People, stop being idiots and acting like scientists are claiming absolute knowledge of everything involved (and therefore you have to dispute them as being know it all pricks when something new impacts their claims), or that cooling (or actually mitigation of warming) refutes their claims. It just makes you look like an ignorant dumbfuck who's intentionally blatantly ignoring a large portion of the facts.
I'm guessing a lot of people's attitudes on this is in their mind justified in response to political caricature attribution, although I'm not sure why you think doing the exact same thing doesn't make you look the same. Only you're also being a dick for just being reactionary dumbfuck that instead of actually making a coherent argument backed up by something other than your belief that the other side is wrong, you just resort to the same level of idiocy you claim from the other side.
I was going to say the same thing. Don't worry they will find a way to bring climate change into this as the cause.
Or perhaps they will just make sure it's buried information so nobody knows the real cause, much like how they rarely mention the greater activity of certain sun cycles.
Real cause, of what? A volcano erupting? Ah yes, they're always so keen to bury that information. Oh wait, no its sun cycles that's what caused the eruption! Oh, you mean you were just trying to spout off shit that you think refutes AGW? Ah yes, they just bury that information, nevermind that its openly actively studied and is and has been considered for its impact on climate change. But you're right, I'm sure scientists have just been ignoring the input from the sun, despite it being the source of the general energy for the planet, and the key source of the solar radiation that dictates the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and surface. Its only a basic part of the situation, I'm sure they just left it out entirely.
Weird, because something tells me they'd argue that greenhouse effect is actually even worse for that as it means the trapping will be even worse during the high points, while mitigating the temperature reduction during the low points, in effect, overall leading to warmer temps throughout.
Oh what's this?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Damn it, look at NASA trying to bury that information!
It's a little bit serious, If you are regularly complaining about the earth warming, then don't complain again when it may cool.
A little bit serious but a lot stupid. Do we really need to discuss why cooling because of a volcanic eruption isn't just an absolutely positive thing? Hell that's actually a point climate science has been making is we're seeing delayed effects because of cooling due to volcanic activity, which has skewed models, and is why we've seen delay in the effects. That means we will still see the change, but it'll likely be compounded so the change will be more rapid later.
There are other factors as well, like it impacting plant growth. Thankfully its generally not much of an issue, but volcanic eruptions could have devastating impact on food production.
In short, its a lot more complex than just temperature and acting like a simple thermostat change is all that's happening. But nah, anyone who complains is just being a hypocritical asshole who really has nothing to complain about.
"The Farmers Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists dont put much stock in the almanacs way of doing things, the book says its accurate about 80 percent of the time."
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/r...e-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz3BKUEtxIV
I heard 80% accurate. I was quite surprised when I first heard that number but that is the number that keeps coming up.
Did you actually read your link? Because the source for 80% are the people who write the book. That's why it keeps coming up.
Guess where
they get it from?
The Almanac Publishing Company claims readers of the Farmers Almanac have attributed an 80 to 85 percent accuracy rate to the publications annual forecasts.
You're right, that holds up to scrutiny, no reason at all to question the validity of that claim.