We're all going to die

Global Warming is a scam to fleece the Government out of some research monies.

Larry

Global Warming is a scam to fleece the Government out of some research monies.

OMG - Larry and I agree on something! Welcome to the darkside. Whenever a global warming fear monger starts spouting off about the evil, toxic and necessary chemical compound, carbon dioxide, a trace gas which represents a staggering 0.038% of the total atmosphere, I like to refer them to this:

..."ice cores indicate Greenland (has) experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years - which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly." Source: Wikipedia.

I see fat Zat is still making an fat ass out of himself.

Now tell us about the Antartic wise guy?

Not Again! Media Promoting Arctic Hockey Stick' Claim Temps Warmest in 2000 Years But Scientists Already Rebuking Latest Study

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Friday, Sept 4, 2009

I have filed for a $30 million federal grant to supply polar bears with sun screen and umbrellas (renewable yearly, with a 6.5 percent annual increase).

There's no reason only the lard ass academics should cash in on this cow.

Do these "scientists" that are doing the "rebuking" work for oil companies?

The result is a "hockey stick"-like curve in which the last decade - 1998-2008 - stands out as the warmest in the entire series.

Garbage in garbage out..

That hockey stick has been disproven.

HAHA posted by a naive little girl (Zat here) who thinks Obama tells zero lies! What will she fall for next?

Scientist state what they found in their research. Those scientists are declared wrong by people who, by their statements, indicate they obviously never studied climatology in their life. Tough decision on who to believe.

We're all going to die

#1 | Posted by mysterytoy

Yes...yes we are.

If the global warming scientists are right we are going to be in achee double hockey sticks!

Once again, a global climate change thread brings out the Drudge "scientists" to tell us what is really going on. You ladies crack me up.

The partisan nature of the divide over this issue is comical. For example, if it were Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh warning of the dangers of global warming does anyone really believe the rightwing hacks on this site would be mocking them?

Scientist state what they found in their research. Those scientists are declared wrong by people who, by their statements, indicate they obviously never studied climatology in their life. Tough decision on who to believe.

#11 | Posted by AILtd

Who to believe? That's the way it is by one who knows nothing.

You people don't understand.

Neither the vast majority of economists nor the vast majority of climatologists have any clue about their professions.

Fringe Ray knows The Truth about both.

Politics and science do not mix. Oh for the scientist without any political ideology. ZAT - will the sun always rise in the east and fall in the west?

It seems that the right believes what it wants to believe about pretty much everything. Nothing new about that. Go back a while say to slavery days, then God wanted black people to be slaves. They were as sure about that as they were about trickle down economics as they were about invading Iraq as they are about global warming.
Why do we even consider the opinions of those who have basicly been wrong about every controversy in history.

I say we get some "concerned citizens" to stand outside of these climatologist's places of work and picket while carrying AR-15's and hand guns in full view. That'll teach them to report this kind of malarkey.

OMG - Larry and I agree on something! Welcome to the darkside. Whenever a global warming fear monger starts spouting off about the evil, toxic and necessary chemical compound, carbon dioxide, a trace gas which represents a staggering 0.038% of the total atmosphere, I like to refer them to this:
..."ice cores indicate Greenland (has) experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years - which makes it POSSIBLE to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly." Source: Wikipedia.
#3 | Posted by Beachbuzz

1) All hail wikipedia as ultimate source.
2) The article, and study its based on, just proved your retort to the global warming "scammers" to be false. Greenland was warm during the Medieval period, but is far warmer today. Wikipedia can now be updated with correct information.
3) It doesn't take a lot of gas in a large atmosphere concentrated in a thin layer to do damage. A thin sealant still seals. Its why people who live up north put plastic over their windows in the winter.
Game Over, man. Game over.

Nuh-uh!
-The Idiots

#. EOCENE Hothouse

Tens of millions of years ago, the average temperature at the poles was 15 or 20 C. Now let's talk about climate change

13 more things that don't make sense

I'm still waiting for some useless idiot to trot out the "Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant!" argument.

13 more things: Prehistoric hothouse

* 02 September 2009
* Magazine issue 2724. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

THE Eocene ran from 56 million to 34 million years ago. Geological evidence from the early and middle part of this period offers troubling news: the average temperature in the tropics at this time could have been as high as 40C while the poles were at temperatures of 15 or 20C. None of our climate models accounts for how this "Eocene hothouse" might have arisen (New Scientist, 21 June 2008, p 34).

Whichever way you look at the Eocene enigma, it is bad news for life on Earth. For a start, any tweaks we make to our climate models to account for it will produce scarier predictions of warming. Secondly, it suggests that there is no feedback mechanism that will stabilise a warming world against runaway climate change. And third, there is geological evidence for plant extinctions in the Eocene.

If the modern Earth goes the same way and plants in the tropics start dying, that will provide yet another way for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to rise faster. The Eocene hothouse anomaly suggests that our worst-case scenario is probably optimistic to say the leas

but it's manmade, of course...carbon taxes anyone?

I say we get some "concerned citizens" to stand outside of these climatologist's places of work and picket while carrying AR-15's and hand guns in full view. That'll teach them to report this kind of malarkey.

Apparently that's the only way the pubbies can get anybody to listen to their ignorant discourse these days.

"Who to believe? That's the way it is by one who knows nothing." - Ray

Ah, so that's why you don't believe anyone. Explains a _lot_.

what a great track record on science the right has.
1. smoking won't harm you
2. asbestos is safe
3. cadmium can't hurt you
4. evolution is a hoax
5. PCB's are not harmful
6. global warming is a hoax

with that record we should line up behind them and cheer.

Scientist state what they found in their research. Those scientists are declared wrong by people who, by their statements, indicate they obviously never studied climatology in their life. Tough decision on who to believe.

#11 | Posted by AILtd

They will deny until its 200 degrees outside and an atmosphere of Mars..

I say we get some "concerned citizens" to stand outside of these climatologist's places of work and picket while carrying AR-15's and hand guns in full view. That'll teach them to report this kind of malarkey.

Apparently that's the only way the pubbies can get anybody to listen to their ignorant discourse these days.

#27 | Posted by RingMaster

it will make it clear that thug politics are in play and easier to identify enemies of the state. If it gets to that state.. its time to cull the population of the crazies.

what a great track record on science the right has.
1. smoking won't harm you
2. asbestos is safe
3. cadmium can't hurt you
4. evolution is a hoax
5. PCB's are not harmful
6. global warming is a hoax

with that record we should line up behind them and cheer.

#29 | Posted by VMA224

lies perpetuated by corporate scientists, religious nuts in all cases.

the global warming deniers are listening to more corporate liars.. the OIL scientist.

#19 Danni> Nothing new about that. Go back a while say to slavery days, then God wanted black people to be slaves

Funny, but a lot of _religious_ folks led the fight to outlaw slavery. Ever hear of the Underground Railroad? How about William Wilberforce? Here's a link in case you really don't know...

The PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum lasted around 20,000 years, and was superimposed on a 6-million-year period of more gradual global warming,[7] peaking later in the Eocene at the "Eocene climatic optimum". Other "hyperthermal" events can be recognised during this period of cooling, including the Elmo event (ETM2). During these events of which the PETM was by far the most severe around 1,500 to 2,000 gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon addition almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today through anthropogenic activity. [8]

The globe was subtly different during the Eocene. The Panama Isthmus did not yet connect North and South America, allowing circulation between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Further, the Drake Passage was shut, preventing the thermal isolation of Antarctica. This, combined with higher CO2 levels, meant that there were no significant ice sheets - the globe was essentially ice free. [7]

For some interesting facts concerning this envirofascist nonsense....

www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

n the 1980s, scientists discovered that emissions of refrigerants and accelerants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had depleted the ozone layer, especially over Antarctica. Ozone depletion, notorious for permitting more cancer-causing ultraviolet light to reach the surface, has a lesser known impact: It cools the stratosphere, the layer of atmosphere between 10 and 60 kilometers (6 and 37 miles) above the surface.

Since the ozone hole began developing, researchers believe the Antarctic stratosphere has cooled between 2C and 6C (3.6F and 10.8F). Such cooling changes the dynamics between the stratosphere and lower layers of the atmosphere and strengthens Antarctica's already fierce winds.

Ever since mariners first attempted to navigate the Southern Ocean, the region has been notorious for its powerful and stormy cyclonic winds during the winter. The "polar vortex" whips around the Southern Ocean and produces sustained periods of freezing temperatures unlike any other place in the world.

Since 1980, the strength of the polar vortex has intensified by about 15 percent due to ozone depletion. The loss of ozone caused atmospheric pressure to decrease over the Amundsen Sea, thereby strengthening the winds on the Ross Ice Shelf, according to NASA Goddard scientist Josefino Comiso, coauthor of a recent study that models the connection between ozone, wind speeds, and climate in the Antarctic. The changes help explain one of the paradoxes of the Antarctic: while sea ice in some areas is growing rapidly, it's retreating at a rapid pace in others.

The new model suggests that colder, stormier, and faster winds are rushing over the waters encircling Antarctic - especially the Ross Sea, where ice growth has been the most rapid. The winds create areas of open water near the coast - known as polynyas - that promote sea ice production.

At the same time, warmer air from higher pressure systems are simultaneously encroaching upon the Antarctic Peninsula, one sliver of the continent that is experiencing rapid warming.

"We see a very mixed pattern of both melting and ice growth in the Antarctic," said Thorsten Markus, head of NASA Goddard's Cryospheric Sciences Branch. "Changes in the cyclonic pattern due to the ozone hole are one of the best explanations we have."

Since there's no temperature record of Antarctica with any historical length and no historical record of the ozone hole there or not, it seems scientifically impossible to make any sort of claims about 1. if the ozone hole is new or 2. if it is problematic....they simply made that one up too....the current CO2 pollution bit is just more of the same....envirofascist power-grab....it is important to maintain ineffective public schools so they can continue foisting this nonsense on unsuspecting lemmings....

"the global warming deniers are listening to more corporate liars.. the OIL scientist."

....and reading articles like THIS one...

"Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate."

"But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that's a distraction. Don't you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky - it's just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.") What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

Richard Lindzen was the main spokesman scientist claiming that smpking is not harmful, so trust him!

"Funny, but a lot of _religious_ folks led the fight to outlaw slavery."

Absolutely, I wasn't attacking religion. I have great respect for many religious people. The Quakers, I believe, risked their lives trying to help slaves escape from the south. I was speaking of those who justified an immoral practice with a convenient quote from the Bible. If I insulted anyone's honest religious belief then I apologize, it wasn't my intentions. I'm agnostic myself so I don't deny the possibility that some religious beliefs may be true. I just know that I don't know if any are and if some are which ones they would be.

Richard Lindzen is an interesting character. He has lots of credentials. The Wiki article on him is very interesting. He worked on the 2001 IPCC Working Group. He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science" although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. He stated afterwards that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report, though the panel said it did.

He has stated that the global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. He also believes it will go down in 20 years. Yet when he bet on the issue with another GC scientist, the issue was over how much the temp would change upwards.

Lindzen also said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s.

Good fucking story, 2000 years ago it was this warm. How amazing that a cycle exists in nature.

"I don't know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to "solve" a problem we don't understand so well."

Except that the "problem" would still be a problem even if human caused global warming turned out to be untrue. We would still need to be finding alternatives to fossil fuels. We would still be needing a new economic basis for American industry.
New energy sources will be required by us sooner than most people realize with the growth of the Chinese appetite for energy. Fossil fuels pollute the air, the sea, rivers, lakes, etc. With a rising world population we will be drowning in our own filth if we don't find cleaner energy sources.
What is the down side to developing new, cleaner energy sources and reducing or eliminating theneed for expensive, dirty, fossil fuels???
Unless you're an oil company or a coal company that is???

Ok, I would like to purpose something that I have yet to see in the past 20 years. There were images of the arctic ice cap in National Geographic literally like 20 years ago now. Great pictures detailing things then. Why can't / hasn't someone put together a site stringing year by year images in chronological order of summer and winter images from the same approximate dates from the 60s through today? NOT just the years they want to show you but ALL years.

You are going to see a great deal of difference from year to year. I mean if you say they are shrinking so much, then the photographic images should show it. I know there are images of the North pole in that time frame. I am not sure about the south. Bottom line is I keep hear how they are shrinking - SHOW ME. It should be obvious. I think you are going to see a cycle. Which is why they have now dropped Global Warming and are calling it climate change.

SHOW ME.
#44 | Posted by GalaxiePete

#44 | Posted by GalaxiePete

They probably are on the net somewhere. I've seen such pictures in various publications - so they are pretty much guaranteed to be posted by someone.

So, if you really care, ya gotta search.

BTW, "global warming" was always a media term. Very few, if any, climatologists called it that. Because they always knew that whatever climate change occurred, especially if global temps went up, would affect different areas and different climates in differing ways.

Good fucking story, 2000 years ago it was this warm. How amazing that a cycle exists in nature.
#42 | Posted by brentrice1

No. It wasn't. No matter how many times you say that, no it wasn't. It was cooler. All evidence says it was cooler. The scientists say it was colder. The historians say it was colder. Only you and some GOP hacks say it was warmer. You can call the sky green, but that doesn't change its color. Get over it. READ it.

Movie of Yearly Changes in Sea Ice around the North Pole

I guess you all realize that at one time ND WY and MT were were mostly covered by a tropical swamp and later half of ND and MT were covered with Ice. And zat wasn't around to take pictures of it. I'll bet he had temprature probes out then to gather all that histarical data.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL COOLING, GODDAMNIT!

@#5, key words, which lend context, are the last:
...might be premature doesn't offer much counter or even juxtapose.

on DR, however, such, while perhaps informative to some, is often "completely acceptable" retort.

#49 | Posted by Sniper

And the entire Earth was once a huge ice-ball.

I have trouble understanding why people keep making any connection to climate the Earth has had millions of years ago. The issue, unless it has changed recently, is that the climate is changing more quickly than it should and that projections on this point to catastrophic scenarios. That the climate changed similarly in the past, over thousands of years in the same way it has in one century now is pretty meaningless, as I see it.

ail, how do you know what the speed should be? Are you in charge of what the earth's temp should be? Who is?

Are you aware that people ahve been messing with the data? Does that bother you?

Are you aware that the instruments they were tracking the artic ice with were screwed up? Does that bother you?

Are you aware that the oceans are cooling? Are you ignoring that?

"Are you aware that the oceans are cooling?" - Sniper

They are? I read a report a couple of days ago that the Atlantic had greatly heated up. Ocean temps in Maine hit 72 degrees.

"ail, how do you know what the speed should be?"

Don't know. Do know that if something which normally occurs over thousands of years takes a century to occur, something must be different.

"Are you aware that people ahve been messing with the data?"

Are you really accusing climatologists of tampering with data? That is beyond amusing. Makes your arguments resemble JeffnD's more than anything.

"Are you aware that the instruments they were tracking the artic ice with were screwed up?"

Yet the scientific community accepted their findings. And didn't indicate that your claim was valid. Does knowing that bother you?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a swing.

ail, how do you know what the speed should be? Are you in charge of what the earth's temp should be? Who is?

We do know what the earth's temperature was before the industrial revolution, and we do know that the temperature of the earth went up at the same rate as the amount of particulates we put into the air.

Are you aware that people ahve been messing with the data? Does that bother you?

This is at best a statement with no fact to back it up. If you can show proof, even one article by a reputable source that points to a mass effort to skew climate change figures, then fire away. I'd like to see it.

Are you aware that the instruments they were tracking the artic ice with were screwed up? Does that bother you?

Again, I'd like to see what you're basing this off of. Without proof, it sounds like you're making this up.

Are you aware that the oceans are cooling? Are you ignoring that?

#53 | Posted by Sniper

It's been theorized for some time that climate change for the warmer would cause ice caps to melt, introducing cold water into the world's oceans which would lower their temperature. However, that's not what NASA says is happening.

Well now whose talking points are we supposed to blindly regurgitate?

Still waiting for the doom and gloom they said in the 70's was headed our way. Only then it was the coming "ICE AGE"!!!!!!!! Still waiting........

GW vs Anthropic explanation

The anthropic principle is a controversial explanation of why the fine-structure constant takes on the value it does: stable matter, and therefore life and intelligent beings, could not exist if its value were much different. For instance, were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life

For some interesting facts concerning this envirofascist nonsense....

www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org

jonryker...Another lost case that can't tell the difference from real science and planted right wing propaganda.

One brief look at the site listed above and all I can say is another 'Heartland Institute" planted propaganda site.

The same folks funding the BS from Rush Limbaugh.

Here is a link from the Heartland institute on tobacco use. If you buy this shit you'll buy the rest of their corporate sponsored garbage.

the polar bear population is increasing,good news in everything.

From NASA

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period.

If this was true explain the inactivity in this hurricane season so far? As well as last years.

the polar bear population is increasing,good news in everything.

#60 | Posted by semtex111

lol like the Indian artefacts found in Yellowstone after the great fires there a few years back?

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period.

#61 | Posted by Sniper

So much for disproving the Piri Reis Map anytime soon...

What does oil have to do with weather? I don't get this connection at all.

"OIL scientist" ... really? is that the best you can come up with to deny the facts?

Lets not forget that humans have evolved because of deniers such as Galileo, Socrates, or Columbus. They all denied the status-quo and human civilizations have greatly evolved because of it.

The thing about history is that it repeats itself. Right now people believe that the sun has nothing to do with our weather. It has become a religion called global warming. One day the truth will be known in the same way that people finally figured out that the earth is not flat.

The thing about deniers is that they have evolved human civilizations time and time again. We live better because of deniers.

Albert Einstein was a denier. He denied the physics of his time and came up with radical ideas that changed physics forever.

Next time you label someone a denier think of the great minds that denied the status-quo and then think about the greatness that came from it.

From NASA

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period.

There is more then one way to interpolate data. Please provide a link sniper, if you didn't just make this up too, and I'll tell you whether it a real NASA site or just another Heartland Institute corporate plant.

At any rate close to 90% of the man made pollution is from the northern hemisphere and the atmosphere circulates very little air between the two hemispheres. Take a look at a global wind chart someday. Better yet take a course in geography or meteorology some day.

In the Antarctic there is actually an increase in snowfall in many areas. This is due to the fact that the air is now warm enough to hold moisture. The colder the air the lower the humidity.

As for the hurricane comment, tell that to the folks in the southern hemisphere. Tropical cyclones are hurricanes too and they have been having one hell of a year. So has the Central Pacific. Hurricanes are influenced a lot by El Nino and La Nina phenomena.

Next time you label someone a denier think of the great minds that denied the status-quo and then think about the greatness that came from it.

Posted by pragmatous

like this fellow?

I Am A holocaust Denier and I Am Unafraid By Curtis Maynard 10/1/08

From NASA

Ringmaster...we all know that little piece of crap came from Sniper's ass and not NASA. He usually is talking out his partisan ass. That is why there are usually no links to back up his freaky brand of BS.

On the other hand, I have a nice link that proves Snippy is himself contributing significantly to global warming with all his hot air on the subject of the Arctic Ice Sheet retreating or not.

"At any rate close to 90% of the man made pollution is from the northern hemisphere and the atmosphere circulates very little air between the two hemispheres."

Brazil's fault, damn it!

"The 1964 military takeover [in Brazil] was "totally democratic" and "the single most decisive victory for freedom in the mid-twentieth century."-- Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil under John Kennedy describing the overthrow of Brazil's parliamentary democracy by generals backed by the United States

Bani

oh so now you're linking Socrates, Columbus, Einstein to the holocaust? Is that what you're saying?

You're saying because they deny that the earth is flat that they support the holocaust? Pretty big jump!

PRAGMATOUS...This has got to be the lamest argument yet that I have ever heard on global warming. Those in denial are not the scientist and geniuses of the world. They are the least educated segment of society in this country and always have been. They are not movers, or doers or forward thinking mathematicians and statisticians like any of the great men you referenced. The deniers of global warming are the ones who think those who make the most money are the smartest. They believe that making money trumps the real truth. That's why they won't ever be taken seriously by the real scientists studying the problem. The can buy propaganda and pay to get it published, but they can't solve any of our problems. They are the ones who are creating the problem. When are you guys going to figure this simple concept out?

I say we get some "concerned citizens" to stand outside of these climatologist's places of work and picket while carrying AR-15's and hand guns in full view. That'll teach them to report this kind of malarkey.

I say we put anyone that tries that in front of a firing squad. To suppress scientific progress by force or intimidation is tantamount to dictatorship and it should be treated as such.

Why do we even consider the opinions of those who have basicly been wrong about every controversy in history?

That's funny Danni...I've been asking myself the very same question in regards to the economy for awhile now.

"They are the least educated segment of society in this country and always have been"

lol the funny thing is that the pope said the same thing and had some of them executed for denying Gods will.

Every scientist and the well educated knows that in science there are multiple views and that all views are to be peer reviewed, studied, tested, and tested again. It's called the scientific method.

This method is a method that global warming alarmists deny to use.

Instead of using the scientific method to study science you alarmist instead use fear tactics and name calling. Relating those who question the science to those who deny the worst tragedy in human history. Which by the way by you doing that lessons the value of that tragedy. You are doing an injustice by using the Nazi analogy and I call on the Godwin's Law.

It's so sad that alarmist have to go to long stretches of imagination to make this hoax real. By changing date, putting temperature gauges on black surfaces, and even using a model proven to be inaccurate by the greatest physicists.

When will you figure out that science is about debate. Science is about dialogue and asking questions. This is science. Global warming is a religion where there is no reason, no questions, just accept everything by faith - religion.

The greatest minds in history have denied the status-quo and asked questions.

Bani

oh so now you're linking Socrates, Columbus, Einstein to the holocaust? Is that what you're saying?

You're saying because they deny that the earth is flat that they support the holocaust? Pretty big jump!

#70 | Posted by pragmatous

not at all...u didn't seem to read the article I see...

I like the author's guts alot in the current 'climate' debate (trying remotely to stay on topic here:>) ~ hence the type of guts Galileo, Socrates, Twitchell & others have in shaking up current status quo that hyperbol creates imho

What is the down side to developing new, cleaner energy sources and reducing or eliminating theneed for expensive, dirty, fossil fuels???
Unless you're an oil company or a coal company that is???

Except those are the very people at the front of the alternative energy, global warming argument.

date = data,

"Except those are the very people at the front of the alternative energy, global warming argument."

NO they aren't. They have fought the entire concept of alternative energy for decades. They have been doing everything in their power to slow the developement of alternative energy to the point of hiring broadcasters to rail against it nightly.
Drill baby drill.

"Sunspot activity has more to do with GW than manmade polution as bad as it is...imho2

OK, that's good enough for me. Tell the thousands of scientists that BAni said they are wrong and lets get back to drilling for more oil and chopping off the tops of some more mountains.

OHHHH SHHHITTTT Looks like another serious issue Olbananas Inherited from the dubya administration... Quick call Gore he'll solve it after his battle with manbearpig! I'm super cereal demascraps...

Every scientist and the well educated knows that in science there are multiple views and that all views are to be peer reviewed, studied, tested, and tested again. It's called the scientific method.

Well praggy, I have to give you credit for at least being that bright. Yes that is exactly why 90% of the worlds scientists are so concerned about the current warming phenomena. The preponderance of evidence using the scientific method is overwhelmingly in support of current global warming theory. Where have you been all this time?

Right now people believe that the sun has nothing to do with our weather

That is so wrong. Solar irradiance most certainly is considered and part of the data collection and analysis. For instance:

Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated
to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]
and
Blue shaded bands show the 595% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural
forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 595% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings

Here's the summary of WG1 2007:

And the entire Earth was once a huge ice-ball.
I have trouble understanding why people keep making any connection to climate the Earth has had millions of years ago. The issue, unless it has changed recently, is that the climate is changing more quickly than it should and that projections on this point to catastrophic scenarios. That the climate changed similarly in the past, over thousands of years in the same way it has in one century now is pretty meaningless, as I see it.

#52 | POSTED BY AILTD

you are pissing into the wind talking to these people. The rate of change to them is not pertinent anly that it changed. They do not understand that climate patterns and sea level changes affect FOOD PRODUCTION, WATER AVAILABILITY and WHERE YOU LIVE.

What does oil have to do with weather? I don't get this connection at all.
"OIL scientist" ... really? is that the best you can come up with to deny the facts?

#74 | POSTED BY PRAGMATOUS

Huh? Please stop smoking pot and masturbating in your grannies basement.

Where the fuck have you been for the last 5 years dumbfuck?

It's so sad that alarmist have to go to long stretches of imagination to make this hoax real. By changing date, putting temperature gauges on black surfaces, and even using a model proven to be inaccurate by the greatest physicists.
When will you figure out that science is about debate. Science is about dialogue and asking questions. This is science. Global warming is a religion where there is no reason, no questions, just accept everything by faith - religion.
The greatest minds in history have denied the status-quo and asked questions.

#74 | POSTED BY PRAGMATOUS

Why don't you live up to your name and stop being a lying sack of shit?

Post non-partisan links or data that would countermand the argument. If you are truly a pragmatist act like one . not a right wing tool.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. "--David Rockefeller

Go Global Warming ~ GO! Carbon Credits r needed now for the sunspot freaks tans!

Scientist state what they found in their research. Those scientists are declared wrong by people who, by their statements, indicate they obviously never studied climatology in their life. Tough decision on who to believe.

#11 | Posted by AILtd

Certainly not the endless, moronic naysayers here who think they know much better posting their sophomoric, groundless rebuttals. Seems they have two heads: one for in the sand and the other for up their arses.

Certainly not the endless, moronic naysayers here who think they know much better posting their sophomoric, groundless rebuttals. Seems they have two heads: one for in the sand and the other for up their arses.

#90 | Posted by ZOT

like this fellow?

Sep 05 08:27
World's climate could cool first, warm later

Webmaster's Commentary:

The short version is that the people who have heavily invested in using global warming to scare you out of your money and obedience are facing a crisis. All their carefully laid schemes and scams are for naught because the Earth is actually getting cooler in direct contradiction of the much-touted computer models waved at us by scare-mongering former VPs, and having the head of Greenpeace admit on TV they just made up that crap about an iceless Greenland didn't help.

But money is money and the people who ponied up the hundreds of millions of dollars spent so far to scare you into letting them take billions of dollars from you in carbon taxes didn't get where they are today by letting things like the truth get in their way.

So now they have NEW computer models that are saying that, yeah, well, okay, the Earth is getting cooler now and probably will for the next couple decades, but trust us; the world WILL eventually start to get warmer (that I agree with) and it's all your fault (that I don't agree with) and you can atone by buying carbon credits today.

Same snake oil. Slightly different bottle. says M.R. owner of WRH

Listen. Those pushing for climate reform and energy refore, sell all your cars, anything that uses gas, oil, fossil fuels, live simply and set the example.

If you want something to happen, YOU who suggested it have to start it. I am not necessariy on their side, so I would like those advocating this action to take the step and stop using those energies.

I would like to see no more democrats on airplanes, since that adds significantly to fossil fuel usage. They should be driving fully electrical cars or riding bikes to work.

When I see this, I will believe this side

The Globe is warming and cooling depending where you are at. Change the way you live, set an example and stop complaining.

Someone should open a Baskin Robins in the Arctic before all the good spots are taken.

Maybe one of you liberals could get a government grant.

Just think about it.

"before all the good spots are taken"

Too late.

We would still need to be finding alternatives to fossil fuels . .
Fossil fuels pollute the air, the sea, rivers, lakes, etc. . .
we will be drowning in our own filth if we don't find cleaner energy sources.

#43 | Posted by danni

care to elaborate? . .

I can wait, if it takes ya a while to concoct something

Too late.

#94 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-05 05:55 PM

For what? Real estate, grants, or both?

Now tell us about the Antartic wise guy?

~Ray

Fer starters it's spelled "antarctic".

/Spud's first rule of blog-world in full effect.

Be Well.

"If you want something to happen, YOU who suggested it have to start it. I am not necessariy on their side, so I would like those advocating this action to take the step and stop using those energies." - Expsredemption

So the next time there is a movement to go to war, I'll wait until those who call for it go first. Sounds like a good idea.

The really ironic thing is that, if climate change does occur and causes drastic problems, government will act out of panic mode and implement draconian measures. And the people gripping most about taking _any_ measures will be the first to rail against government's incompetence.

Given the mountains of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is upon us, and the sheer unwillingness of humans to alter their behavior, I am left with just one question:

At what altitude should I be scouting for soon-to-be beachfront property? Some place I could build a nice little house 30 years from now, and which wouldn't be submerged for another 30 after that.

I'm amazed asbestos, CFCs, and PCBs ever got phased out, given our current head-in-the-sand attitude.

lol like the Indian artefacts found in Yellowstone after the great fires there a few years back?

#63 | Posted by Bani

I'll bet you are refering to the stuff that was found after the fire at the Little Bighorn Battlefield where the good Col. did some very stupid things and got all the men under his command killed. The other two commanders there were a little smarter and lived to tell about it.

WTF does that have to do with global warming?

Since you are to lazy to do that simple search, here is one site.

Yes that is exactly why 90% of the worlds scientists are so concerned about the current warming phenomena. The preponderance of evidence using the scientific method is overwhelmingly in support of current global warming theory. Where have you been all this time?

#84 | Posted by RingMaster

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

How does that fit your 90% number ace?

Post as link 'ace. If you expect educated people to debate you sniper, you will have stop making things up and stick to peer reviewed sites. Heartland Institute and their mirror sites are not peer reviewed. They are an abomination of statistics and lies carefully crafted to fool people like you who don't know how to judge the source of the propaganda they read.

But Ringmaster, all those "peer-reviewed" sites are part of the secret conspiracy by scientists and Obama to turn the world Socialist!!!

;)

Anyway, still hoping to see a projected rate of sea level rise from the melting caps. I'm sure the models can be invoked to work up some sort of guesstimate, even if it's not very accurate.

I wonder if the Dutch have any long-term outlook on the problem.

WTF does that have to do with global warming?

#101 | Posted by Sniper

damn earthquake would kill my cousin! Not to mention keep us from seeing the sun that year...global cooling? or global poluting?

Sea level rise is a long term projection. It always has been. There is, however, recent data that it is taking place faster then predicted. If you were expecting WaterWorld conditions, forget. The projected rise in the next 90 years is not predicted to be more then about 30 cm, or a foot.

Given the mountains of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is upon us, and the sheer unwillingness of humans to alter their behavior, I am left with just one question:

At what altitude should I be scouting for soon-to-be beachfront property? Some place I could build a nice little house 30 years from now, and which wouldn't be submerged for another 30 after that.

#100 | Posted by snoofy

that said whatever the climate direction, it will be a mere blip for mother earth. if man is really messing up her climate, man may be gone or have his population severely reduced. so be it

remember -

a) it's not possible to pollute & harm the earth

b) it's only possible to pollute man's environment

c) the earth don't care if we're here or not

But Ringmaster, all those "peer-reviewed" sites are part of the secret conspiracy by scientists and Obama to turn the world Socialist!!!

;)

#105 | Posted by snoofy

so this must be all bunk then?

World's climate could cool first, warm later

* 17:56 04 September 2009 by Fred Pearce, Geneva
* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Temperatures are in decline

*According to the US National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country link.
*Global temperatures according to the UAH for June 2009 were only .001 deg. C above the 30 year average and cooler than 1979. link July and August temperatures were up somewhat due to a return of a cool El Nino link

*NASA announced that 2008 global temperatures were significantly cooler than 2007, the coolest since 2000 and below the average of the last 30 years link

*temperatures that were once rising are now falling rapidly according to the NOA link, 1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees F in this period (according to UAH) link. Three agencies responsible for tracking global climate show temperature decreases since 2002 link

*Global temperatures cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased steadily throughout this period. link

Here is the link to the first one.

Notice the temperature record for August isn't even posted yet.

Try again sniper. Climate change is not a linear graph. Analyzing a year's worth of data is like watching one tree die and declaring that the whole forest is dying. Climate change on a year to year graph is a dynamic or saw tooth pattern. You have to look at climate change in centuries to get an accurate picture closer to a linear graph.

I will give you credit for at least going to one of the better sites for climate data. At least you are on the right track by looking at data from NOAA. After all, They have the most expensive and accurate toys to collect the data with.

a) it's not possible to pollute & harm the earth

Well, you self centered bastard. How dare you make a statement like that and then insinuate that b) it's only possible to pollute man's environment. Wake the hell up dude. Mankind is but an ugly blot on the dimension of time as far as Mother Earth is concerned. Where do you live anyway? Flatland?

Try again sniper. Climate change is not a linear graph. Analyzing a year's worth of data is like watching one tree die and declaring that the whole forest is dying. Climate change on a year to year graph is a dynamic or saw tooth pattern. You have to look at climate change in centuries to get an accurate picture closer to a linear graph.

I will give you credit for at least going to one of the better sites for climate data. At least you are on the right track by looking at data from NOAA. After all, They have the most expensive and accurate toys to collect the data with.

#115 | Posted by RingMaster

That is like trying to explain Statistical Process Control to a squirrel. In SPC Dr Deming explained a trend is not formed until 7 points are plotted that indicate the direction. One singular point to make a case a case shows lack of understanding of SPC or sing data to smooth over blips.

The trend is UP. Zat is right.. a shit load of people are going to croak in this event. I don't think extinction will occur, but those remaining won't be happy.

Actual temperature record.
data.giss.nasa.gov

Coolest ten years . . . etc - etc - etc

#113 | Posted by Zatoichi

what is YOUR ideal global temp that we (360 million) American's should shoot for??

what is your rationale that the (300 BILLION) Chinese want the SAME global temp??

or the Aussies . . or the Canadiens . .or the Russians?

ya really need to think your position thru a bit

a) it's not possible to pollute & harm the earth

You're a fucking idiot, not to put too fine a point on it.

"it's not possible to pollute & harm the earth"

*headdesk*

" June 2001

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis this "Sixth Extinction" is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed. "

"How is the Sixth Extinction different from previous events?
The current mass extinction is caused by humans.

At first glance, the physically caused extinction events of the past might seem to have little or nothing to tell us about the current Sixth Extinction, which is a patently human-caused event. For there is little doubt that humans are the direct cause of ecosystem stress and species destruction in the modern world through such activities as:

* transformation of the landscape
* overexploitation of species
* pollution
* the introduction of alien species

And because Homo sapiens is clearly a species of animal (however behaviorally and ecologically peculiar an animal), the Sixth Extinction would seem to be the first recorded global extinction event that has a biotic, rather than a physical, cause.
We are bringing about massive changes in the environment.

Yet, upon further reflection, human impact on the planet is a direct analogue of the Cretaceous cometary collision. Sixty-five million years ago that extraterrestrial impact through its sheer explosive power, followed immediately by its injections of so much debris into the upper reaches of the atmosphere that global temperatures plummeted and, most critically, photosynthesis was severely inhibited wreaked havoc on the living systems of Earth. That is precisely what human beings are doing to the planet right now: humans are causing vast physical changes on the planet. "

yo zat ya dope - - if species go extinct the planet don't care, it's been there done that

yo betelg ya dope - - the Chinese don't even have to fire a shot . . just keep burning coal & they let mother earth wipe out our east & west coasts while central China becomes the new grain belt - -
they then call our the debt and they'd own what's left of middle America

btw, as the E & W coasts go first - few libs would be left . . so maybe there is hope after all (God's plan?)

#121 | Posted by markh at 2009-09-06 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag: not real bright

The wisdom of Markh-
a) it's not possible to pollute & harm the earth

Later that evening:

yo betelg ya dope - - the Chinese don't even have to fire a shot . . just keep burning coal & they let mother earth wipe out our east & west coasts while central China becomes the new grain belt - -

When confronted with bullshit of this extreme scope, it's really difficult to know what to say, though 'you're a fucking moron, Markh' does spring to mind.

Here is the link to the first one.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
I know, you can't trust them bastards.

Zoom out a bit - you know, to the whole planet:

Here is the link to the first one.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
I know, you can't trust them bastards.

Zoom out a bit - you know, to the whole planet:...

(sorry about that)

Or for Jan-July 2009 (more apples to apples for Sniper's post)

Local temperature extremes are like waves; As more energy gets trapped in the system and the overall average temperature increases (adding more energy to a chaotic system) extremes will become wilder.

"Zoom out a bit"

First it would be necessary to reverse the rectocranial inversion.

envirofascist power-grab....it is important to maintain ineffective public schools so they can continue foisting this nonsense on unsuspecting lemmings....

I guess I missed the part when scientists rallied behind No Child Left Behind.

America's public education system can't even produce sufficient numbers of rational thinkers to staff the few remaining positions for which a developed intellect is a prerequisite; we have to H-1B them in from India and points eastward to fill our high-tech jobs.

Do you ever reflect on the things you say, JonRyker?

betel,
dope is a term of endearment for those of you who have been unknowingly suckered and had your reasoning hijacked.

aka; this peer review . . that temperature anomaly . . no drilling here . . a hockey stick etc.

all the while China & India are laughing their asses off as we punish ourselves & they pollute

oh, regarding those promised green jobs that can NEVER be outsourced - -
the Dem's cap & tax put manufacturing on notice that their energy cost will SKYROCKET

duhhh,, it takes energy to mine/refine ore, make steel, & manufacture turbines etc . . .

as we watch cheap Chinese wind turbines and cheap Chinese steel imported/unloaded by the shit-load
(or ship-load, if you prefer)

ya value peer review??
that cap-n-tax bill was NOT PEER REVIEWED at all, as YOUR congressman did not even take the time to read the mo-fucker

any citizen who puts up with that shit AND rationalizes it OK, is indeed a dope

2008 COLD WEATHER ANOMALIES UNDER OR UNREPORTED IN THE BIASED MEDIA

No matter what you have read recently in magazines, newspapers, on the internet, heard on the radio, seen on TV or on the big screen. There is absolutely no credible evidence that can be independently verified that harmful man induced climate change (global warming) is occurring. Also the sea level in all of Earth's oceans has not risen even 1.00"/2.54cm in the past 200 years.

The record cold of the decades of the 1940's, 1970's, 1980's and most recently the bitter northern hemisphere winters of 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 argue against the occurrence of harmful man induced climate change (global warming). Also Winter 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 in Siberian Russia, as well as Winter 2004 in Antarctica were the coldest in recorded history. And let's not forget that January 2004 in Boston, MA was the coldest January in 111 years. Grand Forks, ND set its all time record low of -44 deg. below zero F, Fosston, MN also at -50 deg. below zero F and Saskatchewan, Canada saw minimum temperatures fall to -62 deg. below zero F, all in Winter 2003-2004.

But what is the point of the above paragraph? It is to demonstrate that for every short term global record warm weather event that is heralded in the media as an example of global warming, there is a counter balancing global record cold weather event, usually ignored by the media.

The Warministas point to each and every regional warm event as proof positive that harmful man induced climate change (global warming) is occurring. At the same time they conveniently ignore regional cold events or I should say that they used too. Their new tactic now is to conveniently blame every regional cooling event as also proof positive that harmful man induced climate change (global warming) is occurring. So they have a win-win situation.

As follows are more cold weather anomalies in the winters of 2007, 2006-2007, 2005-2006 and 2004-2005, that you "may" have not heard about in the U.S. media, due to the global warming media bias.

As follows are old weather anomalies in 2008 that have gone under or not reported at all in the U.S. media, due to the global warming media bias.

Now the August data are in.

zat . .
thx much for the data - -
please have someone help ya take a piss and get into your bed

ps . . also have an aide put them side rails up for ya too

wishin' ya well, be OK