Lv 6
David asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 month ago

Has science on YA declined with false claims by the conspiracy theorists?

The weather girl troll claims the science (and a particular variety of ice cream) is on his side, but rarely cites any actual peer reviewed papers. In response to his claims I have easily found and posted well over 100 papers documenting the negative effects of warming observed to date, at both regional and global scales.  

Here are 31 of those papers, all of which are global or hemispheric in scope. All are based on observations over decades, rather than predictions or models, and all four categories represent changes which are harmful to humanity. 


1. <<Hurricanes have decreased both in number and landfall>>

My claim is based on intensity, not number, so this is a strawman rebuttal. 

Update 2:

2. << regional land transitioning to semi-arid is not drought>> Can you read? I specifically said "Dry areas are expanding", i.e. two points. I did not say they are the same effect. And of course not every piece of land on Earth is experiencing uniform drying, but the papers I cite show that overall dry area is expanding, and droughts are becoming more frequent and more intense globally. One graph or one meme does not cancel out 9 papers, no matter how many hundreds of times you re-post it.

Update 3:

3. <<Urban areas get hotter because of more buildings>> The only paper specific to urban areas was Mishra 2015, the others are not limited to urban areas. Most papers on heat waves are regional rather than global and I have further demonstrated that they are increasing in: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, India, USA, China, Iran, Greece, South America, and Turkey.

Update 4:

4. <<but I showed seven studies of decreased precipitation.>> Actually, you showed one study. The fact that they looked at 7 different data sets when performing their analysis doesn't mean it was "7 studies". Please refer to my graphic if you need a reference for what citing "7 studies" actually looks like. 

Update 5:

Oh, and I am (still) not Dirac.

Update 6:

"Let's head out" and the weather girl can't even manage an answer without resorting to conspiracy theories about me. I imagine weather girl blaming every ding on his car and pain in his knee on Dirac. A true mental case. 

Attachment image

6 Answers

  • Dirac
    Lv 4
    1 month ago
    Favourite answer

    EDIT: "Hot Weather Girls..." is such an idiot, he addresses his answer to me, even though he doesn't talk about ANYTHING  I said and is responding to David. Believe me, David has put in more effort than I typically would on a question. I have a bit of "face blindness", but Hot Weather Girls has Yahoo account blindness, and seems to think they're all the same. I don't see him ever responding to the points that I make--he could, for example, respond in an email, since my email is right here, dirac314 at yahoo dot com, but Hot Weather Girls is a troll that just parrots denial websites, he doesn't know enough about science himself to even figure out which side he should be arguing for, so he just copies and pastes.

    There used to be people on the denial side that would ask questions that were at least partially grounded in science.  There was one called Randall/Didier Drogba that I probably had the most respect for.  Ottawa Mike also, although he tended to ask the same questions again and again and ignore the answers. Dr Jello occasionally asked good questions but he was never really interested in the answers, and he blocked people if they pointed out he was lying. Kano asked some good questions and, at least when he first came here, seemed interested in learning.

    Those days are gone  The denial side is primarily now the Weather Girl troll, who blocks people that understand science and who point out that the conclusions he draws from the papers he cites are usually wrong. He depends on blind acceptance of the things he says, and people like JimZ and Davie Bwoi are happy to oblige.

    Of course there is also Solar Wind, who lives in his own world of crackpot science. The sad thing is that I think most people on the denial side, like JimZ, are closer to the crackpot world of Solar Wind than they are to conventional science. It's sad that there are so many people with such strong opinions and so little interest in learning the relevant science.

    Finally, I should point out that you have done a really exemplary job of refuting largely irrelevant papers with ones that actually address the questions.

    EDIT: I edited this answer and must have accidentally clicked the "anonymous" button, that was a mistake that I have undone.

  • 1 month ago

    Everyone knows that you and Koshka are Dirac.

  • Koshka
    Lv 5
    1 month ago

    I think this category was initially for asking and answering questions about solutions. But there were a little bit more intelligent questions and answers, also there were more participants with a scientific background. As for the general Y!A site, you take a look in astronomy or earth science and geology and they have flat earthers for years now! 

    Good job with the refutation meme, at least it is backed up with scientific papers. The Clown Troll Denier Buffoon does not know the difference between old ice, that is long gone and thin winter ice. He (they) don't know the difference between intensity and number, they don't know that hurricanes and typhoons are really cyclones happening in different places, they don't know what frequency of events means, they can't read a graph, much less plot one and have no idea what divergence means, and they simply don't want to know. They only can post memes from denial blogs, accuse anyone sane of being Dirac and ask about ice cream. 

    That troll used to post in Military, type Leo Black, Little Mickey and Ninefingers in Search Answers box and you'll find obvious similarities and patterns. They are not very bright to begin with and it's no longer entertaining at this point.

    As for the entire world, it's like being in Back To The Future 2.

    Source(s): Their Nemesis
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    I don’t think Dirac is interpreting it correctly. 

    The source is dubious.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Tells us how a civil engineer with a full time job and new baby has time to read dozens of studies and post on a two bit forum like Yahoo.  Tell us how you have time in the middle of the work day to play on Yahoo so often.  

  • 1 month ago


    I have thoroughly checked your past research. It hardly shows anything you say.

    1. Hurricanes have decreased both in number and landfall (see graph below). A twister spinning in the middle of the ocean is meaningless.

    2. Drought. No, global droughts are actually becoming less frequent (see yellow and red graph below). Also, a regional land transitioning to semi-arid is not drought. Nor is it global.

    3. Heatwaves. No, there is no peer review of global increase. Two days of records temps is not a heat wave. Urban areas get hotter because of more buildings and concrete is not global, nor does it indicate heat waves trends. Weather "associated" with a heat wave event does not indicate heat wave itself.

    4. You did show six studies of increased precipitation, but I showed seven studies of decreased precipitation. Basically cancelling each other out. If doesn't matter in practical terms anyway because global food production is up and that there isn't increased global flooding.

    Attachment image
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.