow up, but finding himself totally incapable of doing so.
No DENIERS here.
Except those that DENY the LIA and 1970s were colder periods than now, and that current temperature are below what they have been for MOST of the last 10,000 years
Ie griff, loydo, etc…. THEY are the real DENIERS.
Come on.. or run away from answering….. yet again
What do we “deny” that you have solid scientific evidence for.
(ps, that means you have to actually present your evidence, not just yabber on mindlessly like you usually do)
nyolci says something stupid, and it’s everyone else’s fault for noticing it.
How like a progressive.
Please read the following slowly to comprehend: my childhood started in the very early 70s (I don’t want to be more specific for understandable reasons). Most people consider someone a child if he or she is before puberty, this is like below 12-13-14 with considerable individual differences. Law picks rather arbitrarily 14 in most countries. So I was still a child in the early 80s. Most of my childhood memories are from the second half of the 70s and the early 80s. So I can write my childhood was in the 70s-80s, and fcukin NO, it doesn’t mean it started in 1970 and ended in 1989. But again, WHY THE FCUK DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS?
Poor little nyolci, she can’t even figure out that we are laughing at her.
And for my little spot on the globe, I’ve have a snow blower for the last few years. And I’m glad I do.
PS Ever hear of the “Great Blizzard of ’78”? (In the US Midwest plus another “Blizzard of ’78” a couple of weeks later in New England? (A different storm system))
I welcome warmer temps. I wish they’d have continued.
The “climate” repeats in roughly ’60 year cycles. The CAGW crowd took advantage of the “upslope” for political and financial gain (ever hear of Solyndra?).
That 78 blizzard was massive
Buried us in southern sask
Most snow I’ve ever seen
People were able to drive skidoo’s over the school
That was the time of “Ice Age Commeth” during the rein of Climate Science De-Jour
Did you not read the post above?
https://www.wetteronline.de/fotostrecken/2020-12-07-sa
Yes, we KNOW that in the NH the 1970s was the coldest period outside of the LIA
All the real temperature data shows it was much colder than the 1930s/40s
(which were similar to current temperatures.)
Meanwhile, Winter snow in the NH is increasing.
According to Rutgers there has been virtually no net change in the NH snow cover for the past 48 years:
Numpty : “So I think this prediction has already come true.”
Nobody cares what your depraved mind thinks.
nyolci wrote, “Guys, compared to my childhood (70s-80s)…”
You recall the 1970s global cooling scare. Here’s a 1975 Newsweek article about it, which includes a nice graph showing the worrisome decline in temperatures (which has been mostly erased by subsequent revisions to the data):
https://sealevel.info/newsweek_old.htm
Here’s a History Channel program. Listen to Leonard Nimoy describe how the winter of 1976-77 hit Buffalo, NY (when average atmospheric CO2 levels were only about 333 ppmv):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds
Walter Cronkite, The Most Trusted Man in America™, reported the cooling trend, though he seemed less worried about it than the scientists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4JX1S9YZBo
There are many other articles cataloged here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
The scientific consensus, back then, was that global cooling is BAD, and warming is good. That’s consistent with the evidence, if not with recent politics, and it is why scientists called warm periods “climate optimums.”
This NOAA graph shows the Eemian optimum peak 3¼ °C warmer than Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum, which, itself, is generally believed to have been warmer than our current climate. Those are just estimates from proxies, but they’re pretty typical estimates, which means there’s nothing worrisome about recent warming.
The CIA was concerned about the cooling trend. They commissioned this 1974 Report which noted that “leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place,” and described that change as a return to Little Ice Age conditions:
“Boreal” = cold. That grim “neo-boreal” climate was the Little Ice Age.
> You recall the 1970s global cooling scare
No, I don’t. This is a standard deniers’ talking point, constructed from a few journal articles etc (you dug out these, I see). Even in the 70s scientists were researching greenhouse effect.
> showing the worrisome decline in
> temperatures (which has been mostly erased
> by subsequent revisions to the data)
??? Do you seriously think the data had been changed? Moreover, from the 70s we already have satellite measurements, these are the best you can get. The relative cool post war period (up to cc 1975) was the direct result of environmental contamination (sun blocking aerosols).
> The scientific consensus, back then, was that
> global cooling is BAD, and warming is good
No, this is simply bs.
> Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum […] is generally
> believed to have been warmer than our current climate.
Not generally believed. Only in denier-land. Science says otherwise, regardless of what Judith Curry says.
> The CIA was concerned about the cooling
> trend. They commissioned this
This was well before we had a firm scientific understanding of climate, and it was based on a single study. Actually, what’s your point? Is it that science is always mistaken? (Then why do base your (mis)reading of the Mid Holocene temp on science?)
nyolci, your confusion suggests that you might have had trouble viewing the links I provided. Try them again. (I had an issue with the SSL certs on my server; it’s fixed, now.)
The 1970s cooling scare certainly was not a “denier talking point.” It was scientific consensus in the 1970s. I was there, and I remember it.
It was one of the two reasons for ending the practice of using very tall chimneys for ground-level air pollution abatement, and instead using (expensive!) scrubbers to remove aerosols & particulates from factory & power plant emissions. (The other reason was the “acid rain” scare.)
If you’d viewed the Newsweek article you’d have seen that the graph it included showed about a 0.6°F decline in NH temperature from the peak around 1940 to 1970. Here’s a larger version of that graph:
Do you see it? The graph of data from the National Center for Atmospheric Research shows that from the the 1880s until about 1940, NH temperatures rose (improved!) by about 0.85°F, but that over the next three decades we’d lost about 70% of that beneficial warming.
nyolci wrote, “Do you seriously think the data had been changed?”
Are you seriously unaware of that fact??
NASA used to say 1934 was the warmest year in U.S. (48-State) history. But US temperature data has been greatly altered, drastically increasing the amount of reported warming during the 20th century, particularly when the 1930s are compared to the 1990s & beyond.
These three graphs from NASA GISS are scaled identically. As you can see, the 1999 version closely resembles the Newsweek graph. (It’s not identical because the Newsweek graph was NH temperatures and the GISS graphs are U.S. temperatures):
But, as you can see, subsequent adjustments drastically changed it.
I enquired with the “Climate Science Rapid Response Team” about the source of those adjustments, and they could explain only part of them (mostly the TOBS adjustments which Tony Heller discusses in this video). Here’s my conversation with the CSRRT:
https://sealevel.info/climate/Re_CSRRT_Enquiry–Burton–US_Surface_Temperature_USHCN_chron.html
This graph is from Hansen et al 1999 (except that I added the red annotations for 1934, 1979 & 1998):
Here’s an excerpt from the paper:
That was before most of the NASA & NOAA NCDC revisions to the data.
Note that the cooling trend from the 1930s to the 1970s was steeper than the warming trend from the 1970s to the 1990s.
But now NASA claims just the opposite.
So, if you don’t think the data has been changed, you’re in denial, and that ain’t a river in Africa.
nyolci wrote, “The relative cool post war period (up to cc 1975) was the direct result of environmental contamination (sun blocking aerosols).”
That’s probably true. So how much of the subsequent warming do you thing was due to air pollution abatement?
nyolci wrote, “from the 70s we already have satellite measurements, these are the best you can get.”
The satellite-based temperature data starts in 1979:
I wrote, “The scientific consensus, back then, was that global cooling is BAD, and warming is good”
nyolci replied, “No, this is simply bs.”
Please be serious. Why do you think scientists call warm periods “climate optimums”?
I wrote, “Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum […] is generally believed to have been warmer than our current climate.”
nyolci replied, “Only in denier-land. Science says otherwise, regardless of what Judith Curry says.”
If you think Prof. Curry is a “denier,” you need to get your meds adjusted. Or something. Because that is seriously crazy-talk. Did you even read it?
nyolci wrote that the CIA report about the threat of global cooling “was well before we had a firm scientific understanding of climate…”
You think we now have “a firm scientific understanding of climate”? That is hilarious!!!
Here’s a table of CMIP5 models, from AR5:
https://sealevel.info/AR5_Table_9.5_p.818.html
(Source here, or as a pdf, or as a spreadsheet, or as an image.)
The ECS values baked in to those models vary from 2.1 to 4.7 °C per doubling of CO2. The TCR values baked in to those models vary from 1.1 to 2.6 °C / doubling.
Note, also, in the first two columns, the large range of values assumed in the CMIP5 models for the even more fundamental parameter of Radiative Forcing.
Such enormous spreads of values for such basic parameters proves they have no clue how the Earth’s climate really works. What’s more, that’s just within the IPCC community. It doesn’t even include sensitivity estimates from climate realists.
nyolci wrote that the CIA report about the threat of global cooling “was based on a single study.”
No, it wasn’t. It was based on a literature survey.
Come on, I gave you the link. Why do you just make things up, like that?
> your confusion
I’m not confused.
> The 1970s cooling scare […] was
> scientific consensus in the 1970s.
This is provably wrong. Furthermore the first greenhouse studies are from that era and they were pretty good in retrospect despite our limited knowledge and the state of modelling.
> I was there, and I remember it.
I don’t think you remember what “scientific consensus” was. You can’t grasp scientific consensus now when you’re certainly more mature and the sources are really readily available. You may remember a few articles in popular scientific journals. (FYI I don’t.)
> It was one of the two reasons for
> ending the practice of using very tall chimneys
Of course the acid rain was _the_ reason. That’s a thing I do remember and it was really widely discussed, not the sun blocking effect of aerosols. Furthermore, what you described was a bit later, well into the 80s. Aerosols’ cooling effect couldn’t mask increasing greenhouse warming.
> If you’d viewed the Newsweek article
First of all this is a popular scientific article, second, this was well before we had a good understanding of climate, and the article clearly points this out. Now we have very good temp reconstructions, check pls. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
nyolci wrote, “Do you seriously think the data had been changed?”
> [“altering of temperature data”] Are you seriously unaware of that fact??
There was no “fact”, sorry. Revisions are not “changes”. The raw readings haven’t been changed, now we have a much better understanding what they actually represent. A thing what can be translated as “Measurement Technology” was my major in university, so this isn’t something I find surprising. Even in extremely simple cases we had to make quite non-straightforward corrections (mainly correcting the non-linearity of the voltage representing the reading w/r/t the measured variable).
> [sun blocking aerosols] That’s probably true.
> So how much of the subsequent warming do
> you thing was due to air pollution abatement?
As above. Acid rains were a topic well into the 80s, actually the Clean Air Act was only modified in 1990. All the while after 1975 there was already a pronounced and steady warming, in other words, aerosols’ blocking effect was already overcome by the increasing greenhouse effect.
> Why do you think scientists call warm
> periods “climate optimums”?
??? I didn’t say anything about this. What I seriously doubt (well, I call THAT bs) is that you know what was the “scientific consensus” back then.
> If you think Prof. Curry is a “denier,”
Well, to be correct I didn’t claim anything about Curry per se. I only claimed that her word in itself wouldn’t destroy scientific consensus. As whether she is a denier or not, it’s an interesting question. In her professional work she avoids denier topics while in non professional publicity (like blog) she is typical denier. In at least one case I’m quite sure she deliberately and knowingly spoke bs (Climategate, a thing she must’ve known the real background of). Professionally she’s pushing the “variability” thing (‘cos, well, there’s warming, you have to account for that) but she has already been proven wrong in many cases.
> Such enormous spreads of values
??? Climate is a chaotic system with quite a number of feedbacks. You won’t get a prediction with hundredth of a degree accuracy.
> they have no clue how the Earth’s
> climate really works.
‘Cos you have? 🙂
> [CIA report single study] No, it wasn’t.
> It was based on a literature survey.
Even the Newsweek article you referenced from the following year clearly described climate science as far from knowing even the major factors.
nyolci wrote, after being shown the dramatic changes which have been made to the U.S. surface temperature record, wrote, “Revisions are not ‘changes’.”
If you’re sure of that, then you’d better notify the folks who make dictionaries, so that they can
changerevise their books.Just because you refuse to see it, doesn’t mean it never occurred.
Ask your grandparents, perhaps they remember it. Assuming of course that their communist masters let them hear of it.
First you claim there was no 70’s cooling scare, then you proclaim that it was the result of aerosols. Secondly, if the aerosols cooled the planet, then getting rid of the aerosols in the 80’s and 90’s must have warmed up the planet.
BTW, the satellites, which you have just proclaimed as the gold standard, show that there has been very little warming since the late 1970’s.
Mid-Holocene Climate Optimum existed and the vast majority of paleontologists have demonstrated that. The fact that you reject any science that doesn’t support your religion as being denier science just further demonstrates that it is you who can’t handle science.
“Though such people do have some entertainment value, when they solemnly share their latest predictions.”
And go on to receive the unqualified support of the American Physical Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Physics, and every other scientific society. Their betrayal and their shamefulness could not be greater.
Every one of those societies should be dissolved. Their management should be summarily ejected.
Dick Lindzen, president of the new NAS. Will Happer, President of the new APS. David Legates, president of the new AGU.
‘Traditional winter activities such as building snowmen disappearing’ is a crisis?
The Battle of Britain in August–October 1940 was a crisis.
The Guardian editor thinks, for instance, woman and girls walking miles for jugs of water and firewood in Sub-Saharan Africa must forget any hope of improvement in their lives or children’s lives so kiddies in UK can supposedly continue to build snowmen — shameful.
Imagine if a climate model predicted the fact that Earth’s temperature cannot change in a hundred years or even a thousand years short of a massive asteroid hit.
The proponents of the model would never get employment in the field of climate modelling. Their work would be derided and they would be crucified by the common media.
The whole fantasy is perpetuated by unprofessional dingbats needing an income and their evil sponsors craving greater power and authority.
And Spencer and Christy need to sort out why their UAH Version 6 is diverging from reality or why it is unrepresentative of the surface temperature.
RickWill wrote, “Spencer and Christy need to sort out why their UAH Version 6 is diverging from
reality[my expectations] or…”There, I fixed it for ya.
Here’s a good article about why the various satellite-based lower troposphere temperature indices differ, and why UAH is the best of them:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
Back in 2011 Ben Santer and co defined the minimum period required to establish a meaningful atmospheric temperature trend as 17 years. In that case debating the true validity of the hiatus. But somehow we are now expected to swallow the proposition that 50 years of predictive inaccuracy is required in order to prove the CGMs wrong?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
If people are emotionally attached to a lie, there is nothing you can do to get them to see the truth. Only after they sufficiently suffer the lie will their attachment to the lie become unemotional, then you can get them to see the truth.
Sad to say … but 99.9% of “Glaciologists” today do not know what “snow” is.
And … 100% of “Glaciologists” today do not know what Firn is!
That does narrow it down that … 100% of “Glaciologists” today do not know what … a Glacier … is!
Ha ha! Sad and true.
Cheers,
Reg
100% of climate alarmists adon’t know what reality is. Or at least they can’t recognize it when they see it.
Seriously thought the Guardian has been a bigger joke than the Washington Post and NYT for years now.
More likely
The Guardian won’t know what the truth is.
These people are quite effectively asleep.
Trapped in a dreamworld of Chronic Depression and Magical Thinking. Trapped because of positive feedback – one of those things causes the other.
The thing that reinforces their entrapment is the Aura and Power of The Computer – a thing that they themselves program to entrap themselves and because it gives them power. It gives them ‘the ear’ of leaders/government
And when they themselves are trapped by Magical Thinking – Government set up this agency to do exactly that
Interesting Times, as the saying goes
As this story appeared on BBC website a few days ago..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55179603
Do remember, We Can Trust The BBC
We *know* we can trust the BBC because the BBC tells us so, in a little footer at the bottom of most pages.
= yet more Magical Thinking and Self Importance
“But within that, we get this shift towards more extreme events, so more frequent and intense extremes, so heavier rainfall when it occurs.”
But some climate catastrophists claim less precipitation with warming.
Oh right, whatever suits their scare-mongering agenda.
Record snow fall in the southern Yukon recently.
Must be Globull Warmong.
(Albeit somewhat north of Scotland.)
Why do they keep making these ridiculous predictions?
I think it’s because people remember extreme stuff and forget the rest.
So as an example, here in Akl, NZ, we had predictions of a dry winter, an _extremely_ dry spring, and one month’s rain in a week (oddly, during the extremely dry spring). None of it happened.
La Nina has brought on predictions of a muggy stormy, dry, wet, summer.
Next year when somebody talks about extreme weather again, we will ‘remember’ that last year’s weather was very unusual, even though it was normal.
On the off-chance that a prediction comes true, we’ll get the ‘told you so’ from the ‘experts’.
Also, there is little downside to making ridiculous predictions because no MSM outlet will take them to task. They’re too busy printing predictions of 80m sea level rise.
And the weather forecast for the UK
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1369828/UK-snow-forecast-cold-weather-met-office-warning-winter-maps-BBC-weather-latest
Makes you wonder about the timing. No No don’t believe your eyes, that is not snow and it will all be gone in our hot future.
In Hungary ” snow is a few days of thin whiteness once or twice in a winter. ”
2018
https://xpatloop.com/channels/heavy-snow-in-budapest.html
Again, slowly: “Heavy snow” is nowadays a thin layer that lasts for 2-3 days.
I notice a consistent pattern with our murderous little marxist here.
Actual data is refuted using vague claims and recollections of childhood conditions.
@MarkWokeQueen
> Actual data
You pointed to snowfall. I’ve never said there is no snowfall. I only said snow is “a thin layer of whiteness” that lasts for a few days at most.
> is refuted
Not really ‘cos your sources described exactly what I said.
> using vague claims and recollections
> of childhood conditions.
Well, it wasn’t vague. The rest is true.
I pointed out that there was a lot more than “a thin layer of whiteness”.
How would you know what my sources showed, you haven’t read any of them.
YAWN !
January 2019:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/winter-storm-blasts-europe-13-dead-amid-heavy-snow-gusts-n956291
February 2018:
https://xpatloop.com/channels/heavy-snow-in-budapest.html
January 2014:
https://dailynewshungary.com/roads-blocked-accidents-in-heavy-snow-in-western-hungary/
nyolci is an infinite font of refuted propaganda and scientific nonsense.
Her desperate need to believe that capitalism is evil and only communism can save us prevents from recognizing any data that doesn’t support that.
I remember an old joke, basically a person complains that when they were 5, the snow came up to their chest. Now that they are grown up it barely comes up to their knees.
+1
In Hungary ” show has become negligible.”
2014
https://dailynewshungary.com/roads-blocked-accidents-in-heavy-snow-in-western-hungary/
Roads blocked by accidents not by snow 🙂 Roads get extremely slippery after a minuscule amount of almost immediately melting snow falls
2+2=5
In 1986 or 1995 it was literally snow that blocked the whole country, not mass accidents due to slipped vehicles. It took at the extreme end a week for snow plows to reach certain remote villages. Nowadays snow doesn’t last a even a few days. In 1995 the month long persisting deep snow in the inner city got so hard due to repeated surface melting during the day and freezing during the night that tire tracks acted like railway tracks, sometimes I could drive without touching the steering wheel. I haven’t seen anything even remotely approaching this.
Hungary In Winter 2020: Come To Enjoy The Scenic Views Of Snowcapped Landscapes
https://traveltriangle.com/blog/hungary-in-winter/
Like most progressives, nyolci see’s what she wants to see.
Or just outright makes-crap-up to suits its idiotology.
Hey, Mike Woke queen, this particular snow was gone by nightfall.
If you are going to use insults, at least try to use insults that make sense.
Applying “woke” to a conservative is at best, counter intuitive, at worst further demonstration that you are incredibly stupid.
Even if that snow was gone by evening, so what. Have you ever heard of UHI?
Beyond that, read the article, unless of course you are still afraid of learning something your handlers don’t want you to know.
@MarkWokeQueen
> Applying “woke” to a conservative is at best
Stop, stop! You started to raise gender issues, I thought you were woke. When I pointed out I didn’t give a shit for these you pulled the wokest bs I have ever seen. You acted like a woke queen.
Can anyone make sense of nyolci’s ramblings.
As near as I can make out she’s trying to claim that refuting her claims means I’m woke.
In the tropical paradise of Hungary
2019
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/winter-storm-blasts-europe-13-dead-amid-heavy-snow-gusts-n956291
The kids won’t see anything by then because they’ll be locked down with mask permanently attached along with opaque face shields. Covid 98 you know.
Observational evidence is not very useful.
It’s getting so that this mantra is pervading every aspect of our lives. Believe what the “experts” say, not what you can clearly see for yourself. Physical evidence to the contrary doesn’t matter, when you’re told what “reality” is by your “betters”.
You WILL believe what the Party tells you to believe.
“Notify me” didn’t go through? trying again…
On the radio 4 news in the morning sometime after 0700 hrs she said
the snowball fights and things we remember as being so christmassy when we were children wont be around in the 40`s
Now thats either 19 years away or 29 years away
and no she didnt mention the previous snow years and how infreqent they are, I think I`ve had 3 really good white years out of the last 45
the snowball fights and things we remember as being so christmassy when we were children wont be around in the 40`s
The truth is, even in this threads resident communist idiot’s childhood (70s-80s) most people could count the number of Christmas snows they had on one hand. Every year people “dream of a white Christmas” but actual white Christmas have never been all that frequent in most locations (at least here in the continental United States). People remember the time they had a snowball fight on Christmas because it was a rare special event, not because it happened all that often.
Apparently trollop nyolci is allowed to threadbomb comment streams into illogical violent insensibility…
Sad…
“Climate crisis likely to cause warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, says Met Office”
The Met Office being weaponised against the public by pushing the bogus crisis narrative, and ignoring their own data sets which show no trend in England rainfall for any season. They are publicly funded, we need accountability.