An outdoor thermometer shows a temperature of minus 24 C in the Hokkaido town of Rikubetsu on Wednesday. Photo: KYODO
national

Heavy snow continues across much of Japan as cold snap maintains grip

62 Comments

Heavy snow continued Wednesday across much of Japan as the country grapples with the most severe cold snap of the season so far, with trains and vehicles stranded and at least one person left dead as winter storms caused difficulties.

Record cold temperatures were seen in parts of Japan, with snow falling on the Sea of Japan coast stretching from the country's north to west. Amid concerns of further snowfall including in low-lying areas on the Pacific coast, the weather agency is calling for vigilance against blizzards, rough seas and icy roads.

The weather has brought widespread disruption. Thousands of people using local train services in Kyoto and Shiga prefectures in western Japan were forced to stay overnight in carriages or stations, while vehicles on major roads across the country were left stranded and hundreds of flights canceled.

One person has died due to the adverse conditions in southwest Oita Prefecture, with two in Okayama Prefecture found without vital signs, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihiko Isozaki said Wednesday at a news conference in Tokyo.

The deaths of two more people in Niigata Prefecture north of the capital are also being investigated in connection with the cold weather, he said.

Snowfall in central and western Japan since about 3:50 a.m. on Wednesday has also led to closures at multiple locations in both directions on the Shin-Meishin Expressway between Mie and Shiga prefectures, its operator said.

A number of vehicles remain stranded in the closed-off sections and their presence is impeding snow-removal equipment. Consequently, expressway employees are having to remove the snow themselves and direct vehicles to the nearest exits.

On local railways, passengers were stranded on several trains on the Biwako Line and Kyoto Line overnight from Tuesday due to snow and strong winds, operator West Japan Railway said. The company reported delays and cancellations on around 20 of its lines including express services through Wednesday morning.

The Kyoto city government said that around 1,700 people at Yamashina Station and 2,300 people at Kyoto Station were left stranded.

Some passengers reported feeling unwell and had to be taken away by ambulance. Masahiro Nishikawa, a 48-year-old who passed the night in an underground passage at Kyoto Station, said, "We only got one thermal sheet each from staff, I couldn't sleep because it was so cold."

In southwestern Nagasaki Prefecture, around 100 vehicles were unable to move overnight and into Wednesday on an around 9-kilometer stretch of a national road, the prefectural government said.

Elsewhere, in Fukui Prefecture, about 20 vehicles were stuck from late Tuesday on a national road, with traffic brought to a halt on a 14-kilometer stretch until early Wednesday.

Among the other effects on transportation, Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways said more than 300 flights scheduled for Wednesday have been canceled.

High-speed train services have also been disrupted, with East Japan Railway suspending bullet train runs between Fukushima and Shinjo on the Yamagata Shinkansen Line in the northeastern Tohoku region throughout the day.

Sections of bullet trains services on the Sanyo Shinkansen and Tokaido Shinkansen lines were running at reduced speed, according to their operators, while delays were also experienced on the Tohoku and Akita Shinkansen lines.

Central Tokyo experienced subzero temperatures on Tuesday night and its first snow of the year, though just a small amount fell and did not settle on the ground.

The Japan Meteorological Agency warns that the strong winter weather cell is expected to hold through Thursday.

Mountainous and coastal regions on the Sea of Japan side of the Chugoku region in the country's west saw particularly large snowfalls. Among them, Maniwa in Okayama Prefecture observed 93 centimeters of snow in the 24 hours through 8 a.m. Wednesday, its most on record.

Atmospheric conditions in Japan's east and west are forecast to continue to be very unstable, the agency said. Powerful winds blowing across the country are also expected to cause seas to be rough.

© KYODO

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

62 Comments
Login to comment

So Much For Global Warming, LOL

-20 ( +18 / -38 )

@mark So Much For Global Warming, LOL

LOL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-a-warming-climate-can-bring-bigger-snowstorms/

7 ( +18 / -11 )

When it's cold, they say either:

1) That's weather, not climate, or

2) That's because of global warming.

When it's hot, they say it's definitely because of global warming.

-11 ( +13 / -24 )

It’s amazing after 20 years living in Japan never seen snow before, well except for 2003, 2004,2005,2006,2007. ect , It’s amazing what a supper surprise. I going to adjust my tv antenna, I know it’s not a typhoon but still it snowing in winter…didn’t expect that.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Looks like a couple of guys in the pic were caught out without the clothing for these conditions! Not a wise move.

So Much For Global Warming, LOL

You realize in science that a sample size of ONE day or a week is insignificant, right? Scientists are looking at the 20-30-40 year records.

No one can deny global warming is fact- without people pointing and laughing at them.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

The earth is adjusting to whatever it takes due to various exploitation of its resources. It's really cold, but hey, it's winter! What else do you expect?

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

That picture reminds me of why I love Hokkaido.

The temperature may be cold, but the guileless smiles are warm and friendly.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

When it's cold, they say either: 1) That's weather, not climate, or 2) That's because of global warming.When it's hot, they say it's definitely because of global warming.

When it's cold, guaranteed some simpleton here will say 'Hey it's cold, so global warming can't be real!', and think he's being really insightful.

Today was one of the chilliest days I've ever had in Japan. Was -9 at noon here, and that wind was savage.

4 ( +15 / -11 )

It is astonishing that there are so many climate sceptics.

Do they get their kicks flaunting their foolishness.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

@mark @Lord Dartmouth

do you guys know Senator James Inhofe who brought a snowball in the US senate to prove that global warming doesn't exist? You two remind me of him.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Saw a video on Twitter of how it was snowing inside Kyoto Station. That got a good laugh. It's the perfect example of design over function.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

I love winter. Wish it would snow more often in Osaka.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It’s a matter of pride, what prefecture can get the coldest temperatures, the deepest snow fall. “Last year we had over 2 meters but this year just 1.5, But deaths are up due to fiscal austerity so not all bad. Well done dead people.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I remember they were predicting in 2000 that British children wouldn't know what show was by 2020. Just a few years ago the Japanese were so worried that the Sapparo Snow festival would not be viable, Al Gore predicted the end of the world within 10 years in his movie, etc, etc.

It's very cold outside. You'd better hope the world doesn't decide to revery back to its natural, cold state.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

You'd better hope the world doesn't decide to revery back to its natural, cold state.

Zero evidence of that happening. Feeling "very cold outside" today doesn't count as evidence, FYI. Good try, though.

All the data is in and it's undeniable. Things are getting warmer - everywhere.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Took a picture of a thermometer hanging in my backyard this morning at 0530.

It was 5C. With the wind, it felt a bit cooler, and according to the news here, the wind chill factor dropped the temp about 2 degrees, so in reality it felt about 3C. Pretty damn cold for Okinawa!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Public toilets? Go the hell! People are visiting Soho to immerse themselves into the romantic historical atmosphere of London in 1800th, when the streets were full of horse dung and the air was filled with the mixture of urine and other household waste smells :)

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

アーメド, you are mistaken about climate change. If you study more, you will realise that the scientific basis for human-emitted CO2 being the driver of climate change is extraordinarily shaky. No amount of 'argumentum ad auctoritatem' will change that.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

What is the purpose of photographing two people dressed inappropriately for the weather (especially as one is hugging her self and visibly cold) pointing at a sign of the temperature? Especially as the photographer reflected in the middle is clearly bundled up to the nines?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Been out the front of the 7&iHolding Goryu 1.am early January 2012 and it was -20c. it said on the gauge. Why was I there. Well This USA Admiral was staying at the hotel I was working. I was out the front clearing snowing of the steeps and it was dumping down and this admiral walks out and start clearing snow off his car. I walk over to him and said are your driving in this? Yes, off to buy some munchies was the reply. I said to him can I came along never driven in snow storm like this (and I am the bus driver for the hotel). Sure hop in. Got to talking and found out he was a fighter pilot for years and had over 100 landing on an Aircraft carrier in winter in the Sea of Japan so driving in this snow storm was nothing. Also how Joe was a Admiral now in charge of a base in Tokyo. Talk about the weather and how climate change is changing a lot of forward planing in the navy. So He got his munchies we headed back to the hotel and as we pass under the Temp gauge on the overhead gantry we both read and said at the same time -20c.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What is the purpose of photographing two people dressed inappropriately for the weather (especially as one is hugging her self and visibly cold) pointing at a sign of the temperature? Especially as the photographer reflected in the middle is clearly bundled up to the nines?

Cripes! Take a literal chill pill! You have got to be living with your head in the sand. Check out any "Polar Bear" Club on New Year's Day!

Folks do stuff, it's kind of funny.

And "dressed to the nines".... That's inappropriate to me! Chill, it's all in fun!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Went for a walk today and the traffic was very light, nice to have cleaner air for a change.

People will be falling off roofs soon so I might not go out for a few days now…

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Looks "samui" cold . . . .

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I far prefer summer time but not in japan because is hot and humid like hell totally unliveable

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is astonishing that there are so many climate sceptics.

What really gets me is that they are categorically declaring "there is no global warming". You can at best argue about the extent to which it is caused by man-made pollution. But the exact reason aside there is no, none, zero doubt that, for whatever reason, the earth is getting warmer and the weather is getting more extreme.

Reminds me a bit of flat earthers, really.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What is the purpose of photographing two people dressed inappropriately for the weather (especially as one is hugging her self and visibly cold) pointing at a sign of the temperature? Especially as the photographer reflected in the middle is clearly bundled up to the nines?

Cripes! Take a literal chill pill! You have got to be living with your head in the sand. Check out any "Polar Bear" Club on New Year's Day!

Folks do stuff, it's kind of funny.

And "dressed to the nines".... That's inappropriate to me! Chill, it's all in fun!

I agree. I'd much rather see a fun picture like that, than the usual masked up people all uttering "samu"

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@John-San, good story! When I was in my 20s I lived in Calgary, Alberta for eight years. Minus 20C temperatures and snow were not only common, but mostly ignored if your car had a block heater. And driving in snow at that temperature is more like driving on hard-packed coarse sand. It's definitely NOT a problem. Nice to know the Admiral took you along for the fun.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Mark:

So Much For Global Warming, LOL

Global Warming is not based on someone's most recent memory.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

But the exact reason aside there is no, none, zero doubt that, for whatever reason, the earth is getting warmer and the weather is getting more extreme.

Yep it does seem that way: mega concrete cities with 10s of millions of people in them; way more than 50% of humanity now urbanissd, with vast urban areas competing for the same ground water; even small hurricanes causing more damage/deaths as they hit mega cities; concrete jungles causing hear island effects. etc etc.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

AVG TOKYO TEMP (celsius)

1881-1890: 13.66

1891-1900: 13.94

1901-1910: 13.54

1911-1920: 14.08

1921-1930: 14.09

1931-1940: 14.43

1941-1950: 14.59

1951-1960: 15.01

1961-1970: 15.38

1971-1980: 15.64

1981-1990: 15.76

1991-2000: 16.42

2001-2010: 16.61

2011-2020: 16.49

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@Mark Does your post suggest "So much for Global Freezing" UUG

So Much For Global Warming, LOL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So Much For Global Warming, LOL

Pathetic.. (facepalm)...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Be sure your family and friends, even strangers have heat. It will be cold.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

More snow for Tokyo!!!..

White Tokyo snow come to meeee!!!..

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

1881-1890: 13.66

2011-2020: 16.49

Will have to do more than that. Location of thermometers (has changed over time). Amount of concrete (had changed over time). Number of aircons spitting out hot air onto that concrete (has changed over time)....... Etc

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

You realize in science that a sample size of ONE day or a week is insignificant, right? Scientists are looking at the 20-30-40 year records.

20-30-40 year records aren't significant either.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@socrateos

The use of data like that does nothing to prove that there is global warming. In the time span of your data Tokyo has gone from almost pre-industrial to heavily urbanised with a many-fold population increase. All the heated buildings, air conditioners, vehicles, and even people are emitting heat, so an increase in average temperature in the country's largest city is inevitable. Cities are always warmer than the surrounding countryside. To prove global warming requires measurements from areas that have not been impacted by development. This is a difficult task since most long-run temperatures series are unsurprisingly related to urban areas.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Because one time someone lied or made a mistake about X, no one can ever be trusted with Y.

When did I say that? I never said that. Maybe you should learn to read because I clearly said in my previous post that

“Appealing solely to an authority figure without doing your own research and without having a healthy bit of skepticism makes you as much of a brainless sheep as the people you’re criticizing”

My point is that you should do your own research and not blindly believe things simply because “experts” say it’s true

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

See how you're conflating that to mean people using the scientific theory method now, with peer review, and published results, cannot be trusted.

People have used the scientific theory to come up with incorrect results in the past plenty of times, for example the growing earth theory.

Sure, as more data arrives, they come up with more accurate results.

Okay perfect. So we can both agree that there’s potential for more data to come in that will eventually prove global warming false? Yes or no?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

People have used the scientific theory to come up with incorrect results in the past plenty of times, for example the growing earth theory.

So now you're back to this logical fallacy:

Because one time someone lied or made a mistake about X, no one can ever be trusted with Y.

Okay perfect. So we can both agree that there’s potential for more data to come in that will eventually prove global warming false? Yes or no?

It's also possible they will invent a pegasus through genetic alteration. There are a lot of things that could come about in the future. But you are suggesting that evidence-based conclusions must not be trusted, because someday someone may show them to not be 100% accurate. Another logical fallacy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

People have used the scientific theory to come up with incorrect results in the past plenty of times, for example the growing earth theory.

That is an argument that disproves climate change, because the side with better and more correct scientific data was the one on the right, while the side in the wrong only used excuses.

If the scientific community have reached a consensus that means the evidence is clear and the reports have a valid and recognized methodology that allows for the shared conclusions to remain accepted.

Saying "people have been wrong before" is not an argument against this huge mountain of data and expertise, it is at much an excuse to avoid accepting something based on absolutely nothing.

Okay perfect. So we can both agree that there’s potential for more data to come in that will eventually prove global warming false? Yes or no?

That is not an argument to doubt the current consensus, there is "potential" for any kind of more data to come in the future, that would not excuse refraining from acting on what is actually available now. If someone says that maybe some data in the future says cancer is good for your health, would you accept that as an argument to refute treatment for a child?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

 To prove global warming requires measurements from areas that have not been impacted by development. This is a difficult task since most long-run temperatures series are unsurprisingly related to urban areas.

As expected this is a terribly simple thing to analyze to see if there is any importance, so scientists have already dealt with the variable and found that even if urban areas are warmer the trend remains the same when compared with rural areas

https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You don’t seem to understand at a basic level what I’m saying

I understand exactly what you're saying, and I'm pointing out the logical fallacies in it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If the scientific community have reached a consensus that means the evidence is clear and the reports have a valid and recognized methodology that allows for the shared conclusions to remain accepted.

This argument has applied to scientific theories in the past and still been completely wrong years down the line. A great example is that of the earth being the center of the universe. At the time, as you put it, “the scientific community had reached a consensus that means the evidence is clear and the reports have a valid and recognized methodology that allows for the shared conclusions to remain accepted” that the earth was the center of the universe

Saying "people have been wrong before" is not an argument against this huge mountain of data and expertise, it is at much an excuse to avoid accepting something based on absolutely nothing.

Actually, it is an argument as it shows the fallibility in our way to understand the world around us.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This argument has applied to scientific theories in the past and still been completely wrong years down the line. A great example is that of the earth being the center of the universe. At the time, as you put it, “the scientific community had reached a consensus that means the evidence is clear and the reports have a valid and recognized methodology that allows for the shared conclusions to remain accepted” that the earth was the center of the universe

Again, you're back to this logical fallacy:

Because one time someone lied or made a mistake about X, no one can ever be trusted with Y.

Basically, your argument boils down to we can't trust these people who are studying this, and the conclusions they are making from the data they are providing, because someday, it may turn out to be wrong.

Which of course is a fallacious argument.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That is not an argument to doubt the current consensus, there is "potential" for any kind of more data to come in the future, that would not excuse refraining from acting on what is actually available now.

It absolutely is a reason to doubt the current consensus. Am I saying that the current consensus is wrong? Absolutely not, but doubt and skepticism is an extremely important aspect of the scientific method. An ideology of blind acceptance of known truths would have left our ancestors in the dark ages

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Actually, it is an argument as it shows the fallibility in our way to understand the world around us.

No progress in society was ever made with that mindset. "Don't let perfect become the enemy of good".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This argument has applied to scientific theories in the past and still been completely wrong years down the line.

For this amount and quality of scientific evidence? no, that is a false statement. Your argument completely depend on considering science the same as centuries ago, which is also a false assumption.

You are on the side of the "Earth as the center" because your whole point is contradicted by the best available evidence, and the excuse that a baseless claim should be preferred against the best evidence available makes no sense.

Actually, it is an argument as it shows the fallibility in our way to understand the world around us.

No, it is not, because the best way to avoid having a wrong understanding is to adhere to what the best evidence says, you on the other side are trying to make a point on ignoring the evidence for no real reason, which is made clear by how you ignored the question in the analogy.

That evidence in the future could make our understanding better is NOT an argument to say we should discard the evidence we already have right now, specially when that is precisely what has been proved to result in a mistaken understanding.

The scientists of the world are simply astronomically much more likely to be correct than people that contradicted based on their own convenience and zero evidence.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

but doubt and skepticism is an extremely important aspect of the scientific method.

Which applies to accepting evidence that contradict the consensus, for climate change there is no such thing so the current consensus simply remains as the best answer and a valid conclusion to act accordingly, the empty appeal to what the future may bring is not skepticism, is science denialism and irrational bias.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

doubt and skepticism is an extremely important aspect of the scientific method. An ideology of blind acceptance of known truths would have left our ancestors in the dark ages

Blind acceptance is just as bad as blind denial. A healthy skepticism, whereby one is trusting yet confirming, is how progress is made. When one wants to confirm truth, one refers to experts. When people start saying the experts cannot be trusted, and that you can learn more on Google, that is when it falls apart. That's not healthy skepticism, that's just ignorance. Neither extreme is good. The problem is that healthy skepticism takes the intellectual ability to handle nuance, and not see everything in black and white, whereas a significant number of the people in comment sections do not have that level of intellect, yet they all have an equal voice.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For this amount and quality of scientific evidence? no, that is a false statement. Your argument completely depend on considering science the same as centuries ago, which is also a false assumption.

Again, people hundreds of years ago said the same thing. Science continually moves forward and what we believe today will be considered antiquated by those in the future. Are you saying that all scientific truths we hold today won’t be proven wrong in the future?

That evidence in the future could make our understanding better is NOT an argument to say we should discard the evidence we already have right now, specially when that is precisely what has been proved to result in a mistaken understanding.

As I’ve multiple times now, I never once made the argument that we should discard the evidence we have. I’ve said multiple times that we should be skeptical of experts and scientific truths. Based on your posts you’d be the type arguing the “scientific truth” of eugenics and race superiority had you been alive in 1930’s Germany

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Which applies to accepting evidence that contradict the consensus, for climate change there is no such thing so the current consensus simply remains as the best answer and a valid conclusion to act accordingly

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing climate is completely natural.

Again, medicine could be completely wrong about everything according to this fallacy, do you think this is a valid argument to deny a patient being treated?

For certain things? Absolutely. The vaccine and ventilators being perfect examples. Both were “scientifically” proven to be great at fighting covid initially but were later found out to be either ineffective or harmful in many cases

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Again, people hundreds of years ago said the same thing. Science continually moves forward and what we believe today will be considered antiquated by those in the future.

Yes, that is why they call it "accepted science" and not "truth".

Are you saying that all scientific truths we hold today won’t be proven wrong in the future?

There are no scientific "truths". There is only currently accepted science. Science is made to be able to disprove itself. It's the whole point of peer review.

Your argument is that because it's not already perfect, it must be doubted and believed as inaccurate. That's a logical fallacy, as I keep pointing out. And it's the enemy to progress, letting perfect be the enemy of good.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Science is made to be able to disprove itself. It's the whole point of peer review.

So you agree with the entire point I’ve been trying to make this whole time, that there is a potential for the current climate science to be disproven. I’m glad you could finally come over.

Your argument is that because it's not already perfect, it must be doubted and believed as inaccurate.

I never said this or implied it

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing climate is completely natural.

And now we're back to my original point - I can believe the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this, who have come to the consensus that human made climate change IS affecting our climate and IS causing problems on the planet, or I can put my hat in with some dude on the internet who says otherwise. My initial post in this thread towards that idea was sarcastic satire, but my point essentially comes down to finding much more credibility in the scientists over some guy on the internet. On top of that, being someone with the intellectual ability to be able to both work with nuance, and live with uncertainty, I am willing to trust a scientific consensus, until that consensus comes up with a new consensus.

That said, if you can show me enough evidence challenging the status quo from enough credible sources, I'll approach a topic with more skepticism. My problem with the whole climate change denial issue is that it is almost entirely fed by the followers of a single political leaning in a single country, that has a large vested economic interest in challenging the scientific consensus, and I've never seen any kind of credible consensus from non-politically affiliated groups. So until you get me credible people saying that the consensus is wrong, I'm going to point out how stupid it is to believe that it's wrong just because somewhere, one time, someone was wrong about something. I've never seen anyone put forth together a credible consensus of any kind that shows climate change has not been influenced significantly by humans. The problem is that the climate change debate is not scientific, it's political.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So you agree with the entire point I’ve been trying to make this whole time, that there is a potential for the current climate science to be disproven.

Yes. But I'm disagreeing with your conclusion that experts must be doubted because someone was wrong one time about something.

I’m glad you could finally come over.

We never were in disagreement with it. I was pointing out how you took that to form a fallaciously illogical conclusion.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have to go guys. Even if we don’t agree I learned a lot. No hard feelings, love you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Enjoy your day/night.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Again, people hundreds of years ago said the same thing

No, they did not, that is another false statement. And keeping making the invalid argument that science is the same as centuries ago makes it obvious this is just an attempt to mislead.

As I’ve multiple times now, I never once made the argument that we should discard the evidence we have.

Yes you have, by saying the current consensus should not be accepted, that is the inevitable consequence of your position. The evidence points clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt to this, so saying that "this may be wrong in the future" is meaningless, as meaningless as doubting the brain function is not to cool the blood.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing climate is completely natural.

No, there is no such thing, the best experts in the world have presented solid evidence this is a product of human activity, so much that every related institution of the whole planet coincides this is the case, obviously they are much better than nameless people on the internet in evaluating the scientific data on their field.

No scientific report has ever discussed (as in the section in a paper) against the current consensus.

For certain things? Absolutely.

That is the flaw in your reasoning, that you subjectively consider "certain" only those things you are wlling to accept, and those that don't you again subjectively contradict the experts and say they are not.

Anthropogenic climate change is certain according to the experts, your personal opinion this is not the case is based on bias and irrational thinking, not on argument that can refute the scientific consensus.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Basically, your argument boils down to we can't trust these people who are studying this,

Plenty of stuff on the "manipulation of the curve", funding cut if disagree with "the science". And look up the fields of the "97% scientists are agreement with "anthropogenic global warming". Then there was the peer-review scandal emails out of East Anglia "climategate"; the head of the IPCC was a railway engineer, IPCC reports full of errors and exaggerations; Co-op meetings held in person with dignitaries flying in by private jet....

And look up what they were saying before and how the narrative keeps changing. Remember it was called: global warming.

And for the past 30 years or so they have repeatedly been spouting that mankind is approaching the point of no return.... Time after time we were told that there would be no more snow, winters would be mild, Britian would grow grapes again...

Obama etc with big seaside mansions....

And have you seen the latest from CNN? Severe winters could become the norm in this part of the world.

Yeah so I don't trust them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Plenty of stuff on the "manipulation of the curve", funding cut if disagree with "the science". And look up the fields of the "97% scientists are agreement with "anthropogenic global warming". Then there was the peer-review scandal emails out of East Anglia "climategate"; the head of the IPCC was a railway engineer, IPCC reports full of errors and exaggerations; Co-op meetings held in person with dignitaries flying in by private jet....

Absolutely nothing you write is an argument against the overwhelming amount and quality of the evidence that supports human activity derived climate change, a position supported by every single institution related to the field in the whole world, not the fake scandals that had no importance, no what any single organization or institution says about it but what the whole scientific community of the world supports as valid.

There is a scientific consensus even about the scientific consensus of climate change, with metanalysis of how the reports of consensus themselvels reach a consensus.

You don't need to trust anybody, the primary sources are there for anybody to analyze, can you find any problem with their data and methodologies? then write your own report about it because those that have been published until now have been immediately debunked as primitive and invalid themselves. And if you can't argue scientifically against the data then the only logical reason is to accept it in the same way that all other scientific findings with such strong evidence supporting them.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Are these guys in the picture members of the Polar Bear Club, just plain crazy or what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites