Fifth Coldest October/November On Record In The US

[rangerrebew]

Fifth Coldest October/November On Record In The US
Posted on December 9, 2018 by tonyheller

October/November afternoon temperatures in the US have been declining since the 19th century. There was a very sharp drop off in the late 1960’s, and temperatures never recovered. This October/November was fifth coldest on record.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/fifth-coldest-october-november-on-record-in-the-us/

[Sanguine]

@Dexter, you'd better get your woolies out.  This global warming is getting cold!

[Dexter]

@Dexter, you'd better get your woolies out.  This global warming is getting cold!

I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.

[Dexter]

Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.

Not bullshitting you.com

Real science no jokes.com

definitely not fake junk science.com

 

[Sanguine]

Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.

Not bullshitting you.com

Real science no jokes.com

definitely not fake junk science.com

 

But, Dexter, it's not the site, it's the data that they are using.  Surely you're not suggesting that actual scientists would fake data to make a point?

[Dexter]

But, Dexter, it's not the site, it's the data that they are using.  Surely you're not suggesting that actual scientists would fake data to make a point?

I'm suggesting that it's weird that only bogus click bait websites host the kind of articles you keep pinging me to. I'll even take Breitbart. If this was anything other than a non-story more reputable websites would be talking about it.

[Sanguine]

I'm suggesting that it's weird that only bogus click bait websites host the kind of articles you keep pinging me to. I'll even take Breitbart. If this was anything other than a non-story more reputable websites would be talking about it.

Again, check the source of the data, Dexter, before you cast stones.

[RoosGirl]

Don't y'all find it weird that even Fox News elects not to post articles like this? Every single thing I get pinged to is from some completely bogus looking site.

Not bullshitting you.com

Real science no jokes.com

definitely not fake junk science.com

 

How do you know it's bogus looking?  You've already admitted to not understanding it. 

[Dexter]

How do you know it's bogus looking?  You've already admitted to not understanding it.

If you feel safe getting your information from real climate science dot com, well, yeah. I suggest reconsidering that.

[Dexter]

Again, check the source of the data, Dexter, before you cast stones.

I'll read about it when Fox reports on it. If they don't report on it I'll have to assume they didn't think it was worth reporting on.

[RoosGirl]

If you feel safe getting your information from real climate science dot com, well, yeah. I suggest reconsidering that.

Why should I consider your suggestion when you've already told us you are a know-nothing on this subject?

[Dexter]

Why should I consider your suggestion when you've already told us you are a know-nothing on this subject?

I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.

[RoosGirl]

I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.

 

[Dexter]

I am even okay with reputable right wing sources like Fox. Why is Fox not reporting on this if it's not a non-story? This is a click bait website. You should be very careful about absorbing information from websites like this if understanding reality is actually important to you.

[Free Vulcan]

I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.

So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?

[Oceander]

I'm pretty good at being able to tell the difference between nonsense partisan click bait and reputable websites that actually do good reporting.

Actually, no, you’re not. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?

I don't know about Rutgers, but you sure you want to go there re: NOAA?

[Skeptic]

Fifth Coldest October/November On Record In The US
Posted on December 9, 2018 by tonyheller

October/November afternoon temperatures in the US have been declining since the 19th century. There was a very sharp drop off in the late 1960’s, and temperatures never recovered. This October/November was fifth coldest on record.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/fifth-coldest-october-november-on-record-in-the-us/

Likely all the nukes they blew up in the 60s and 70s, dust eventually settled but it took awhile.

[Dexter]

So the NOAA and Rutgers U aren't valid, credentials, credible sources now?

Not when they're being cited by a partisan click bait website like the one that made that article. This is a non-story, otherwise websites that have a smidgen of journalistic integrity would be reporting as well.

[Dexter]

Actually, no, you’re not.

Do you honestly trust websites like that?

[240B]

Global Warming is causing Global Cooling!
Look, these guys made a bet (because they have no idea) on 'warming'.
Nobody really knows. Now they are just trying to cover their ass.

If it is hot, They are right. If it is cold, They are right. If you take a crap tonight, They are right.
No matter what the hell happens, They are right!

[Dexter]

you sure you want to go there re: NOAA?

Haha

I was going to leave that one alone. Anybody want to guess what NOAA's position on AGW is?

[Free Vulcan]

Not when they're being cited by a partisan click bait website like the one that made that article. This is a non-story, otherwise websites that have a smidgen of journalistic integrity would be reporting as well.

You're trying desperately, shifting and dancing to deflect to this 'click bait' website and not focus on the data itself. That's data by credible sources, or what you would deem credible, that you are now dismissing.

You are intellectually inconsistent at this point.

[Dexter]

You're trying desperately, shifting and dancing to deflect to this 'click bait' website and not focus on the data itself. That's data by credible sources, or what you would deem credible, that you are now dismissing.

You are intellectually inconsistent at this point.

Do you know what position Rutgers and NOAA take on AGW?

[Free Vulcan]

Do you know what position Rutgers and NOAA take on AGW?

So now the data has to be 'interpreted' in order to actually be acceptable data, and can only be understood through some scientific oracle?

You're starting to sound like the medieval Catholic church.

[Dexter]

So now the data has to be 'interpreted' in order to actually be acceptable data, and can only be understood through some scientific oracle?

You're starting to sound like the medieval Catholic church.

Answer your own question. Are Rutgers and NOAA qualified sources or not?

[Free Vulcan]

Answer your own question. Are Rutgers and NOAA qualified sources or not?

By standard definition, Rutgers and the NOAA are university and govt sources, and therefore valid according to your definition.

Or do you think they are not?

[Dexter]

By standard definition, Rutgers and the NOAA are university and govt sources, and therefore valid according to your definition.

Or do you think they are not?

I think they're valid, and when they agree with what the climate scientists are saying I think that's valid too. NOAA and Rutgers are strongly in agreement with what the scientists are saying about AGW. You are being duped.

[BassWrangler]

I don't get my news from real climate science dot com and maybe you shouldn't either. Either way it doesn't matter. My position on this matter has been made clear.

This is the classic technique of the followers of the AGW cult: rather than refute the argument, theory, data at hand, they impugn the source.

That said, climate is not the same as local weather, so drawing conclusions about climate trends from the weather this November is no more valid than skewing data to try and bolster your shake climate theory.

[Dexter]

This is the classic technique of the followers of the AGW cult: rather than refute the argument, theory, data at hand, they impugn the source.

That said, climate is not the same as local weather, so drawing conclusions about climate trends from the weather this November is no more valid than skewing data to try and bolster your shake climate theory.

The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 

[Fishrrman]

Just paid my [natural] gas bill yesterday.
Going back through my records (to 1995), it was the highest I've ever had for that billing period...

[RoosGirl]

Do you honestly trust websites like that?

Don't listen to him, he's just mad at you for saying he was only slightly less leftist than you are.

[BassWrangler]

The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 

Irrelevant. The fact that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement says it all.

[RoosGirl]

The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 

The data is the data; the "fixing" and interpretation of the data is what is in question.

[Free Vulcan]

The data they are using comes from scientists that believe AGW is happening. 

So basically you're saying despite the data, they're going to believe in AGW anyway.

[Dexter]

So basically you're saying despite the data, they're going to believe in AGW anyway.

No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.

[Dexter]

Irrelevant.

Taking data from scientists and purporting that you can interpret it better than they can is absurd.

[Free Vulcan]

No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.

Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.

Most people call that science.

[Sanguine]

No, I'm saying unlike you and the people that write the articles on those click bait websites they actually understand how to interpret the data they collect.

Now, you do realize that the writers on these what you call click-bait sites are also reputable scientists? 

[RoosGirl]

Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.

Most people call that science.

It's fitting data into a statistical analysis, and anyone that has taken a statistics class knows that statistics can (and will) be used to support anything.

[Sanguine]

It's fitting data into a statistical analysis, and anyone that has taken a statistics class knows that statistics can (and will) be used to support anything.

That's why it's called manipulating the data. 

[RoosGirl]

Now, you do realize that the writers on these what you call click-bait sites are also reputable scientists?

About the man that wrote the "click bait" article, that doesn't understand how to science...

I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.

[Sanguine]

About the man that wrote the "click bait" article, that doesn't understand how to science...

Obviously an idiot. 

[RoosGirl]

Obviously an idiot.

Oh good, he can join my "take over the world" club!

[Dexter]

Obviously an idiot.

Obviously not an idiot, which is why he's able to fool other non-idiots such as yourself.

[RoosGirl]

Obviously not an idiot, which is why he's able to fool other non-idiots such as yourself.

FFS

[Dexter]

Why does data need 'interpreted?' It's data. It speaks for itself, or it should.

Most people call that science.

What you lack is context and depth of knowledge, because you're not a climate scientist.

[Sanguine]

What you lack is context and depth of knowledge, because you're not a climate scientist.

But, there's no way you could know that since you're not a climate scientist either.

[Dexter]

But, there's no way you could know that since you're not a climate scientist either.

I know a lot more about science than you think. That knowledge is why I take the position that I do. Believing you don't lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist is outrageous. Do you believe the same about your physician? Hell, I don't even believe that about my mechanic, let alone scientists that are experts in fields I am not an expert in.

[RoosGirl]

I know a lot more about science than you think. That knowledge is why I take the position that I do. Believing you don't lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist is outrageous. Do you believe the same about your physician? Hell, I don't even believe that about my mechanic, let alone scientists that are experts in fields I am not an expert in.

What field are you an expert in?