The controversy is not about climate change. Never was. It is about $6 trillion dollars they believe they can steal from people by way of laws enacted by politicians who have been paid off.

I can't wait to see Zat's list of hottest years on record.

He hasn't done that cut and paste in, like, days.

Happy Instigation!

I'm baffled too. I can't believe anyone thought this was man made.

Oops. Just noticed another thread on this. Sorry.

I'm baffled too.

Your puzzlement isn't all that surprising... you're a fucking idiot. Maybe you missed the thread on this article.

#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Your mother must be proud.

Your mother must be proud.

...and yours must really regret not getting that abortion.

I do believe this is a record. Three threads on the same article.

They have no idea why their vaunted climate models are not "predicting" accurately.

No rocket science there...

...built to support a forgone conclusion, the models were guaranteed to fail...

...and the will continue to until the climatologists stop attempting to massage the predictions.

According to both NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, since global temperature records began in the late 1800s, most of the 10 warmest years recorded have occurred in the past decade. For both temperature records, eight of the 10 hottest years on record were in the decade spanning 1999-2008, with only 1999 and 2000 not making the cut.

Some of my favorite soundbites from the article:

"For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility."

I'd like to see some shame expressed by this guy:

Duh, ice melts at a constant temperature from 32 degree solid to 32 degree liquid.

Yet, if the planet doesn't have multiple negative feedback mechanisms, which drive tmeperatures back and forth between an equilibrium point, we would look like all the other planets, desolute, too cold or too hot.

Is the North Pole melting or isn't it? Why is Russia and the USA rushing into that once frozen region?

"World Temps Haven't Risen for 10 Years"

Bullshit

Shit Zat, some folks disagree.

It is after all statistics isn't it? People have been fucking with statistics since, since . . . always I suppose.

But I agree, the ice is melting. Things are changing. And this is going on during a solar minimum which is alarming in itself.

Oh well.

Lets talk instead about real environment issues we don't need statistics to prove or disprove.

Like the decimation of the last virgin rain forests in indonesia and brazil.

Or the monstrous fucking brown cloud hanging over the indian ocean,

or the great circle of plastic flotsam sitting out in the middle of the pacific larger that the lower 48 states.

Sorry, those topics are to mundane and silly.

Lets get back to something real like temperature!

Earth 'heading for 6C' of warming

Global Warming is man made...when you set up a weather station in the exhaust of a jet runway, or say next to an air conditioner...

Sorry...fubared the link.

polar bear population growing.

Hey Zat, here's something real you can worry about. If only guys like you, and Al Gore, and the IPCC were as passionate about the environment as you are about temperature maybe we could curtail this. You know, the planet may warm up, and then it may cool down again, but extinction is forever. Oh, but you always end your posts by being happy about that fact.

facts and figures cannot change my mind....it is settled science people!
why are they even measuring the temperatures?

No wonder the ice is melting. algore said the earth's core was several million degrees. A voice you can trust.

#19 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-11-19 04:14 PM

Poor Zatoichi.

"Climatologists are puzzled"

Should this surprise anyone----just because individuals have college degrees, it doesn't confer common sense as we can see with the mess in the economy. These people cannot fool mother nature (neither can Al Goreless). She's kicking sand in their puny brains.

Bush's fault.

There is a very good explanation for this sudden cooling trend. Matt Drudge reported it.

The core thing that enrages me about this issue is the possibility that in fighting the outright LIES from the greens, some important element of TRUTH might get tossed out with the green trash.

To be more clear: Greens LIE about the environment, usually due to hatred of humanity. People are catching onto the lies, and beginning to reject the Greens.

But polution DOES happen, and while CO2 is not a pollutant, other things ARE. With all the smoke and trash that the Greens have tossed into the debate to try and cover their lies, some ACTUAL important environment issues might be looked at with much more scepticism than they should be.

In simple terms: Boy who cried Wolf.

What happens if after all the lies, a real wolf comes along, and people have been conditioned to assume anything that sounds green is a lie?

Look I am ALL for cleaning up the environment and protecting Mother Earth. I just find this Global Warming a complete and utter sham. It's a bunch of shit is what it is. Even if it is true what can we do about it. I mean come on Humans think they can control Mother Nature and Mother Nature just sits on Her can laughing at us. You can't control the weather. If You THINK You can then You are one arrogant SOB and full of shit.

Larry

LAR, excepting the language, your right on the money and hit the nail on the head.

Yes I have a potty mouth. My "Favourate" activity growing up was munching on Lava Handsoap bars(Moms punishment) or Lye barsoap(My Grandma's punishment) for bad language. As You can tell I didn't learn My lesson.

Larry

The Lava bar cured me really quickly. Then I made the mistake (after a dad spanking) to tell him defiantly that it didn't hurt--HUGE MISTAKE.

The Lava bar cured me really quickly. Then I made the mistake (after a dad spanking) to tell him defiantly that it didn't hurt--HUGE MISTAKE.

Posted by matsop at 2009-11-19 10:22 PM | Reply

It obviously didn't Me. As per Your Dad spanking reference. My Mom was the disciplinarian and would grab the closet thing She could to wail lay Me. Of course it didn't work but hey at least She tried.

Larry

It sounds like usaf242 has finally cracked for good. First of all when you speak in absolutes, any good debater will call you on that alone.

You said, "Greens LIE about the environment, usually due to hatred of humanity." This is total nonsense. Had you said 'some greens' it might possibly have been debatable, but all of them? You exposed ignorance and arrogance.

Then you went on to say, "But polution DOES happen, and while CO2 is not a pollutant, other things ARE."

This statement is absolutely untrue and in fact reckless. Please read this hazmat info on CO2.

In simple terms: Boy who cried Wolf.

But Saddam had WMD!

"This statement is absolutely untrue and in fact reckless. Please read this hazmat info on CO2.
www.uigi.com"

Pure ignorance should have a MSDS also.

"Look I am ALL for cleaning up the environment and protecting Mother Earth. I just find this Global Warming a complete and utter sham."

'Mother Earth' will look after her and hers without any help from us. Have no doubt about that.

Climate change is real. Seasons are different now from when I grew up in my home town, and they are different where I live now than they were when I first arrived.

Golbal Warming? I don't know; it was -25C here at the end of September... that's not warm but it's unusual. It's a climate change though.

Hard to say if it's man-made either, but when I get on a red-eye flight and look at the moon from 35K feet, I don't see a normal moon colour.

World Temps Haven't Risen for 10 Years

Come on, in the debate on global warming 10 years is a mere nanosecond.

"Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%."

The Earth has been on a warming trend for about the past 12,000 years. The oceans have risen over 450 feet.

If you think rising temperatures are a problem, just see what happens if they start to go down. It is very possible that we could suffer a nuclear war when a large percentage of Earth's approximately 6 billion people are starving.

Where is AL GORE when you need him. After all, he invented the internet...If bullshit was gold, that jackass would be a trillionaire!!

Global Warming is man made...when you set up a weather station in the exhaust of a jet runway, or say next to an air conditioner...

www.surfacestations.org

That site looks like bullshit to me; cherry-picked bullshit. Here's another site showing weather monitoring sites. You'll have to zoom in for detail.

The Earth has been on a warming trend for about the past 12,000 years. The oceans have risen over 450 feet.

Another one without a clue.

Climate has always changed. Ice ages expand and retreat in 40 to 100 thousand year cycles. The Earth is a dynamic system. Mountains rise and erode back down, tectonic plates compress and expand causing changes in ocean currents, cosmic influences vary, even land mases rise and sink, in short change is inevitable but it is always slow when it comes to climate unless there is a catastrophic event. The fact is that the ocean level has been fairly stable for the past 6,000 years. We are living in an interglacial period. What climate scientists are concerned about is the sudden and abrupt change of the past 100 years. What part don't you get?

BTW...Al Gore is not a climatologist. He is a spokesperson for climatologists.

Wake up Bob. Hating someone because he is a democrat makes you look stupid in a science discussion.

Golbal Warming? I don't know; it was -25C here at the end of September... that's not warm but it's unusual. It's a climate change though.

-25C in September is normal in many areas on the planet. You didn't say where you lived. I once lived at Lake Tahoe, Calif. when it snowed 18 inches in June. At any rate, as Arctic air warms it absorbs more water. Normally Arctic air so cold it is as dry as a dessert. This increased moisture means there will be more snow in the higher latitudes when that humidity gets warm enough to precipitate as it moves south. It's all part of the science of climatology.

Our planet's temperature is measured as an average temperature, not someone's local weather.

It is a logic trap all too common with the least educated here.

www.surfacestations.org

That site looks like bullshit to me; cherry-picked bullshit. Here's another site showing weather monitoring sites. You'll have to zoom in for detail.

Of course it is bullshit. It was written by Anthony Watts, another Heartland Institute stooge. He is not even a climatologist, he is a right wing blogger and a part time weatherman for radio station KPAY-AM, a Fox news affiliate in Chico, Calif.

In other words he is just another right wing liar trying to make a buck on a controversial subject by publishing pure poppycock. Hey, if it worked for Bush and Co. WTF.

Anthony Watts

Or as Spud calls him, Tony Low-Watt.

A real dim-bulb.

As is anyone who can suggest with a straight face that Global temperatures aren't rising.

Be Well.

I mean come on Humans think they can control Mother Nature and Mother Nature just sits on Her can laughing at us.

Our planet's temperature is measured as an average temperature, not someone's local weather.

Excellent point. It must be considered also that "average" not only refers to the entire globe physically, but also to its lifetime. If our planet was based on a 24 hour model, our dataset corresponds to a time span of 23:59:57 to midnight.

Good point too Goat, and our life span is about a millionth of that three seconds. Now, if you really want to impress someone, collate that infinitesimal life span of this generation with the observed change in the average temperature during that span and guess what? You get Al's hockey stick. Whodda thunk it?

Now, if you really want to impress someone, collate that infinitesimal life span of this generation with the observed change in the average temperature during that span and guess what? You get Al's hockey stick. Whodda thunk it?

Without correlating data, there may be an entire NHL's worth of puck slappers in our planet's history that are yet unknown to us

He is a spokesperson for climatologists

'May be'?

Yea, and there may be was dinosaurs that existed in a arboreal forest in the Mohave Desert and a Bearing sea ice bridge that connected Russia and Alaska, and melting alpine glaciers that are 20,000 years old that just melted in the last 50 years all over the planet too.

God I love chewing up and spitting out pubbie bears.

He is a spokesperson for climatologists

So it was the climatologists who told Gore to say the earth's core is millions of degrees? That doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy!

God I love chewing up and spitting out pubbie bears.

What does that mean ringo? And what do dinosaurs and land bridges have to do with Gore's hockey stick?

Rightwingnuts still sucking at the TEAT of Oil I see. All you idiots obviously never took
Geology classes or learned about geologic timescales.
No surprise there from a host of home schooled bible
whiped creationists I guess. But you fail to see
the equation.

Gore is right, he may be off by a decade or two, or by
how much it will flood exactly where, but in essense he
and all the 1000's of other Climatologists saying that
Global Warming is real are correct (and not Joe the
Plummer Republican who on average doesnt know more than
Fox News tells them to know). What, you think you
actually know more than 1000's of guys and gals with
PhD's on the subject who have spent 15 or 20 years in
the field collecting and studying data? please...

I make maps for a living. And while I have no PhD,
I map ecology and shorelines and see areas all over
the world undergoing the same thing.

Glacial retreats are widespread, and happening all
over the North and in Alpine regions. Glacial retreats
have even started to be witnessed on the Tibetan Plateau
and in the Himalayas. Wetlands, are being submerged
along most of the southern and eastern seaboards. In Mississippi and areas around the Mississippi delta, much
of this is due to subsidence, but other areas show it
as well. And that means sea level rise.

And whatever the temperatures have been over the last
decade or so (and there is much debate about that) one
thing still remains. The ice is still melting at
record pace, from Greenland to Alaska, from the Andes
to Antartica. The story is much the same.

One thing I've noticed about the internet, is that
it empowers people to think that any old opinion is
equal to someone elses. Not all opinions are equal.
The opinion of some scientist who has made it his or
hers life's study to study these changes, who has spent,
you know, 10-20 years in the field studying this
phenomenon just might know a bit more about the subject
than some oil lobbiest, or some oil share owning
stockholder blogging here on Drudgeretort.

...or some oil share owning
stockholder blogging here on Drudgeretort.

Yea, goaty you you oil pumping reprobate waiting to retire on my gas bill. Take that! Ahahahahahahah!

settled science....pay no attention

Come on, in the debate on global warming 10 years is a mere nanosecond.

#38 | Posted by CalifChris

Which means that 10,000 years is a mere microsecond.

Back in the 70s it was global cooling and in the 90s it was global warming. How many seconds did it take for that change.

The sky is really falling this time but it wont fall on the USA because at the rate we are slipping into debt it will fall on the Union of Socalist States of North America. We will all be working for the government plantation owner all year instead of the 6 months we do now.

Back in the 70s it was global cooling and in the 90s it was global warming. How many seconds did it take for that change.

#57 | Posted by Sniper

Today it's global stagnation. Quick raise taxes to study why it's not getting hotter or cooler!

"Back in the 70s it was global cooling"

#57 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-11-20 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground"

zat, how much is algore paying you to keep up with your bullshit? It must be a bunch.

You can cherry pick statements all you want but the big storry in the 70s was global winter.

By the way, what about that hole in the ozone that was going to end life on earth? It's still there and we are still alive.

from USA Today

Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

WASHINGTON (AP) New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

wtg Sniper...no date, no article link...

like me posting...

"Independant research shows Fox News reporters don't know shit"...

sort of fits into that old saying that
"30% of all statistics are made up on the spot"

I mean come on, so one article might say this or that, or may show evidence to the contrary. These
are complex systems we are talking about (like the weather) filled with hundreds of variables. Its like reading
on Drudgereport that one cold day in Georgia means
that Global Warming isn't happening.
It means nothing. What counts are the long term trends to the data,
not daily fluctuations. And those long term trends all
point to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, sun
bleached corals, and climatic variability. And then
there is the question of who wrote the article? What,
if any, are their motivations? Whom do they work for?
Or whom had this study done? Surely you are this smart,
to figure out that such a question is not so easily solved
as finding one article to the contrary.

Might as well say, "Rush Limbaugh told me it isn't happening, so it isn't happening".

Like what would Rush know about the subject locked in his radio studio munching down on
chocolate covered cupcakes,or smoking his
ridiculously expensive cigars?

as for articles on the topic, let me suggest you
look at a better source for science articles, www.sciencedaily.com, instead of say, a noted
source of science information like USAtoday
for instance...

What happened sniper? You forgot how to cut and paste a link or are you just tired of getting debunked every post?

At any rate, I read that article by USA Today.

"wtg Sniper...no date, no article link..."

'Twould appear that, like Sniper, we'll just have to take it on faith.

To be more clear: Greens LIE about the environment, usually due to hatred of humanity. People are catching onto the lies, and beginning to reject the Greens.

But polution DOES happen, and while CO2 is not a pollutant, other things ARE. With all the smoke and trash that the Greens have tossed into the debate to try and cover their lies, some ACTUAL important environment issues might be looked at with much more scepticism than they should be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dunno, thinking that if there was any "truth" in anything they stood for, they'd use it, instead of making something up....

...truth is a shitload easier than perpetuating a lie, even when the purpose is to make money.

Face it, a "man made" issue is much easier to sell a "fix" for than something we have no control over and is a systematic condition based on nature.

Kind of like religion..believe it or burn in hell...well, no there is no "proof" but do you want to take the chance?

Loh

That site looks like bullshit to me; cherry-picked bullshit.
#40 | Posted by Jay at 2009-11-20 05:39 AM

Here's another site showing weather monitoring sites. You'll have to zoom in for detail.

www.sailwx.info

#40 | Posted by Jay at 2009-11-20 05:39 AM

The percentage of fairly new weather stations that are not up to code (built too close to black top, too close to AC heat vents, etc) is staggering.

As LoD said, the margin of error is staggering and doesn't help the arguments of either 'side' of this debate.

"The percentage of fairly new weather stations that are not up to code (built too close to black top, too close to AC heat vents, etc) is staggering. "

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-20 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

[citation needed]

(sigh)...denial is a powerful thing.

can have all the data in the world and
some people will never believe it.
All I can say is that there is truth
and wisdom in old adages...

like "better safe than sorry",
or "all the gold in the world won't matter"...

lol. I'm sure someone on the right
will now select some Bible quote or some such
and throw it back at me...

cheers! TGIF...

tommorow this time, flying home for the
holidays...

peace people.

Why read an article when you can whine about its headline, right my conservative friends?

Anyone want to mention that the entire article says they have a number of reasons WHY the temp hasn't increased in ten years....and no one disagrees that this short term trend will end soon...and no one says there is cooling happening now or in the near future... BUT HEY, don't let that stop you from whining! Stupid GOP.

Which says nothing about the margin of error for the sites from what I can see, but thanks anyway.

All it takes in common sense 'live or die'.

There is this mathematical concept called averaging. It doesn't matter if some of the sensors are a bit off just as it doesn't matter what scale is used (C or F or K), what matters is whether the average of all is up or down.

All it takes in common sense 'live or die'.

There is this mathematical concept called averaging. It doesn't matter if some of the sensors are a bit off just as it doesn't matter what scale is used (C or F or K), what matters is whether the average of all is up or down.

#71 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-11-20 02:19 PM

Try again.

my question is why has the temp of Mars gone up the last 40 years by the same amount as the Earth? If the climate change is man made then what have we done to cause Mars to heat up? I Found this information in National Geographic from research by NASA.

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

my question is why has the temp of Mars gone up the last 40 years by the same amount as the Earth? If the climate change is man made then what have we done to cause Mars to heat up? I Found this information in National Geographic from research by NASA.

Mars has a different atmosphere, no oceans and a lot more CO2 in the air. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. At any rate the explanation is certainly beyond the average intelligence of a dead elephant.

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists.

So what? Many of these skeptics still don't believe in evolution and think Jesus was pro Bush and blessed the war in Iraq. WTF does that have to do with anything?

Not much of an argument there.

#66 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-20 01:17 PM

I'll make it a little clearer for LOD. If you click on Iraq's link in post 19 you'll see what appears to be a map of all the weather monitoring sites in the US, and then further be misled into believing that all of those, or a great many of them, are producing corrupt data because of their proximity to man-made heating vents, etc.

Now, if you click on the link I produced in post 40, and zoom in, you'll see that the map in Iraq's link greatly reduces the number of monitoring stations. Therefore, they are being very deceptive and misleading in trying to prove their point. You aren't surprised are you?

So what? .... WTF does that have to do with anything?

#76 | Posted by RingMaster

From another article. Maybe this will clear things up for you a bit:

Manipulation of evidence:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backI think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

I'll make it a little clearer for LOD. If you click on Iraq's link in post 19 you'll see what appears to be a map of all the weather monitoring sites in the US, and then further be misled into believing that all of those, or a great many of them, are producing corrupt data because of their proximity to man-made heating vents, etc.

Now, if you click on the link I produced in post 40, and zoom in, you'll see that the map in Iraq's link greatly reduces the number of monitoring stations. Therefore, they are being very deceptive and misleading in trying to prove their point. You aren't surprised are you?

#77 | Posted by Jay at 2009-11-20 04:56 PM

Try again.

Surfacestations project reaches 82% of the network surveyed.

And #72 sure shut RingMaster up.

Actually, I did click on it, that is why I'm calling it bullshit. Where's the list of non-conforming stations? You'd think that would be right on top or along side the pie chart showing 69% deviation of greater than or equal to 2c. If you look hard enough you can find a list of all the stations, but not specific non-conforming ones. Why is that? Do I need to buy the book to get that data? (Click on the pdf link and you'll see he's selling a book.) But really, the question is: Why put that map at the top of the page, that's woefully inadequate, and state 82% have been surveyed, and found to be out of spec, if not to willfully mislead.

and state 82% have been surveyed, and found to be out of spec,

Should be: ...and state 82% have been surveyed, and 69% have been found to be out of spec,...

And #72 sure shut RingMaster up.

No, I have a life and am hours behind you. Kiss my ass.

Redman, could you please write a cliff note?

LOL, I'm already too old to read a winter's passage.

OK, I found some time to actually read redman's #85 convoluted post. All I can say is, "So what?" It reads like typical blogger's bull to me. Even if it was not fabricated, what difference does it make anyway? Does anyone here think that the Heartland Institute isn't pumping out pure crap everyday too. This is not about 'he said, she said'. These bloggers can spend their lives spinning tales like paparazzi air brushing smaller bikinis and cellulite, but it doesn't change anything and that is the important aspect of understanding the climate changes that were completely denied 10 years ago by the same people who now claim it is real, but not mankind's doing. These people are committing the worst kind of deception. They deceive themselves. So what's new here?

The supporters (ala ringmaster, etal.) of global warming (caused by carbon emissions) essentially are religious zealots---it's all based on faith--being sure of what they hope for and certain of what they do not see.

Lets talk instead about real environment issues we don't need statistics to prove or disprove.

Like the decimation of the last virgin rain forests in indonesia and brazil.

Or the monstrous fucking brown cloud hanging over the indian ocean,

or the great circle of plastic flotsam sitting out in the middle of the pacific larger that the lower 48 states.

Sorry, those topics are to mundane and silly.

Lets get back to something real like temperature!

#15 | Posted by boojiboy

A great post I think bears repeating.

The supporters (ala ringmaster, etal.) of global warming (caused by carbon emissions) essentially are religious zealots...

Well that's a twist, but we all know they say about opinions.

There is plenty of links posted on this site to counter anything you say matsop. Perhaps you should check them out someday or try a scientific approach too. Slinging nonsense around makes you sound like just another prejudge mental airhead.

Lets talk instead about real environment issues we don't need statistics to prove or disprove.

It's all related to the same scenario, man made pollution and loss of habitat.

BTW...There was a discussion about the Pacific gyre a few months back. The same deniers were asking where is the proof about that. They don't know that most of it is just beneath the surface. If they can't see it it must not be there, to them. If you bring up the subject of cutting down virgin forests they insist new growth will absorb the carbon (that is not a problem anyway) even when you show them pictures that the soil dies and the land becomes a dessert. As for the huge brown cloud over the Indian Ocean, they will tell you it's caused by dust storms.

Do you see a pattern here? These deniers are politically manipulated to push corporate agenda, and they will deny that too. There best defense is now that it's religious zealots behind or best scientists.

Like I said before, you can lead a pubbie to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

There is plenty of links posted on this site to counter anything you say matsop. Perhaps you should check them out someday or try a scientific approach too. Slinging nonsense around makes you sound like just another prejudge mental airhead.

#89 | Posted by RingMaster

Done a ton of reading on it and have read some of the info, opinions and rejoinders on these posts and a lot of it amounts to mental masturbation---climate change?--yep, climate changes; global warming---yep, the globe warms and possibly may be gradually warming more then normal over a long period of time and we'll all be dead before we know the truth of it, If inextricable global warming is occurring there are many possible theories as to causal phenomenon and carbon emissions being one of them is completely unsupported by the facts if not by common sense. So Dingdisaster, just keep pushing your unverifiable irrational opinion.

wtg Sniper...no date, no article link..."

'Twould appear that, like Sniper, we'll just have to take it on faith.

#64 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

from USA Today

Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

WASHINGTON (AP) New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

#61 | Posted by Sniper

I guess you don't even know how to read. It was an article from USA Today and it was an AP story. WTF do you want? You want me to hold your little hand so you arn't too lonely when you check AP or USA Today?

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo

Was it labeled as a real photo? I photoshop stuff all the time for effect. NASA photos are public domain. If it is used as cover art all or in part and not labeled as an actual photo it is both legal and perfectly ethical. You are trying to make a mountain out of no hill at all semtex.

Kiss my ass.

#84 | Posted by RingMaster

Where at? From your posts you are all ass.

Spare me the prissy whining and moaning mutsup. Posts some relevant links if you have even one or eat the bird.

You too snipped one.

Kiss my ass.

#84 | Posted by RingMaster

Awwwwwww. What a cute donkey.

Average year to year change: +0.01 C/yr

Which translates to a one degree Centigrade rise in a hundred years assuming a straight line extrapolation. If we were overly generous and assumed a 10% reduction from cap and trade, that translates to a tenth of a degree difference in a hundred years.

Which only goes to prove, it's all about the money.

Awwwwwww. What a cute donkey.

#99 | Posted by coyote at 2009-11-21 06:45 PM

Donkey or ass, hey, what does this city slicker know. They both look the same to me.

This should really be a debate about National Security. Becoming energy independent should be the goal regardless of what you think about climate science (not that 99.99% of people are qualified to make any statements about climate science). Are detractors really saying we should all go back to leaded gas and styrofoam McDonalds containers? What are they really proposing here?

Which only goes to prove, it's all about the money.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Dopes like you are just now starting to admit it is actually getting warmer which just proves the title of this thread is 100% wrong.

There will always be up and downs on an annual basis. That's why climatologists are looking for long term average trends. Unfortunately, trying to teach math to someone who's greatest mathematical accomplishment is making change, is more difficult then getting them to admit they are part of the equation too.

Some of my favorite soundbites from the article:

"For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility."

I'd like to see some shame expressed by this guy:

timesonline.typepad.com

"Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nio and La Nia, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."

This is that same IPCC that some folks on the DR have been attributing almost godlike status too. Hadley must be a pawn of big oil.

#11 | Posted by boojiboy
-----------------------------
Oh do say hadley hugh?

Donkey or ass, hey, what does this city slicker know. They both look the same to me.

I doubt coyote knows the difference either, but I suspect he's just jealous because he didn't get a kiss from a pretty lady too.

#104 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER

I'm beginning to notice you believe almost anything that comes from the mainstream.
It should be clear that a carbon tax is just that. It will accomplish nothing except raise revenue and add to the economic wreckage.

Dopes like you are just now starting to admit it is actually getting warmer

Don't pull assertions out of your ass.

"who's greatest mathematical accomplishment is making change"

You're giving him too much credit.

Don't pull assertions out of your ass.

Of all people on the retort you're among the least-qualified to complain about people pulling "facts" out of their assholes.

Of all people on the retort you're among the least-qualified to complain about people pulling "facts" out of their assholes.
#109 | POSTED BY ZOMBIEHUNTER

You're so mesmerized by your corporate indoctrination that you can't see when you're wrong.

Assertion ray? Here is a quote from your own post #101, "Which translates to a one degree Centigrade rise in a hundred years assuming a straight line extrapolation."

I don't need to assert anything, you said it yourself.

So what's the problem with that?

I guess I have to explain what "pull assertions out of your ass" means. It means to make up stuff. I have never denied global warming. I have a problem with using natural climate change as a pretext more more taxes.

I have a problem with using natural climate change as a pretext more more taxes.

Apparently so does Andrew Bolt, the blogger trying to push his right wing agenda by attacking one of dozens of data sets the NOAA, IPCC and NASA use to qualify their predictions.

WTF does this have to do with me pulling data out of my ass, shit for brains?

How do we know that the Artic Ice wasn't melted using Photoshop. It's not like any of us have been up there and obviously you can't trust the propaganda being passed around.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nio and La Nia, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill."

Well it appears Dingdisaster will be the last man(woman) standing and supporting the global warming fraud--- a large number of prominent scientists that originally supported this scam are now slinking away into the dark while others are now admitting that science doesn't support it---in fact a number of them support several of our more educated posters that say it's about the money.

I think it's high time some people start thinking more about the Aina then just their pocket book when it comes to the future of our rapidly shrinking biosphere here on planet Earth. I don't care if the greedy ones don't like it, to each their own, but when they make it their goal to spread junk science for the sake of the dollar, I will call them shit for brains, just as quickly as they insinuate that I am responsible for 'making things up'.

For the record I don't have anything to do with collecting the data other then keeping an eye on a NOAA weather station that is a 100 yards from the nearest unheated and uncooled building here in Kau. I do help create educational material in cooperation with some very akamai real climatologists and vulcanologist, not you armchair amateur investors like Ray likes to brag he is. Get a life Ray, it's not all about you and the almighty buck.

We have a great state motto in Hawaii, "Ua Mau ke Ea o ka`Aina i ka Pono" "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness."

Post #117 applies to you too matsop. Now, go wash you mouth out with soap. It stinks with insults. You don't deserve a civil answer.

Ringmaster, sorry for being so tough on you--- I believe in doing everything we can to abort pollution and anything else that defiles this earth, however, I call out those with agendas and theories not supported by facts whether on the right or left---I look at facts and not hype or conjecture.

I believe in doing everything we can to abort pollution and anything else that defiles this earth, however...

It's the 'however' that bothers me. Don't make excuses, just do the best you can with the resources at hand and don't worry so much about the money. It's no good if you can't spend it anyway. The money is 'just a little bit thing', as we say here in Hawaii. It can make you as miserable as it can happy. Is your glass half full or half empty? That's the real question you need to be asking yourself. As for myself, I don't really care about the money. I like clean air, clean water, good food and predictable weather. All the rest is just an illusion of wealth. Great wealth is for people with false values.

Well, I love the outdoors and believe strongly in its preservation---also we have to do something about fossil fuels but I don't like BS to justify it---I treasure honesty as much as the environment. Things aren't important to me (haven't bought into the American way of materialism) and live a simple life although am wealthy (money)--having been blessed I've been able to help family and friends when they've been hit with crisis in their lives--so money is not necessarily evil in itself but it's how you obtain it and what you do with it.

I do help create educational material in cooperation with some very akamai real climatologists and vulcanologist, not you armchair amateur investors like Ray likes to brag he is. Get a life Ray, it's not all about you and the almighty buck.

Gold and silver still beating the almighty buck. I'll keep my gold and silver, thank you.

I'll keep my gold and silver, thank you.

#122 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2009-11-22 12:54 PM

Sure you will Ray. It'll be sold at a pawn shop before you know it.