Brewbeer Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I'm suggesting that the scientists posting here who support more aggressive action to respond to AGW are posting facts, while you are posting opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 On 10/16/2026 at 8:40 AM, chubbs said: Per the caption title "this data should not be used assess the number of events because of changes in data reporting". The science consensus is clear that climate change is going to lead to increased disaster risk, mainly due to increased event intensity. Here's a report on climate impacts by the US insurance industry. https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Climate-impact-on-insurance-May-2026.pdf The minute we put the words scientific and consensus together we know it is fake news! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 34 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: The minute we put the words scientific and consensus together we know it is fake news! The moment you stamp a 300 word signature below each of your posts we know how desperately difficultly you are trying to plaster your pseudoscientific narratives all across this board. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 the fact that these two threads have comparable viewership and posting rates is laughable and abhorrent. The thread along with its author shouldve been laughed off this board years ago. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfStock1 Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 4 hours ago, Brewbeer said: I'm suggesting that the scientists posting here who support more aggressive action to respond to AGW are posting facts, while you are posting opinions That would be your opinion, and an incorrect one. I could enumerate the many facts that I have posted the past few days, which have *not* been refuted, but it wouldn't matter, since you ignore it all in your blindness and obstinance. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 On 10/20/2026 at 1:58 PM, Cobalt said: the fact that these two threads have comparable viewership and posting rates is laughable and abhorrent. The thread along with its author shouldve been laughed off this board years ago. I’ve ignored him years ago…. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted 19 hours ago Share Posted 19 hours ago Since this concerns the impact of Climate Change across the entire USA and not just one individual county - I am happy to share the below study of Actual raw temperature data vs. the NCEI adjusted data for the entire Continental USA. Please find the below combined US 48 state findings (PA and NY are already posted an online). For the full reports and individual state and county findings as they are released over the next 46 days please check out https://chescowx.com/raw-vs-ncei-state-by-state/ THE MAIN STUDY FINDINGS FOR THE CONTINENTAL USA The NWS raw trained observer temperature record shows no significant warming at all in the contiguous 48 states since 1895!! (+0.01 °F per decade). In fact the temperature trend lines across the entire USA are basically flat from 1895 through 2026! However by contrast NCEI's adjusted temperatures show significant warming in the contiguous 48 states since 1895 (+0.18 °F per decade). That difference between the two trend lines is statistically significant. Combining the 48 statewide records of actual readings, each weighted by the state's land area, gives +0.01 °F per decade from 1895 to 2025 (95% range -0.04 to +0.05), about +0.1 °F in total. NCEI's published contiguous-U.S. series gives +0.18 °F per decade (range +0.12 to +0.23), about +2.3 °F in total. Of note NCEI's adjusted temperatures are lower than the actual readings in every single decade from the 1890s through the 1990s. To dig deeper into these continental US wide findings including please check out https://chescowx.com/raw-vs-ncei-co ntiguous-us/ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted 6 hours ago Share Posted 6 hours ago if data need to be corrected and aren't, the data are incorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 5 hours ago, Brewbeer said: if data need to be corrected and aren't, the data are incorrect "needs" to be "corrected" with estimated homogenization adjustments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewbeer Posted 15 minutes ago Share Posted 15 minutes ago 19 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: "needs" to be "corrected" with estimated homogenization adjustments "data" is the plural form of datum; the grammatically correct scientific usage is "need" the rest of your post is unsubstantiated, same as most of the posts you've made in the subforum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now