It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

RickDeckard · Mar 1, 2024

Their claims (this stuff is from 2010) were supported by extensive peer-reviewed scientific data, available here.

Uncle Albert · Mar 1, 2024

" we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting"

That's a bit wishy-washy, less absolute than you would suggest.

Steal Your Face · Mar 1, 2024

“We’ve investigated ourselves and we’ve found that we’ve committed no wrongdoing.”

RickDeckard · Mar 1, 2024

Steal Your Face said: ↑

“We’ve investigated ourselves and we’ve found that we’ve committed no wrongdoing.”
Click to expand...

Who is it that investigated themselves, in your head?

Bailey · Mar 1, 2024

Lol the facts are facts dude once again just coincidentally arguing against the facts that would inconvenience him.

Tuckerfan · Mar 7, 2024

Exclusive: EU wants fossil fuel sector to help pay to combat climate change, draft shows

Tuckerfan · Mar 9, 2024

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/09/1237159900/warmest-winter-climate-change-2024

Tuckerfan · Mar 14, 2024

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jerome-powell-just-revealed-hidden-210653681.html

Tuckerfan · Mar 25, 2024

Here’s Why You Can’t Afford an Electric Car

We Are Borg · Mar 29, 2024

'Quite terrifying': Lifelong diver spots frightening phenomenon in the water

This is incredibly worrisome. Fish in southern Florida are randomly spinning for reasons yet unexplained, although there are some working theories (and no, "It's Floriduh" isn't one of the reasons).

Tuckerfan · Mar 31, 2024

How Climate Change Will Affect Conflict and U.S. Military Operations

Steal Your Face · Apr 16, 2024

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

20 years of evidence will change minds like that.
Click to expand...

Most of that evidence has been manipulated or outright falsified to push the green agenda and globalists depopulation efforts.
actual climate change has nothing to do with anything man made and humanity can’t do anything to stop it.
Click to expand...

Welcome back from your 15 year coma!
Click to expand...

My coma was really only for a month in 2020, the rest was just absence. I’m not back yet. I don’t have much free time these days, physical therapy and related exercises occupy most. I’ve just had difficulty sleeping the last couple days.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.

Ten Lubak · Apr 16, 2024

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.
Click to expand...

Why is a 16 year old telling us what happened in the 70s?

Bailey · Apr 16, 2024

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

Most of that evidence has been manipulated or outright falsified to push the green agenda and globalists depopulation efforts.
actual climate change has nothing to do with anything man made and humanity can’t do anything to stop it.
Click to expand...

Welcome back from your 15 year coma!
Click to expand...

My coma was really only for a month in 2020, the rest was just absence. I’m not back yet. I don’t have much free time these days, physical therapy and related exercises occupy most. I’ve just had difficulty sleeping the last couple days.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.
Click to expand...

Stop lying

Steal Your Face · Apr 16, 2024

Bailey said: ↑

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Welcome back from your 15 year coma!
Click to expand...

My coma was really only for a month in 2020, the rest was just absence. I’m not back yet. I don’t have much free time these days, physical therapy and related exercises occupy most. I’ve just had difficulty sleeping the last couple days.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.
Click to expand...

Stop lying
Click to expand...

Are you science denier?

Results from Review & Discussion
The review database contains a total 190 relevant papers, which is 2.7 times the size of the PCF-08 database. Of the
190 papers in the review database, 162 full papers/books and 25 abstracts were reviewed (abstracts were used
when the full papers were either pay-walled or could not be sourced). Furthermore, 4 warming papers from PCF-08
were not reviewed because they could not be sourced. Therefore, the PCF-08 classification was used for these
papers in this review.
The results from the review are summarised in Figure 2.
It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers
significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods
contained within the reference period, namely:
1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore
the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling
consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s “global cooling consensus” originated
because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus – not the myth that PCF-08 contend.
2. The 1977-1979 period when warming papers slightly outnumber the cooling papers (52% to 48%) – a warming
majority but not a consensus.
The following observations are also worth noting from Figure 2 for the 1965-1979 reference period:
1. Of the 190 papers in the database, the respective number of papers are 86 cooling, 58 neutral and 46 warming.
In percentage terms, this equates to 45% cooling papers, 31% neutral papers and 24% warming papers, if we use
all of the data.
2. The cooling consensus increases to 65% compared with 35% warming – a considerable cooling consensus, if we
ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103).
3. The total number of cooling papers is always greater than or equal to the number of warming papers throughout
the entire reference period.
Although not presented in Figure 2, it is worth noting that 30 papers refer to the possibility of a New Ice-Age or the
return to the "Little Ace-Age" (although they sometimes they used the term "Climate Catastrophic Cooling").
Timescales for the New Ice Age vary from a few decades, through a century or two, to several millennia. The 30
“New Ice Age” papers are not insignificant when compared with the 46 warming papers.
Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an
overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering
the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers
compared with 15% warming.
It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is
incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling
consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.
It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely,
“selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to
have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.
I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in
major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research
and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research,
namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal,
comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.
I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the
impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected
to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
Afterword
I reiterate that no literature survey can be 100% complete. Therefore, if you uncover additional references then
please send them to me in the comments. It would make this review much better if we could significantly increase
the number of relevant references.
Additionally, if you disagree with the classification of some of the references then please let me know why you
disagree and I will consider appropriate amendments. Your comments on classification would certainly increase the
veracity of the review by providing an independent assessment of my classifications.
Click to expand...

https://angusmac.net/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

Jenee · Apr 16, 2024

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

My coma was really only for a month in 2020, the rest was just absence. I’m not back yet. I don’t have much free time these days, physical therapy and related exercises occupy most. I’ve just had difficulty sleeping the last couple days.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.
Click to expand...

Stop lying
Click to expand...

Are you science denier?

Results from Review & Discussion
The review database contains a total 190 relevant papers, which is 2.7 times the size of the PCF-08 database. Of the
190 papers in the review database, 162 full papers/books and 25 abstracts were reviewed (abstracts were used
when the full papers were either pay-walled or could not be sourced). Furthermore, 4 warming papers from PCF-08
were not reviewed because they could not be sourced. Therefore, the PCF-08 classification was used for these
papers in this review.
The results from the review are summarised in Figure 2.
It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers
significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods
contained within the reference period, namely:
1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore
the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling
consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s “global cooling consensus” originated
because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus – not the myth that PCF-08 contend.
2. The 1977-1979 period when warming papers slightly outnumber the cooling papers (52% to 48%) – a warming
majority but not a consensus.
The following observations are also worth noting from Figure 2 for the 1965-1979 reference period:
1. Of the 190 papers in the database, the respective number of papers are 86 cooling, 58 neutral and 46 warming.
In percentage terms, this equates to 45% cooling papers, 31% neutral papers and 24% warming papers, if we use
all of the data.
2. The cooling consensus increases to 65% compared with 35% warming – a considerable cooling consensus, if we
ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103).
3. The total number of cooling papers is always greater than or equal to the number of warming papers throughout
the entire reference period.
Although not presented in Figure 2, it is worth noting that 30 papers refer to the possibility of a New Ice-Age or the
return to the "Little Ace-Age" (although they sometimes they used the term "Climate Catastrophic Cooling").
Timescales for the New Ice Age vary from a few decades, through a century or two, to several millennia. The 30
“New Ice Age” papers are not insignificant when compared with the 46 warming papers.
Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an
overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering
the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers
compared with 15% warming.
It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is
incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling
consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.
It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely,
“selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to
have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.
I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in
major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research
and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research,
namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal,
comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.
I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the
impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected
to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
Afterword
I reiterate that no literature survey can be 100% complete. Therefore, if you uncover additional references then
please send them to me in the comments. It would make this review much better if we could significantly increase
the number of relevant references.
Additionally, if you disagree with the classification of some of the references then please let me know why you
disagree and I will consider appropriate amendments. Your comments on classification would certainly increase the
veracity of the review by providing an independent assessment of my classifications.
Click to expand...

https://angusmac.net/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
Click to expand...

The link:

A weblog? Did you even look to see if the editor put in a link the actual study?

RickDeckard · Apr 17, 2024

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Bailey said: ↑

Steal Your Face said: ↑

Sherlock Holmes said: ↑

My coma was really only for a month in 2020, the rest was just absence. I’m not back yet. I don’t have much free time these days, physical therapy and related exercises occupy most. I’ve just had difficulty sleeping the last couple days.
Click to expand...

Remember, in the 70s the science was settled that there was going to be global cooling.
Click to expand...

Stop lying
Click to expand...

Are you science denier?

Results from Review & Discussion
The review database contains a total 190 relevant papers, which is 2.7 times the size of the PCF-08 database. Of the
190 papers in the review database, 162 full papers/books and 25 abstracts were reviewed (abstracts were used
when the full papers were either pay-walled or could not be sourced). Furthermore, 4 warming papers from PCF-08
were not reviewed because they could not be sourced. Therefore, the PCF-08 classification was used for these
papers in this review.
The results from the review are summarised in Figure 2.
It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers
significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods
contained within the reference period, namely:
1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore
the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling
consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s “global cooling consensus” originated
because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus – not the myth that PCF-08 contend.
2. The 1977-1979 period when warming papers slightly outnumber the cooling papers (52% to 48%) – a warming
majority but not a consensus.
The following observations are also worth noting from Figure 2 for the 1965-1979 reference period:
1. Of the 190 papers in the database, the respective number of papers are 86 cooling, 58 neutral and 46 warming.
In percentage terms, this equates to 45% cooling papers, 31% neutral papers and 24% warming papers, if we use
all of the data.
2. The cooling consensus increases to 65% compared with 35% warming – a considerable cooling consensus, if we
ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103).
3. The total number of cooling papers is always greater than or equal to the number of warming papers throughout
the entire reference period.
Although not presented in Figure 2, it is worth noting that 30 papers refer to the possibility of a New Ice-Age or the
return to the "Little Ace-Age" (although they sometimes they used the term "Climate Catastrophic Cooling").
Timescales for the New Ice Age vary from a few decades, through a century or two, to several millennia. The 30
“New Ice Age” papers are not insignificant when compared with the 46 warming papers.
Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an
overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering
the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers
compared with 15% warming.
It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is
incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling
consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.
It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely,
“selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to
have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.
I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in
major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research
and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research,
namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal,
comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.
I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the
impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.
If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected
to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
Afterword
I reiterate that no literature survey can be 100% complete. Therefore, if you uncover additional references then
please send them to me in the comments. It would make this review much better if we could significantly increase
the number of relevant references.
Additionally, if you disagree with the classification of some of the references then please let me know why you
disagree and I will consider appropriate amendments. Your comments on classification would certainly increase the
veracity of the review by providing an independent assessment of my classifications.
Click to expand...

https://angusmac.net/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
Click to expand...

This completely contradicts the claim that you made, though clearly neither you nor its author understand what the word "consensus" means.

Tuckerfan · Apr 17, 2024

https://apnews.com/article/uae-hist...t-disruption-3e838dbc169e52dcd6d11b64f79bdcb7

Tuckerfan · Apr 17, 2024

https://apnews.com/article/climate-...ncome-costly-3e21addee3fe328f38b771645e237ff9

Log in or Sign up

It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

RickDeckard Socialist

Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

RickDeckard Socialist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

We Are Borg Republican Democrat

Tuckerfan BMF

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Jenee Driver 8

RickDeckard Socialist

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Log in or Sign up

It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

RickDeckard Socialist

Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

RickDeckard Socialist

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

We Are Borg Republican Democrat

Tuckerfan BMF

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Ten Lubak Salty Dog

Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

Steal Your Face Anti-Federalist

Jenee Driver 8

RickDeckard Socialist

Tuckerfan BMF

Tuckerfan BMF

Useful Searches