You need to LOG IN to reply.

International Falls beats it's all time low by 8 degrees

Forum » Beenos Trumpet » International Falls beats it's all time low by 8 degrees

Jan 29, 2019, 17:52

Chicago will be flirting with it's all time low and lowest high tomorrow. Record lows for the two days are almost certain. Records are being challenged over a vast swath of the third largest land mass on the planet.

Needless to say this is embarrassing for the warming alarmists...but they are never short of a theory. And you guessed it, it's all the fault of global warming. The decline in Arctic polar ice (ice has been receding since the Little Ice Age) apparently makes it warmer because sun rays are not being reflected.....which through some miracle makes it colder in Chicago.

I suppose the fact that we haven't seen a 100 degree day for six years is also global warming. You have to laugh.

Jan 29, 2019, 20:57

More extreme weather either up or down can just as easily be linked to environmental change. 

I would leave this stuff to scientists, who are equipped to make this analysis. Just like the Ozone layer, where scientists were able to divert a biological disaster by alerting governments to ban products that damaged the ozone. The giant hole is thankfully recovering-  but this does prove man can significantly affect the environment.  

If I was asked to prove the hole in the ozone layer, the reality is I do not have the scientific skill or technology to do this. I do not even have a telescope, never mind scientific labs with billions of equipment. These are the same crew that are finding stars billions of light years away, checking planetary weather conditions on thousands of worlds. 

It does seem that more scientists believe that Global warming is a risk than those that do not- so I would tend to take the safer route. As above, I would rather rely on those with the tools and skill set to do this- than make the assumption myself with a limited dataset. 

If this proves wrong in the future, so be it. There is no major loss in being over cautious, particularly with the Ozone situation as the proof man can impact the environment. 

If it is right, then it is avoiding a disaster worse than the ozone layer- that may not be irreversible

The EU governments are giving tax rebates for people that move from fossil fuel cars to electric cars- instead of being reliant on fossil fuels (and the Arabic countries who produce a large percent of the oils).


"It is not 'Where You Live Warming,' it is 'Global Warming,'" Shepherd told CNN.
While portions of the US might be mired in a deep freeze, many other parts of the planet are seeing record-breaking heat waves (like Australia last week).
Trump said that the weather conditions are the coldest ever recorded, while summer conditions have also reported some of the warmest ever recorded. 
Apparently, electric cars will actually become more economical in the future. The engine will require less servicing and the electricity costs will be less than petrol costs. So it does seem to be an evolution from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will themselves run out eventually anyway- so there is no reason to not try find alternatives- in addition to potential environmental risks.
Having a petrol tanker leak all the oil into the sea destroys marine life. Apparently, some fish in the sea have some poison due to this- and even humans from eating fish. Having a natural energy source like solar power would be a much better solution. 

Jan 29, 2019, 22:24

So we simply accept what we are fed....we don't ask questions like:

1 Didn't half of the supposed increase of 1.2 degrees centigrade occur before 1940......before which there was almost no increase in CO2 and how much of the remaining increase can be attributed to the heat island effect, the natural temperature rise after the Little Ice Age and manipulation of data, which has certainly occurred.

2 Haven't the glaciers and polar ice been in decline since the 19th century.

3 Isn't the sun warmer than it was 100 years ago....and doesn't the sun have an effect on temperature.....the Russian scientists believe this, Warming scientists give it zero impact

4 Hasn't the sea been rising since measurements were first taken by tidal gauges in the 1800s.....and why is the rate an almost constant 1.8 mm per year, which by the way gives us 6 inches by the end of the century, hardly catastrophic.

5 Why have the models which supposedly represent the best thinking of the scientists consistently over predicted the increase in temperature.

6 Why would scientists and politicians settle for the Kyoto and Paris accords, which only shift the temperature curve by 5 years according to their models....if they believe we are facing a catastrophe. Why are Warmers like Richard Branson still flying mega miles in huge planes with negligable occupancy and a massive carbon footprint.

7 Why is there no benefit worth mentioning in a warmer planet.....why no discussion of the expanded forests, and new growing areas.

8 Why is population growth, the variable which drives man's carbon footprint not under discussion. Why are China and India still building coal plants if the world is facing a calamity

9 Why, if we are facing a catastrophe, have we turned away from the safest fuel with the smallest carbon footprint.....nuclear. And if seismic risk underpins this move....why has Germany abandoned nuclear, while France continues on the nuclear path.

10 If the scientists can predict all the factors, why did their approved replacement for fluoro carbons to solve the ozone hole, have such a negative carbon profile that it would have been the largest carbon contributor by 2100, if not recently replaced.

So no, I don't believe we can accept the consensus of Western Science in this instance. Their track record is poor and given none of the top journals accept contrary views and NASA survives on global warming, their motivations are suspect.

The behaviour doesn't comport with a group that think the end is nigh as they flit around in their private jets.

As for that convenient argument that it's not global warming where you are.....not true if we are looking at one of the world's great land masses. And of course not true if it actually supports warming. By now if we had big shifts in the probability distribution we should not seeing many record lows.

Yet 5 of the 31 record highs for January in the midwest came between 1880 and 1900.....and by the end of the week 3 of the record lows will have occurred between 2014 and 2018.

This is a fascinating and important issue for mankind, it's tragic that like most things today honest investigation is being subverted by politics.....and pseudo solutions are being foisted on a well meaning but gullible public.

Jan 29, 2019, 23:05

If there's one thing Bozo and his dull-witted Trumpanzees have in common it's the fact that they don't know the difference between weather and climate.

"Duh-huh . . .it's cold where I live today so global warming must be a hoax!"

I mean, really . . .

Jan 30, 2019, 00:23

Wooooosh....fat, stoned, chess failure checks ( no pun intended) in.

Jan 30, 2019, 00:57

1 - consensus is that increase is accelerating. 

2 - The industrial revolution should be the starting point

3 - The sun maybe be slightly, but still negibly warmer

4 - It should not be constant. However given the small period, how accurate is this

5 - The models should not be wrong, but our understanding of science is not 100%

6 - Richard Branson probably could not care less about the environment

7 - There would be some benefits of a warmer climate, but it is assumed that the effects like tidal waves to places on the coastline would not be worth it

8. China does not seem to care about the environment. 

9. Nuclear is not safely contained- yet. We also have people that would like to use Nuclear to destroy countries.

10. This was a better alternative to the ozone hole growing. An upgrade has since happened. It is safe to assume scientists will know more than people that do not work in science- albeit no one is right 100% of the time.

People do accept contrary views, otherwise, action would have been more radical already. No one is sure, but their is not enough data to compare. Not enough data points to be 100% sure of the exact impact.

Private Jets are worsening the problem.

The "gullible" public are relying on scientists, who are more equipped than anyone to make the decision. If I had studied science, and became a scientist I would be more willing to challenge the scientific consensus, if I did not believe it. I have looked at the arguments and from what I can see it is not 100% conclusive but appears to have a solid basis, and it seems to suggest that an increase of 2 degrees over the space of 100 years could be catastrophic. (e.g Tidal waves that could destroy coastal cities). 

To suggest that all the scientists, NASA etc are involved in some type of conspiracy sounds like Beeno's rantics. 

If you were to have a major operation would you have a doctor do this, or attempt the procedure yourself? Doctors are by no means perfect, but they are the most equipped to complete the operation. 

If anything the political motive seems to be from corporations that are people that want to use and sell fossil fuel. Keep the established status quo. 

The only people that could benefit from being anti-fossil fuel are people that are actually selling these products as alternatives to fossil fuels- they would have a commercial motive. 

So, for the average person- the majority of people- they are not going to benefit for either option- in their lifetimes.

The people that would possibly benefit are not even born yet...

Jan 30, 2019, 02:18

This is just large scale modelling, where all the suspected effects have to be parameterized. There is no mathematical equation that solves for those parameters.....they are assumed, or empirically estimated. And there are 100s of them with 100s of interactions.

The result is modelling that predicts and thus far predict badly. There is no credibility unless these models can predict 5 years out....let alone 80 years out.

And this is a system where every scientist knows they wont get published if they produce contrary results. An opaque problem with all the motivation in one direction....why would we be surprised if the majority find for global warming.

So until we stop seeing tail end of the probability distribution events on the negative side, and until we see the model predictions actually comporting with reality....nothing is proven.

Climate is never static, we are probably in a naturally warming period after the Little Ice Age. Any man made amplification of this process is minimal thus far.

And the latest warming truly laughable. Following other rubbish like more hurricanes and the painfully extreme notion that the Gulf stream was going to reverse. Silly stuff.

Jan 30, 2019, 04:14

Your headline alone could be a justification of global warming. It is an inconsistent temperature. Unless your arguement is that the world is actually getting colder....

Looking at your argument and data points, I think it is clear that it is not conclusive. So you are challenging the scientific majority community with little to no facts, just opinions. Your very basis of discrediting the scientific opinion also derails your own argument. 

Jan 30, 2019, 07:13

There you go....every data point, even if it shows record cold is still with us is, is an argument for global warming.

As for your religious belief in science, for decades the medical community has told us fat intake is the main cause of heart disease. Now that view has been largely debunked and carbs are seen as the real enemy, while protein diets are increasingly being touted as healthy.

Just another case of the consensus being dead wrong and we know even less about climate. Here's the description of the Lancet article:


'Low-fat diets could raise the risk of early death by almost one quarter, a major study has found.

The Lancet study of 135,000 adults found those who cut back on fats had far shorter lives than those enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meats.

Researchers said the study was at odds with repeated health advice to cut down on fats.

Those doing so tended to eat far too much stodgy food like bread, pasta and rice, the experts said, while missing out on vital nutrients.

Participants eating the highest levels of carbohydrates – particularly refined sugars found in fizzy drinks and processed meals – faced a 28 per cent higher risk of early death.

The NHS cautions against having too much saturated fat, on the grounds it raises cholesterol levels, increasing the risk of heart disease.

But the latest research, presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress, in Barcelona found those with low intake of saturated fat raised chances of early death by 13 per cent compared to those eating plenty.'

Jan 30, 2019, 08:15

I see we have a slight variation today . . .

"Duh-huh . . . nutritionists can't agree . . . so global warming must be a hoax!"


Jan 30, 2019, 08:30

I don't know the exact figures, but something like 40% of accepted science has been disproved within 20 years. It has to be accepted that science is ever changing. That is science's flaw, and it is also science's beauty. Also, it illustrates just how little we actually know. What I find most interesting, is how often the facts are not only proven incorrect, but that the exact opposite of the "facts" is often found to be the truth. It is for this reason, and the hidden agendas of researchers, that things like climate change and the reasons for it, must be taken with a pinch of salt. There is no conclusive evidence either way, but the one thing that most people seem to be able to agree on, is that the planet is getting hotter. Moz, you touched on it, but I think the biggest threat to the planet is human overpopulation. We know as a "fact", that the current rate of population growth will eventually become unsustainable.  

Jan 30, 2019, 08:42

Not nutritionists Fatty.....the whole of medical science was committed to a theory up till 10 or 15 years ago. Now substantially discarded. And these scientists had the luxury of controlled experiments....not possible in climate science. It's still true that obesity is a problem take heed.

The Earth has slowly warmed over the last century, that's accepted Bloo. Although there are legitimate controversies over heat island effects and measurement cheating.

What the causes are remain murky and will remain so as long as it's career suicide for a scientist the challenge Warming. So the only ones who do tend to be emeritus professors with nothing to lose and with little power base.

The temperature is now minus 20 degrees C as I head to bed....tomorrow should be epic.

Jan 30, 2019, 09:47

The first tell tale sign of some sort of hoax is when politicians and their near family start profiting from the solutions being propagated. How many people know the details of the Paris Accord,  yet have a strong opinion regardless?

Jan 30, 2019, 13:59

"for decades the medical community has told us fat intake is the main cause of heart disease. Now that view has been largely debunked and carbs are seen as the real enemy, while protein diets are increasingly being touted as healthy".

Refuting one scientific claim with another one..... This builds the credence of science, not debunks it. Science will continue to evolve, unlike religion. Some of science is a hypothesis- until proven or disproven facts. 

I can assure you that saturated fat is still considered to be unhealthy, just like salt is. Even saturated fat is a natural part of the human evolutionary diet, so it should be eaten within moderation. No one has ever said that protein is unhealthy- except a tabloid with a claim such as "scientist agree that xyz", tabloid b etc, etc. 

The two main forms of carbohydrates are: 

1. sugars such as fructose, glucose, and lactose. (Has anyone ever said that lots of sugar is good?).

2. starches, which are found in foods such as starchy vegetables (like potatoes or corn), grains, rice, breads, and cereals. (Some sports people still eat starch to bulk up, while others prefer protein heavy diets to get lean).


The Lancet study of 135,000 adults found those who cut back on fats had far shorter lives than those enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meats

Meat is not fat. Red meat is around 70% protein, and white meat can be up to 90% protein (e.g. turkey). The Lancet crew sound like a bunch of monkeys calling themselves scientists. The fat in meat is often unsaturated fat- which is actually very healthy. If the animal has eaten lots of grain, if may have more saturated fat. 


The NHS cautions against having too much-saturated fat, on the grounds it raises cholesterol levels, increasing the risk of heart disease.

Nothing new here, just confirming the accepted opinion that too much-saturated fat is bad for you.


low intake of saturated fat raised chances of early death by 13 per cent compared to those eating plenty.'

Fat is a natural part of the human diet, the scientific argument is that too much-saturated fat is bad for you.


Jan 30, 2019, 15:53

My what a little Mary, Mary Quite Contrary you are.......people were being told to eat pasta and forgo red meat. That view is substantially changed......there is no more mainstream a journal in medicine than the Lancet.

So science gets it wrong all the time.....the 70s view the earth was cooling, the almost universal prediction 25 years ago that oil production was close to peaking, the initial view that Aids was a death sentence....all cases where the consensus was proven wrong.

Nobody is saying that there is no effect from the man made CO2 in the atmosphere....but the effects have not been great so far and the some of the theories like CO2 caused Tsunamis are pathetic. We do need a better handle on the problem but we wont get one until we get rid of the Climate Inquistion.

This has all the characteristics of religious intolerance perpetrated by those who despise religion.

Jan 30, 2019, 16:03

Nutritionists have disagreed forever on what we should or shouldn't be eating. It's nothing new. carbs are good and then they're bad, fat is bad and now it's good . . . just Google "healthy diet" and you'll get such a diverse range of opinions.

No-one disputes this.

An intelligent person would say the reason for this is that we all have different metabolisms and a diet that suits one person won't necessarily suit someone else.

A stupid person would say that it proves that science is wrong.

Jan 30, 2019, 16:23

I see, the Lancet publishes stupid research and the findings of this study are wrong. Good one Koos.

Jan 30, 2019, 16:27

And as luck would have it, there is a large piece today in the Financial Times, a climate change advocate, saying Merkel's policies have failed. While 40% of electricity is now provided by renewables.....the total carbon footprint hasn't changed. This is largely due to the emotional decision to exit nuclear....leaving countries like the UK and France as the leaders in new climate policy.

Policy made by 'do gooding' instincts rarely produces the intended results.

Jan 30, 2019, 19:06

My grandmother told me to eat pasta and forgo red meat. 

It is often not the food itself, but how it is prepared and preserved that makes it contain saturated fat. Orange juice can be fattening - especially if it has been filled with preservatives. 

Jan 30, 2019, 20:12

Rudeneck, this WHOOSH is especially for you!!! Enjoy!

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top