"The people working on this "problem" aren't climatologists either, they're physicists, geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, paleo-climatologists." That was the last sentence of the third paragraph from post 823.

I'm not arguing with the smartest guy on the planet. I mean, what's the point?

And since I don't want to personally attack anyone, lemme say that I hope you aren't breeding either. Can't have too many people running about who are smarter than the experts.

In edit-It is not about a consensus amongst people. It is about the consensus amongst experts. That is the fine point that you seem to miss.

what's a WinCustomize? And ya, Sins forum has no TOS, I guess only WC people need rules 

I wasn't questioning Stardock's conduct policy, nor was I hoping to debate it. I don't know how you got that from my post. I merely asked why my questioning someone's credibility is an issue when they make outrageous claims, but another can hope that someone not breed and yet that isn't viewed as debating a person not a topic.

I posed that question to understand the process. If my asking this puts me on the boot list, so be it.

psychoak,

Without dragging this even further off topic than it already seems to be, you do come across as pretty arrogant in your forum posts (not saying that others don't.....hell even I do at times )  So it shouldn't come as a surprise that people get their hackles up sometimes.

Thing is, if you choose the arrogant route in your interactions with people you are going to rub them the wrong way, that's just fact.  As my father used to say, 'it's not what you're saying son........it's how you're saying it!'.   Also, peppering your language (as you seem to do fairly often) does at least in some people's eyes lessen your credibility I'm sure. 

There are just certain things one should refrain from saying......just ask Toronto's mayor!   

I think some people are pissed we were not all forced to drink the kool-aid  

ahhh, but then this thread would be boring as hell and not get near as many hits ... 

I rather enjoy being insulted.  It's the lack of validity that pisses me off.  That idiot over at skepticalscience.com(edit: insulted the wrong idiot blogger) extolled the virtues of Time of Observation Bias when people specifically pointed out that records have been altered in ways that directly contradict such claims.  He never actually argued the merits of the claims because they're inarguable.  You have smooth trending station data, with no sudden jumps at the offending points, that were then edited to have the oddly abrupt changes that they were supposedly looking to remove.

The caliber of the typical response in this thread has been of a similar vein.  Hell, the particular page I refer to has been brought up multiple times in this thread as if it were somehow proving a point.  They've been blathering on and on about how the models show the problem is immediate and we're all going to die if we don't stop letting cows fart in the next ten years.  If I say the models are off by several hundred percent on the magnitude in change over the last decade, and in the wrong direction to boot, I get inane responses about how I'm not a scientist and they know better than me.  The actual discrepancy between the models and current temperatures?  The models are accurate because the IPCC said so, pay no attention to reality!  Or maybe the odd "it's the Sun stupid!" like they haven't been claiming all along that solar variance is minor compared to the rate of increase cause by CO2.

The only way I'd ever complain about name calling is if someone were being really boring.  For instance, if you're going to call people fags all the time, change it up a little.  I have karma from suggesting cunt punting assfucker, Luckmann was a bad, bad man for that.

Just because you do not notice the censure does not mean there was none.

Move on, else you do join the list.

Thankyou.

Rules of conduct on Stardock's sites [plural] have evolved under the management of Stardock's sites' administrators and staff.

Those that find they have exceeded the boundaries of a dozen or more years of evolved conduct limitations find themselves no longer here.

Frogboy tends to be more blunt....others offer reprieves.

Everyone eventually discovers the limits...by subtle reminder...if not simply common good manners...;)

The TOS.....

You agree to not use the Service to:
(a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
( b ) harm minors in any way;
(c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Stardock official, forum leader, guide, moderator or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
(d) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
(e) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;
(f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
(g) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
(h) intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;
(i) "stalk" or otherwise harass another;
(j) make malicious personal attacks, statements of libel, or other behavior deemed unacceptable by administrators.
(k) collect or store personal data about other users;
(l) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades and other weapons, and creating "Crush" sites;
(m) send chain letters, junk mail, spam or any use of distribution lists to any person who has not given specific permission to be included in such a process.
(n) Interfere with another member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services.
(o) promote or advertise sexual or pornographic material or websites;

I see a new thread in the making..."best insults during forum debates"...

Yes, luckily the forums are starting to get more love from,the dev team so we'll get more moderator features.  

Right now we are lucky to have people like Jafo who is, literally, one of the most experienced community moderators in the industry.

Based on a careful analysis of the timing of his comments, Jafo is clearly a bot.  Stardock has done a marvelous job of creating his 'legend' and fleshing it out with lots of textual and graphical 'evidence' but no human can survive with zero sleep. Ever.

Thanks, Paul, for all those sleepless Aussie nights.

The sleepless nights are a doddle....it's the sleepless days I can't hack....;)

As shown before in this thread it's the weight of the atmosphere on Venus that causes the heat. 

Like Typhoon Haiyan, another sign the AGW apocalypse is upon us.

Whistler opened 13 days earlier than expected this year. Another meaningless cherry pick example. Meanwhile, when you look at the actual longer term weather trends in nearby Vancouver, BC, you see warmer winters, increased rainfall, and decreased snowfall.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/01/27/global-warming-vancouver-means-even-more-rain-january

Greenhouse, do you question this word? Or do you question the greenhouse state of the gas CO2? Just curious, and want to know your viewpoint better

I agree with Ekko_Tek here. Its like this:

In Hungary this year we had snow until the end of March, so I guess we are going to have so much snow from now on.

OR NOT. We are expected to have no snow cover in some decades during the winters, and year after year there is less and less snow, this year was just a strong positive anomaly.

Making examples of extremities and ignoring trends is not a constructive thing to do in an argument.

That article on BC is so full of moron it's hard to pick a spot to begin.  That record rainfall is as good a place as any I guess. 284mm isn't the record, it's not even noteworthy.

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/welcome_results_e.html?txtStationName=vancouver&optLimit=specDate&selRowPerPage=25&searchType=stnName&searchMethod=contains&Year=1935&Month=11&Day=16&timeframe=3

Pick a station, it doesn't matter which.

Do yourself a favor and ignore anything that only goes back to the 40's or less.  If it doesn't cover the 30's, it's useless.  You've been had so bad with this one that it's not even funny, it's just sad.

For everyone too fucking lazy to click the link and look at the stations, the lowest reporting for January in 1935 for Vancouver was 408.2mm, dwarfing 2006 without even adding in the extra 61 from snowfall.

Turchany, even with google translate I can't find my way around Hungarian records. If you're interested in a long term look, I think it's somewhere through this: http://www.met.hu/

Psychoak, you are again cherry picking. Yes, 1934 and 1935 had a lot of rain in January, beating the 1940-present 2006 record the article quoted. However, every other year in the 1930s was well below the 2006 record. Long term trends are what matters - not choosing a couple of data points because they make you happy. That goes for the record in 2006 as well - it wouldn't be noteworthy either if it wasn't part of a larger warming trend in winter. I live in Vancouver - as anecdotal as it is, I remember in my childhood getting tons of snow most winters - it is very rare now to have more than a few days of snowfall all winter - unless you are in the mountains, like Whistler.

In a 20 year period from 1990 to 2010, there are five years that broke 200mm.  2005 and 2006 are together, the other three are spread through the 90's.

The trend line at 2006 is ~150mm.

1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936 all broke 200mm in three or more of the five measurements, and were right near it in the few measurements that missed the mark.  Five out of twenty, versus six in a row.

Want to try again?  Or would you rather go ahead and admit that the January rainfall for Vancouver B.C. in the thirties was averaging well over 50mm higher than it was the last ten years?

This is why so many people don't even believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because people can't even tell the truth about basic historical facts.

It appears some are too dense or humorless to get the point: If Haiyan is evidence (it's been claimed so, just like Superhyped Storm Sandy), so is Whistler.

The Ministry of Truth awards eko with an award for accusing people of cherry picking, using cherry picked data to prove the point. Anyone wants to argue further will find themselves at the Ministry of Love.

Yes, it was difficult to find though.

http://www.met.hu/eghajlat/eghajlatvaltozas/megfigyelt_valtozasok/Magyarorszag/

No need to use google translate, I will just tell you what the graphs and pictures are about.

First, the change of the annual mean temperature from 1980-2000, not negligible..

Four trends below each other: mean temperatures of the interval 1901-2009 compared to 1970-2000 as 0. And it is about seasons, spring, summer, autumn and winter.

Two tables next to each other: the change of the seasons mean temperature from 1901 to 2009.

Two graphs next to each other: the change of days having less temperature than 0°C, and the change of days considered to be hot.

Next is a map about the days considered to be hot (daily mean temp above 25°C), I guess it's the average of 1980-2009.

Next is a graph about the change of rainfall, not a huge decrease, but everyone can see it is slowly decreasing.

I got bored after this sorry.

So the basic trends are increasing temperature and slowly decreasing rainfall. I don't have to be an old man to tell the climate has changed drastically, I am only 20 years old but still wheather is so different than in my childhood, after 2000 almost every summer had week long hot times and it is very common to have droughts, and not rare to see records in hot temperatures or low rainfall, or length of drought.

One should note that we are in a place that has continental climate that is a bit changeable, though you can clearly see the trends here..

Our country shows signs that truly fit global warming... And does not show any sign of government interference in data management, as our country has a reliable recording system for a longer time now, and no need or desire tp alter existing data, because that would be totally nonsense here.