And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction.
Aren't we all our own final arbiters of Truth and Fiction?
You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true,
I don't have a team in your politics, but I recognize bull shit when someone writes it. Claiming that Hillary Clinton "got away with actual literal treason" is bullshit and you ought to know it too. It's not because I think Hillary Clinton is innocent as pure driven snow, for example, if you want to claim she committed gross negligence in handling classified documents, and should get jail time, I'll disagree with your position (and I'll back up my disagreement with facts), but I won't question your grip on reality.
yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.
Not really, I think it's pretty unlikely that Mueller will find any damning evidence that Trump actually colluded with the Russians to win the election. I find it amusingly ironic that a book that the Trump White House has declared as Fake News, Fire and Fury, actually does a pretty good job of explaining one potential reason why collusion at the top level of Trump's presidential campaign is unlikely to be found: Trump never planned to win. If that claim is true (I find it more amusing than convincing, given the source), then Trump couldn't have collaborated with the Russians to win the election because he never wanted to win until after he did. If Trump planned to lose the election, and managed to screw it up by winning, then he has a pretty good defence against that accusation, but frankly, Trump probably can't admit that until after the 2020 election because if he says it, then his followers might realize they'd been manipulated and duped by a con man, and then they might not vote for him in 2020...
Anyway, I'm not sure what you think I should be believing or not believing here. Mueller is definitely investigating and indictments have been laid against people, and people have plead guilty. That's more than an iota of evidence for something, according to my perspective. Or am I supposed to believe that there is no Mueller, no Mueller investigation, and the whole thing has been made up by the media?
No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.
No, you won't. You're going to share your truth every time you post, just like I am. You don't have to like or believe what I write, but you can't stop me from making fun of the crazies who write ridiculous posts. Don't worry, though, I also make fun of the crazy liberals, when I see them, it's just there really aren't that many on Slashdot any more and when I do see them, the Warriors for Trump have already beaten me to the punch...
This is why Fake News is dangerous, the AC I'm replying to may actually believe that everything he wrote is actually true. In the good old days, you know, when America was Great, people like him used to get jackets with long sleeves and rooms with padded walls.
Read some of the questions posed by the community which the self-proclaimed "pro-science" community has dubbed "anti-science."
Why do insist on telling lies? None of the questions you listed are deemed "anti-science" by anyone with any credibility.
They want to know to what extent climate change is influenced by man's activities and to what extent it is a natural phenomenon. Is it 90/10? 50/50?
100/0, except in a few specific years where strong El Ninos have a temporary warming effect that exceeds the natural cooling trend.
We don't know the answer.
You may not, we do. That's one of the settled questions.
They want to know what, short of abandoning society, we can do to keep earth safe and hospitable.
No one serious is recommending that we abandon society. There are so many things we can do that listing them all here would be prohibitively long, but the single biggest thing is reducing consumption of the fossil fuels that release CO2 (and other green house gases) into the atmosphere.
What would be the measurable effects of our mitigating activities, what would be the cost, etc.
That depends on which mitigating activities, but in total the cost of mitigation is estimated to be at about 1-2% of GDP, which for reference is about the same as it costs the world's cities to maintain their sewer infrastructure.
They want to know what we can expect in terms of weather change and when such changes will be quantifiable. I've actually seen some lively discussion on this last point, and scientists in this community agree we don't have a statistically significant data set re: extreme weather and have no basis for proving/disproving AGW/extreme weather hypotheses at this time.
Such changes are already quantifiable, there was an article about that just a few weeks ago. Weather events are effectively random, however, climate change influences the frequency, distribution, and severity of those events.
I guess they're "science deniers," right???:D They should quit asking questions so we can "get some work done" right???
I did say stupid questions. Of course, several of your questions are pretty dumb including the "how much of the warming trend is natural" question because it's been answered so many times before, and the "what can we do other than abandon society" question, because you are implying that's what other people want you to do, and it's likely you're doing it so you can feel validated in doing nothing because you imagine other people's solutions are inherently impractical. As an example of why people grow tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over, I've personally answered the how much of the warming is natural question on Slashdot over 20 times.
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?
It hasn't, if you look at figure 4.31 on this page. You notice a rapid rise in sea level after the end of the glacial period, followed by a leveling off of sea level rise. Natural forces would eventually turn that into a slow sea level fall as we descended into the next glacial period. Instead sea level rise is now accelerating due to anthropogenic factors.
I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age.
We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual.
Yes we do, anthropogenic forces have inverted the direction of the climate change (see previous point), and I doubt any actual climate experts would agree with your amateur assessment of the HADCET data.
As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo.
I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. Water vapour concentrations are determined by air temperature so increases in CO2 concentration cause a feedback effect that also increases the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing air temperature and therefore also increasing the amount of water vapour as well. While Albedo may have the potential be larger than CO2 forcings, current measurements do not show a significant change in the earth's albedo.
The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future.
I sincerely doubt the veracity of a claim that none of the computer models account for changes in albedo. Can you prove this claim? Because this 2014 paper claims to be examining the accuracy of surface albedo feedback in 11 different models. It seems it would be difficult to do that if none of the models accounted for surface albedo feedbacks.
It kind of seems like everything you think you know about the climate and climate modelling is wrong. You might want to go back and check your sources, if they are telling you things that aren't true, you need to find better sources.
People who push "settled science" are misinformed about what science actually is.
The "science is settled" isn't about "theory as truth" it's about "stop wasting our time with stupid questions that we have already answered 50 times". It's about unqualified people who think the actual experts have never considered the sun, clouds, or the ocean.
Really, it's about "stop wasting our time with your stupidity, and let us get some work done".
Hmm. According to this article in the Guardian, it's 100% over the period of 1951 to 2010. Why 100%? Because over that period non-anthropogenic climate factors had a net cooling effect, reducing the impact of anthropogenic warming factors. So the net effect of anthropogenic climate factors was larger than the observed warming trend.
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
You forgot the other part of the story, which is that predictions that the earth is going to warm by less than 2 degrees C are also "not credible", according to this particular study. This study indicates the most likely climate sensitivity value is approximately 2.8 C which is slightly lower that the AR4 most likely estimate of 3.0 C. This is a bit of good news - bad news, because it rules out some the worst and some of the best case scenarios. Overall, it's slightly positive because a slightly lower sensitivity value means we have slightly more flexibility to deal with global warming.
In case anyone is wondering what climate sensitivity is, it's how much warming results from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's been a gradual thing, over time conservatives have lost their focus on moral values, and have shifted to winning at any cost. Of course, if all you care about is winning at any cost, then you will forgive lies as long as you think they're helping your side to win.
But when it's your side doing it, it's A-okay, right?
My "side" is truth and reason. I don't know what side you think I am on, but I don't appreciate anyone trying to manipulate me.
I see a ton of it from BOTH sides, but only one side gets villified by the press and slashdot. Wonder why that is . . ..
You are apparently talking about American politics, ever bother to actually check if one side is more truthful than the other? I did and it's why I am no longer a conservative.
This isn't a "PR war". It's a disclosure. It's cluing the rubes into what the implications of all of this are. A lot of them don't get it. They aren't informed enough to consent to the anal cavity search you seem so fond of.
No, it's not. It's just unethical propagandists engaged in scaremongering to try and trick people into voting for Republicans.
It's the same scaremongering editing they used in their previous videos where they take things out of context and play scary music to make it seem sinister.
Of course, if you believe them the last tie they tricked you, you'll probably believe them this time too.
I thought that conservative politics meant people who wanted less government regulation, less taxes, a smaller deficit, and more personal liberties.
Ha. Only if you're not paying attention to what conservatives (in America) do. It's actually all about beating liberals, regardless of principles, values or ethics. Winning is the only thing that matters to America's modern conservatives, just look to the President for the ultimate example of just how far America's conservatives have fallen.
Sigh. The point the article was making was that Damore is suing Google for being too pro-diversity and Altheid quit because Google was not pro-diversity enough. That's important because it undercuts the premise behind Damore's lawsuit that conservative opinions are silenced because they're conservative. It points to an alternate explanation, that diversity discussions were being shut down because they were controversial and not beneficial to the work environment. If Damore posted his memo after the diversity discussions had already been shut down, more than once, because of internal flame wars, he may have been fired not for his specific views but rather for disobeying the request to let the issue go, and deliberately stirring up trouble.
Well considering that virtually none of the "Fake News" that Trump denounces is actually, in any way, fake, no I'm not surprised any more when Trump declares something fake news. However, I am surprised that Trump would file suite against Steve Bannon for violating an NDA by talking about what happened during the Trump campaign over what was written in a supposedly "fake news" book.
It should make you wonder why, if the book is fake, Trump is threatening the people who supposedly didn't talk to the author? And why he's threatening to sue them about things they supposedly didn't tell Wolff. I mean if Wollf made it all up, the Trump should only be angry with Wolff, right? So why is he calling for Steve Bannon's head on a platter?
These people didn't even know they had to hire their own White House staff.
Well to be fair, they weren't expecting to have to do that for the practical reason that they had planned to lose the election. It was Trump's plan to actually lose the election, he was running for the fame and the followers and so he could use them to launch his own right wing news network. I don't know if they were going to try and call it the Trump News Network (TNN) but I'd bet they would have tried.
It is darkly amusing that Trump managed to screw up losing the presidential election...
Both of those papers deal with overestimation for a particular 15 year period (1998 - 2013) and the second is based on tropospheric satellite measurements rather than ground temperature measurement like the first study. There have are disputing papers that say the divergence is within the bounds of natural variability, and this nature article seems to sum up the divergence issue: "There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence."
In any case, there have been multiple developments that indicate that the temperature record was biased low over the period both your papers consider in several areas: ocean warming, temperature coverage at the poles, and systematic errors in satellite measurements. Each of which has been found to have a small, but significant, effect on the temperature record. It doesn't look like Fyfe and company have released a new paper that accounts for those issues, yet.
Much of the current problems with climate reality in my view can be traced back to scientists going that extra mile to sound alarms and suggest or imply political remedies.
Bullshit. Most of the current problems with the acceptance of climate reality can actually be traced back to ideological opposition, initially funded by corporations who feared regulation that would reduce their profit margins. It was deliberately politicized and not by the scientists.
This explains why you don't understand anything about climate change, it seems you can't be bothered to read enough to understand. Here's a very simple explanation of both of things you find too incredible to believe:
Extreme cold events can be an effect of climate change because warming in Arctic allows the still very cold air to travel further south by weakening the air currents that used to keep that cold air trapped over the Arctic. It's important to understand that when that cold air escapes from the Arctic, it is replaced by (relatively) warmer air, thus further warming the Arctic, weakening the currents and allowing that cold to escape even further south. Because the escaped polar air also warms at it travels further south, on average, the entire area ends up being warmer than before, even though some areas are much colder than they used to be.
Floods and droughts both being caused by climate change should be obvious. Warm air picks up water from one location (deepening drought) and drops it in another (increasing floods). If you don't understand that, you don't even have a grade 4 level of science knowledge and are completely unqualified to participate in this discussion.
So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
Silly anonymous coward, they didn't call you names because you dared to question the truth. They called you names because you acted like an ass, insulted everyone who tried to help you and then repeated the exact same question after it had been answered the first six times. They don't hate you for questioning the truth, they hate because you're an awful person and everybody knows it.
Science: This is what it looks like is going to happen (prediction)
Politics: You must change your behavior.
So...
Science: If you deny reality, make up arguments, pretend to be care but refuse to ever justify your own position with any evidence, you will be labeled a denier?
Politics: Nu-uh, because Fake News! Chinese Conspiracy! Climategate!
Slashdot Mirror
And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction.
Aren't we all our own final arbiters of Truth and Fiction?
You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true,
I don't have a team in your politics, but I recognize bull shit when someone writes it. Claiming that Hillary Clinton "got away with actual literal treason" is bullshit and you ought to know it too. It's not because I think Hillary Clinton is innocent as pure driven snow, for example, if you want to claim she committed gross negligence in handling classified documents, and should get jail time, I'll disagree with your position (and I'll back up my disagreement with facts), but I won't question your grip on reality.
yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.
Not really, I think it's pretty unlikely that Mueller will find any damning evidence that Trump actually colluded with the Russians to win the election. I find it amusingly ironic that a book that the Trump White House has declared as Fake News, Fire and Fury, actually does a pretty good job of explaining one potential reason why collusion at the top level of Trump's presidential campaign is unlikely to be found: Trump never planned to win. If that claim is true (I find it more amusing than convincing, given the source), then Trump couldn't have collaborated with the Russians to win the election because he never wanted to win until after he did. If Trump planned to lose the election, and managed to screw it up by winning, then he has a pretty good defence against that accusation, but frankly, Trump probably can't admit that until after the 2020 election because if he says it, then his followers might realize they'd been manipulated and duped by a con man, and then they might not vote for him in 2020...
Anyway, I'm not sure what you think I should be believing or not believing here. Mueller is definitely investigating and indictments have been laid against people, and people have plead guilty. That's more than an iota of evidence for something, according to my perspective. Or am I supposed to believe that there is no Mueller, no Mueller investigation, and the whole thing has been made up by the media?
No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.
No, you won't. You're going to share your truth every time you post, just like I am. You don't have to like or believe what I write, but you can't stop me from making fun of the crazies who write ridiculous posts. Don't worry, though, I also make fun of the crazy liberals, when I see them, it's just there really aren't that many on Slashdot any more and when I do see them, the Warriors for Trump have already beaten me to the punch...
42 of course.
This is why Fake News is dangerous, the AC I'm replying to may actually believe that everything he wrote is actually true. In the good old days, you know, when America was Great, people like him used to get jackets with long sleeves and rooms with padded walls.
Read some of the questions posed by the community which the self-proclaimed "pro-science" community has dubbed "anti-science."
Why do insist on telling lies? None of the questions you listed are deemed "anti-science" by anyone with any credibility.
They want to know to what extent climate change is influenced by man's activities and to what extent it is a natural phenomenon. Is it 90/10? 50/50?
100/0, except in a few specific years where strong El Ninos have a temporary warming effect that exceeds the natural cooling trend.
We don't know the answer.
You may not, we do. That's one of the settled questions.
They want to know what, short of abandoning society, we can do to keep earth safe and hospitable.
No one serious is recommending that we abandon society. There are so many things we can do that listing them all here would be prohibitively long, but the single biggest thing is reducing consumption of the fossil fuels that release CO2 (and other green house gases) into the atmosphere.
What would be the measurable effects of our mitigating activities, what would be the cost, etc.
That depends on which mitigating activities, but in total the cost of mitigation is estimated to be at about 1-2% of GDP, which for reference is about the same as it costs the world's cities to maintain their sewer infrastructure.
They want to know what we can expect in terms of weather change and when such changes will be quantifiable. I've actually seen some lively discussion on this last point, and scientists in this community agree we don't have a statistically significant data set re: extreme weather and have no basis for proving/disproving AGW/extreme weather hypotheses at this time.
Such changes are already quantifiable, there was an article about that just a few weeks ago. Weather events are effectively random, however, climate change influences the frequency, distribution, and severity of those events.
I guess they're "science deniers," right??? :D They should quit asking questions so we can "get some work done" right???
I did say stupid questions. Of course, several of your questions are pretty dumb including the "how much of the warming trend is natural" question because it's been answered so many times before, and the "what can we do other than abandon society" question, because you are implying that's what other people want you to do, and it's likely you're doing it so you can feel validated in doing nothing because you imagine other people's solutions are inherently impractical. As an example of why people grow tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over, I've personally answered the how much of the warming is natural question on Slashdot over 20 times.
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?
It hasn't, if you look at figure 4.31 on this page. You notice a rapid rise in sea level after the end of the glacial period, followed by a leveling off of sea level rise. Natural forces would eventually turn that into a slow sea level fall as we descended into the next glacial period. Instead sea level rise is now accelerating due to anthropogenic factors.
I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age.
No, it hasn't "been warming since the last Ice Age", global temperatures have, in fact been declining since they peaked about 7,500 years ago.
We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual.
Yes we do, anthropogenic forces have inverted the direction of the climate change (see previous point), and I doubt any actual climate experts would agree with your amateur assessment of the HADCET data.
As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo.
I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. Water vapour concentrations are determined by air temperature so increases in CO2 concentration cause a feedback effect that also increases the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing air temperature and therefore also increasing the amount of water vapour as well. While Albedo may have the potential be larger than CO2 forcings, current measurements do not show a significant change in the earth's albedo.
The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future.
I sincerely doubt the veracity of a claim that none of the computer models account for changes in albedo. Can you prove this claim? Because this 2014 paper claims to be examining the accuracy of surface albedo feedback in 11 different models. It seems it would be difficult to do that if none of the models accounted for surface albedo feedbacks.
It kind of seems like everything you think you know about the climate and climate modelling is wrong. You might want to go back and check your sources, if they are telling you things that aren't true, you need to find better sources.
People who push "settled science" are misinformed about what science actually is.
The "science is settled" isn't about "theory as truth" it's about "stop wasting our time with stupid questions that we have already answered 50 times". It's about unqualified people who think the actual experts have never considered the sun, clouds, or the ocean.
Really, it's about "stop wasting our time with your stupidity, and let us get some work done".
Hmm. According to this article in the Guardian, it's 100% over the period of 1951 to 2010. Why 100%? Because over that period non-anthropogenic climate factors had a net cooling effect, reducing the impact of anthropogenic warming factors. So the net effect of anthropogenic climate factors was larger than the observed warming trend.
Their source for those figures was the IPCC AR5 report.
So, at least some of the time scientists are willing to give a specific answer to the question of "How much of the warming is caused by AGW?"
What kind of moron thinks "recorded history" extends back 4.5 billion years?
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
You forgot the other part of the story, which is that predictions that the earth is going to warm by less than 2 degrees C are also "not credible", according to this particular study. This study indicates the most likely climate sensitivity value is approximately 2.8 C which is slightly lower that the AR4 most likely estimate of 3.0 C. This is a bit of good news - bad news, because it rules out some the worst and some of the best case scenarios. Overall, it's slightly positive because a slightly lower sensitivity value means we have slightly more flexibility to deal with global warming.
In case anyone is wondering what climate sensitivity is, it's how much warming results from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's been a gradual thing, over time conservatives have lost their focus on moral values, and have shifted to winning at any cost. Of course, if all you care about is winning at any cost, then you will forgive lies as long as you think they're helping your side to win.
My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.
How about you just try not to be a jackass in the future, ok?
But when it's your side doing it, it's A-okay, right?
My "side" is truth and reason. I don't know what side you think I am on, but I don't appreciate anyone trying to manipulate me.
I see a ton of it from BOTH sides, but only one side gets villified by the press and slashdot. Wonder why that is . . . .
You are apparently talking about American politics, ever bother to actually check if one side is more truthful than the other? I did and it's why I am no longer a conservative.
{sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}
This isn't a "PR war". It's a disclosure. It's cluing the rubes into what the implications of all of this are. A lot of them don't get it. They aren't informed enough to consent to the anal cavity search you seem so fond of.
No, it's not. It's just unethical propagandists engaged in scaremongering to try and trick people into voting for Republicans.
It's the same scaremongering editing they used in their previous videos where they take things out of context and play scary music to make it seem sinister.
Of course, if you believe them the last tie they tricked you, you'll probably believe them this time too.
I thought that conservative politics meant people who wanted less government regulation, less taxes, a smaller deficit, and more personal liberties.
Ha. Only if you're not paying attention to what conservatives (in America) do. It's actually all about beating liberals, regardless of principles, values or ethics. Winning is the only thing that matters to America's modern conservatives, just look to the President for the ultimate example of just how far America's conservatives have fallen.
Sigh. The point the article was making was that Damore is suing Google for being too pro-diversity and Altheid quit because Google was not pro-diversity enough. That's important because it undercuts the premise behind Damore's lawsuit that conservative opinions are silenced because they're conservative. It points to an alternate explanation, that diversity discussions were being shut down because they were controversial and not beneficial to the work environment. If Damore posted his memo after the diversity discussions had already been shut down, more than once, because of internal flame wars, he may have been fired not for his specific views but rather for disobeying the request to let the issue go, and deliberately stirring up trouble.
Well considering that virtually none of the "Fake News" that Trump denounces is actually, in any way, fake, no I'm not surprised any more when Trump declares something fake news. However, I am surprised that Trump would file suite against Steve Bannon for violating an NDA by talking about what happened during the Trump campaign over what was written in a supposedly "fake news" book.
It should make you wonder why, if the book is fake, Trump is threatening the people who supposedly didn't talk to the author? And why he's threatening to sue them about things they supposedly didn't tell Wolff. I mean if Wollf made it all up, the Trump should only be angry with Wolff, right? So why is he calling for Steve Bannon's head on a platter?
These people didn't even know they had to hire their own White House staff.
Well to be fair, they weren't expecting to have to do that for the practical reason that they had planned to lose the election. It was Trump's plan to actually lose the election, he was running for the fame and the followers and so he could use them to launch his own right wing news network. I don't know if they were going to try and call it the Trump News Network (TNN) but I'd bet they would have tried.
It is darkly amusing that Trump managed to screw up losing the presidential election...
Both of those papers deal with overestimation for a particular 15 year period (1998 - 2013) and the second is based on tropospheric satellite measurements rather than ground temperature measurement like the first study. There have are disputing papers that say the divergence is within the bounds of natural variability, and this nature article seems to sum up the divergence issue: "There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence."
In any case, there have been multiple developments that indicate that the temperature record was biased low over the period both your papers consider in several areas: ocean warming, temperature coverage at the poles, and systematic errors in satellite measurements. Each of which has been found to have a small, but significant, effect on the temperature record. It doesn't look like Fyfe and company have released a new paper that accounts for those issues, yet.
As usual, you know nothing and understand less.
Much of the current problems with climate reality in my view can be traced back to scientists going that extra mile to sound alarms and suggest or imply political remedies.
Bullshit. Most of the current problems with the acceptance of climate reality can actually be traced back to ideological opposition, initially funded by corporations who feared regulation that would reduce their profit margins. It was deliberately politicized and not by the scientists.
97% was debunked.
Nope.
TLDR.
This explains why you don't understand anything about climate change, it seems you can't be bothered to read enough to understand. Here's a very simple explanation of both of things you find too incredible to believe:
Extreme cold events can be an effect of climate change because warming in Arctic allows the still very cold air to travel further south by weakening the air currents that used to keep that cold air trapped over the Arctic. It's important to understand that when that cold air escapes from the Arctic, it is replaced by (relatively) warmer air, thus further warming the Arctic, weakening the currents and allowing that cold to escape even further south. Because the escaped polar air also warms at it travels further south, on average, the entire area ends up being warmer than before, even though some areas are much colder than they used to be.
Floods and droughts both being caused by climate change should be obvious. Warm air picks up water from one location (deepening drought) and drops it in another (increasing floods). If you don't understand that, you don't even have a grade 4 level of science knowledge and are completely unqualified to participate in this discussion.
So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
Silly anonymous coward, they didn't call you names because you dared to question the truth. They called you names because you acted like an ass, insulted everyone who tried to help you and then repeated the exact same question after it had been answered the first six times. They don't hate you for questioning the truth, they hate because you're an awful person and everybody knows it.
No, science doesn't even do that.
Science: This is what it looks like is going to happen (prediction) Politics: You must change your behavior.
So...
Science: If you deny reality, make up arguments, pretend to be care but refuse to ever justify your own position with any evidence, you will be labeled a denier?
Politics: Nu-uh, because Fake News! Chinese Conspiracy! Climategate!