| Martin From Canada | 21 Jan 2017 11:15 a.m. PST |
Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures. […] Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty. "2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "We don't expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear." link |
 StoneMtnMinis  | 21 Jan 2017 1:49 p.m. PST |
|
| Martin From Canada | 21 Jan 2017 4:53 p.m. PST |
|
| KTravlos | 21 Jan 2017 6:43 p.m. PST |
|
| Winston Smith | 21 Jan 2017 7:08 p.m. PST |
I can think of few people less likely to have an affect on climate change policy than middle aged (elderly?) wargamers on a wargaming site.
And yet you persist. 
As The Rock would say back in his WWF days, directed at us, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!" I might be considered a "skeptic", but beyond obviously deserving to be tortured into belief, why do keep trying to convince us? Is it to save our souls? |
| Hafen von Schlockenberg | 21 Jan 2017 7:29 p.m. PST |
Well,this is the "Science" board. . . |
| Cacique Caribe | 22 Jan 2017 12:16 a.m. PST |
It's climate Jihad. They feel compelled to seek out and eradicate all heresy. Now that prosecution of deniers is off the table, all they have left is repetitive shaming and ridicule. The calm of their collective is damaged by the thought of other people thinking differently. |
| MHoxie | 22 Jan 2017 5:21 a.m. PST |
|
| Bowman | 22 Jan 2017 6:02 a.m. PST |
I'm claiming Poe's Law on CC's comment. Sheesh, too bad you couldn't add the terms "liberal", "socialist", "warmist", and "conspiracy" to make it really awesome. |
| Col Durnford | 22 Jan 2017 6:26 a.m. PST |
Another vote for "enough already". |
| Cacique Caribe | 22 Jan 2017 6:51 a.m. PST |
From a fortune cookie … Definition of a fanatic is someone who is incapable of changing their mind and who is unwilling to change the subject. EDIT Lol. I didn't know it was a Churchill quote:
link @Bowman, apparently I didn't need to. :) |
| jdpintex | 22 Jan 2017 8:29 a.m. PST |
Let's go for four in a row! |
| Martin From Canada | 22 Jan 2017 10:47 a.m. PST |
Let's go for four in a row! We will be back at these levels in about 10 years (the trend is indomitable), but without a massive El Nino in the pacific pumping out massive amounts of ocean heat into the atmosphere, I doubt it. |
| Bowman | 22 Jan 2017 12:57 p.m. PST |
Definition of a fanatic is someone……… Does that include those that continually utter unsupported blanket denials, claim scientific announcements as "Fake News" and claim the existence of a world wide conspiracy? Or are they too close to your own viewpoint to earn that label? |
| Zargon | 22 Jan 2017 1:33 p.m. PST |
What do they call those that don't care either way and will just be glad that there's a chance that humanities numbers may be culled down quite substantially? |
| Martin From Canada | 22 Jan 2017 1:49 p.m. PST |
What do they call those that don't care either way and will just be glad that there's a chance that humanities numbers may be culled down quite substantially? Sociopath? |
| Cacique Caribe | 22 Jan 2017 7:38 p.m. PST |
@Bowman, In case you are wondering, I've been called many things by fanatics on both sides. So fire away. Don't be shy now. :) Dan |
| Bowman | 23 Jan 2017 4:52 a.m. PST |
Dan, if you look over this thread you will see I haven't called you anything. |
| Cacique Caribe | 23 Jan 2017 7:47 a.m. PST |
|
| Bowman | 23 Jan 2017 7:51 p.m. PST |
Dan, you said: I've been called many things by fanatics on both sides. So fire away. Don't be shy now. You are goading me into insulting you, is that right? How does this move the discussion, from the OP, further along? |
| Cacique Caribe | 24 Jan 2017 8:03 p.m. PST |
Goading? Moi? Bowman: "Sheesh, too bad you couldn't add the terms "liberal", "socialist", "warmist", and "conspiracy" to make it really awesome." Dan |
| KTravlos | 25 Jan 2017 11:27 a.m. PST |
"What do they call those that don't care either way and will just be glad that there's a chance that humanities numbers may be culled down quite substantially?" genocidal scum. |
| Great War Ace | 25 Jan 2017 11:35 a.m. PST |
I prefer that education and prosperity work their affect, and humankind stop increasing on our own, and population drops steadily to a sustainable level. "Sustainable" is not, "how many people can we keep alive"? It is rather, "How many people can we have on Earth, and also keep alive our wonderful wildernesses and the animals therein"? I do not consider a ninety percent reduction in wild animals and habitat in the last c. hundred years to be any sort of move in the right direction, especially as the reduction continues…………… |
