From the Independent:

They disappeared that article.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/...-the-internet/

One thing is, news stories and articles on news sites are not permanent residents of the internet. 15 years is a long time. Looking up historical news stories on BBC also gives me a 404 occationaly.

Another ting is, Wattsupwiththat is a known climate change denial blog posing as a "sceptic" blog.

Here's a similarly named site
https://wottsupwiththat.com/about/

Oh, and the article can still be found on the internet. Then again, them not being open about being flat out deniers, one can expect less than accurate headlines from them, not to mention less accurate reporting.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01...k-independent/

True. But Independent has a lot of articles online older than that. I think we can credibly claim they removed that specific article for a reason.

There was a reason, unless they are completely mad running around removing articles at random. Not all reasons are nefarious though, is what I'm saying. I don't know why it was removed. Spring cleaning, evil overlords, articles lost if they moved to a new server, some clown pressing the wrong button, or it just wasn't interesting enough to keep, all different reasons and these are just a small selection of what might have caused it to be removed.

I think he's simply pointing out that it doesn't fit the global warming narrative.

This is in the same vein as a report a few years ago that US congress had to cancel hearings on global warming because DC got snowed in (ignoring for the time being that "snowed in" in DC = a light dusting.)

I don't think anyone believes climate change isn't real. But those of us without a huge amount of intellectual arrogance don't think that people can have any appreciable effect on an entire planet. We've gone through warming and cooling cycles over the eons - which pretty much directly correspond to solar cycles and magnetic field reversals.

We're nothing - and if the planet decides to shake us off like a dog shedding water, there isn't anything we'll be able to do about it. We haven't even figured out how to not sustain damage from hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados, so there is no chance we'll ever tame the weather...

Yes, thanks, that's kinda hard for me to ignore. There may be a legit reason the article was disappeared other than embarrassment.

I'm not a denier, but I am a sceptic. In any case, if you think man's activities are influencing the climate significantly, ok, I won't argue with that but I do firmly believe, quite firmly, that to reverse man's effects will take a lot more sacrifice than anyone thinks or dares. People are all for making a difference...until it hits them where they live.

I am also sceptic, but weather events alone do not count, it is about the general average temperature over the years, and the trend is obvious.

Before the weekend there were -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) here with lots of snow and ice rain, since sunday there is intensive sunshine with +20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), within two days, in february. The sudden changes are crazy.

Humans do not look far ahead in time, seems the brain is also incapable of doing so. This is not the article i looked for, but it illustrates a bit. There is a cognitive bias against the future, and this is why denial is generally preferred to thinking ahead.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04...he-future.html

Sure, I won't argue that the weather is final proof one way or another. It does seem like with 8 billion people and cars and power plants and cows, it could have a negative effect on the climate. Some people are very certain of it; scientists, for one, who are smarter than me, so I'm listening.

The problem is that too many scientists don't want to actually go through the scientific method and possibly be proven wrong. It's all about that grant money gravy train for many of them.

I think we all need to grasp the idea that going 100% emission free is unobtainable. It is evident that a mixture of emissions emitting energy producers(oil, natural gas, coal) and renewable energy sources is the only path to take. Both are dependent on each other to do the job they are designed to do. Electric cars do not charge themselves(limitedly on some vehicles when the brakes are applied). There is not enough windmills to charge millions of vehicles overnight. This is were power plants come into play. Infrastructure to support electric vehicles is decades in the making. Also, these electric vehicles are limited in distance. More suited for urban driving. Forget a coast to coast run without taking a hard look at charging stations. Miles in between stations. The time to charge. EV have a long way to go. Batteries are hazardous waste and will be the next issue in the landfills. I'm not opposed to EV at all. These vehicles are instant torque monsters. The Mustang E is a 3.8 second 0-60 rolling battery. That will leave a lasting impression on one's butt!

This reminds me of a meeting that took place several years ago, of "experts" who debated what could be done if a super massive asteroid/meterorite was found heading straight for earth, threatening instant annihilation of all life. These "experts" concluded that nothing could be done since the only practical solutions would cost too much money. To save the economy, they reasoned, we would all (all 7+ billions of us + all other life forms) have to perish, in other words....Here I refer to Catfish above and his post about our inability to think very far ahead. It appears to me this debate is going down the same path.

Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death was the title of an album released in the 80's. Sound track of this debate it seems to me.

Catfish is also correct in that climate change is not about whether it will snow this year. It's about long term trends. It's about the frequency and severity of extreme weather over a time frame of decades or more. It is also about scientists not wanting to see the temperature reaching that unknown threshold of no return where Earth will go down the same path Venus did.

As for humans effecting Earth, just look at the ozone layer. There were big holes up there then in the 1980's there was the Montreal Protocol. Now the ozone layer is healthier than ever. We absolutely can make a difference.

It has to be from my memory.

We are facing a kind of a record here in Denmark and southern part of Sweden. Temp. above 10 degrees which is unormal in February.

When seeing the weather forecast some days ago and saw how high temp we will get I was thinking:

These expert on Climate change has said the temp. will go up.

Then yesterday I read in a Swedish article(which I can't find anymore) that the The Gulf Stream has decreased with 15-20 % the last xx decades.
Furthermore in the article it said-If the The Gulf Stream cease to exist temp around -50 degrees could be a reality in Sweden during the winter.

It's not only Sweden, many other countries, Like Norway, Denmark, UK and so on will get harsh winter.

Markus

I have not doubt humans can make a difference....either positive or negative. Just stripping forest of trees for whatever the wood is to utilized for causes changes regionally and globally. Emissions from vehicles today are totally on the other end of the spectrum compared to vehicles 3 decades ago and certainly beyond. R-12 refrigerant is a ozone killer. Now cars are filled with friendlier R-134.

In my mind, eventually population growth will need to be curtailed as this mud ball we call earth can not continue to support human population growth as seen.

I don't think anyone is serving that daily weather is a predictor of long term trends.

The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data.

We know that climate change proponents have, for example, arbitrarily thrown out data from stations that are recording cooler temps and lower levels of CO2 than they need n order to make reality for their model. You discard outlier data from different measurements from the same station. You don't throw out the entire station.

We also have *no* real ideas of what the climate did before we started recording data. We can go off of imperfect personal accounts throughout the ages and we also know that the earth has been warming since the middle ages and since the end of the pleistocene before that. The best we can do is things like counting tree rings and carbon dating, which have their own issues when it comes to accuracy. But - data recorded by prior civilizations? Good luck with that.

In our arrogance, for all we know, the planet is supposed to be warmer - more diversity of life, more O2-CO2 exchange between plants and animals, more evolutionary change.

Don't count out alternative fuels. Porsche efuel or synthetic fuel.



https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/pors...181000252.html