I'm sure if you follow the money it will lead right to the perpetrators of the biggest fraud of the century. Sooner or later all the losers that went along with the fraud will cry that they were lied to. Only question left is what was their first clue.

Somebody forgot to tell the ice.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA"

Heeeeeres Zat.
Treatment, Zat...SERIOUS treatment. Seek it NOW! Remember how fast Jack Nicholson went downhill in "The Shining?" This insane laugh is just like his was.

Don't worry too much about Zat until he starts posting "redrum" as a response to every article.

i don't know

if you look at a graph.. short term trends are more jagged then long term trends...

it should be much easier to forecast 100 years in the future then a week.

just sayin.

logic is ignored.

if a hurricane is coming your way and there is a possibility that it hits land? you prepare. even if it might NOT hit.

there is obviously a few camps of thought on global warming; its real, its fake or its not man made but still real.

but regardless, the hurricane that is global warming might hit us, and if it does it would be a disaster for a significant portion of the human population.

we should prepare and do whatever we can to minimize the impact.

and if it doesn't, what harm was done??

"a few camps"

Actually there are two:

Science ...

Zat:

That blue line actually has some important info:

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

Now, that's a two-year trend, and climate is hardly an exact science, but it certainly is information at odds with the gloom and doom so aggressively sold by Algore & Co.

We've only been keeping climate records for just over a century, not nearly enough time to understand how things really work. It's gonna be cold sometimes, and warm sometimes, is what you get if you really look at the data. I'm not saying we couldn't be doing more to reduce our impact on climate, but we're being sold a bill of goods based on very little real data.

Remember, a few years ago, in the wake of Katrina, we were firmly told that mucho vicioso hurricanes were the new normal. What did we get? A much calmer than normal few years.

They don't know what they're talking about, plain and simple. Be funny if there wasn't so much money, new law, and curtailment of freedoms at stake.

Human extinction is the revenge of the 'C' students.
Too bad they're too stupid to get the joke; It's on them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

zat

ok what about the camp that sees both a combined natural trend exagerated by human industrialization.

meaning that we need to be focused on a longer term adaptation method as well as minimizing and/or reversing the affect of the damage done.

whatever the argument ... what harm is there to prepare for the worst?

cause the worse is horrible.

#7 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-01-10 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag: can't read a chart

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

Zat:

I could respect your opinion a whole lot more if you weren't taking so many pains to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid, or their viewpoint bullshit.

Jus' sayin'.

"I could respect your opinion a whole lot more if you weren't taking so many pains to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid, or their viewpoint bullshit."

He probably feels the same way...

DO NOT WORRY FOLKS, it matters not if the planet cools or warms, those with an agenda (liberal control freaks) will still push to get more money from us as well as mandate how they want us to live.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Zat is disputing this.

Peer review starts here.

From the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado website:

"The annual average extent for 2009 was 11.18 million square kilometers (4.32 million square miles), 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) or 8.0% below 1979 to 2000 average and 740,000 square kilometers (286,000 square miles) or 6.2% below the 1979 to 2008 average."

?

DO NOT WORRY FOLKS, it matters not if the planet cools or warms, those with an agenda (liberal control freaks) will still push to get more money from us as well as mandate how they want us to live.

#15 | Posted by MSgt at 2010-01-10 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals, by definition, are not control freaks. If you are a control freak, you can not be a liberal. Liberals are for freedom. Free to destroy the earth if you are stupid enough to do so. Liberals will tell you that you are stupid for sawing off the limb you are sitting on, but liberals won't tell you to stop, or pass a law to force you to stop. That is the consevative agenda.

"Liberals are for freedom." - BUFF

I disagree. Whether you're talking about controls on income, taxation, the sort of car you drive, whether you smoke in public, gun ownership, etc, etc.

Liberals, by definition, are not control freaks. If you are a control freak, you can not be a liberal.

Liberals want control over other people's money.

Liberals want control over other people's money.

#23 | Posted by Ray at 2010-01-10 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link? Anything? Is it true just because you say so? Make a point. Liberals are for freedom.

Is there a consensus yet?

I disagree. Whether you're talking about controls on income, taxation, the sort of car you drive, whether you smoke in public, gun ownership, etc, etc.

#22 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-01-10 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Controls on income are economic facts of life, and have nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. With no controls on income, the only result is revolution. History proves this with the Russian and French revolution. Even the American revolution was done in order to redistribute the wealth from England to the States. The car you drive is up to you. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept---it was the conservative Supreme Court that recently gutted the second amendment to say that the government has the right to infringe on that right as the government sees fit.

#22 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-01-10 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I forgot the smoking point you brought up. Liberals are for freedom---until you infringe on other peoples rights. All liberals support your right to smoke---all liberals are against your perceived right to fuck up other peoples air who sit close to you. Liberals support your right to spit---liberals are against your perceived right to spit in someones face.

Link? Anything? Is it true just because you say so? Make a point. Liberals are for freedom.
#24 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Liberals are their freedom to spend other people's money. Link? Give me a fucking break!!!

Liberals are their freedom to spend other people's money. Link? Give me a fucking break!!!

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2010-01-10 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about a "for instance"? How about making a point?

Health care bill. Social Security. Medicare. Progressive tax rates. Welfare in all its variations. Try this one.

QUESTION:
How much of our economy is controlled
by federal, state & local government ?
ANSWER:
45% of our National Income
($17,166 per man, woman and child - or $68,664 per family of 4)

Health care bill. Social Security. Medicare. Progressive tax rates. Welfare in all its variations. Try this one.

#30 | Posted by Ray at 2010-01-10 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are confusing liberals with democrats. Not all democrats are liberals, and not all liberals are democrats. It is true that liberals support those items you listed, but so do many conservatives. What I said about revolution is exactly true---you may not have been around in the sixties, but revolution was very close---there were riots---race riots. Even conservatives saw the wisdom of the programs you refer to. However, millions of people share your view---those are the people I suggest start their own country instead of bitching about this country. The programs you refer to will always be a part of America---either quit whining, or start your own country. Your way was tried here for almost 200 years---it doesn't work on a large scale. History has proven that simple fact.

"'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.'"

I see this point/concern. However, it neglects to consider just what the models are designed to predict. In some ways, it is easier to forecast a long-range global climatological scenario with better accuracy than it is to predict next week's weather at a particular spot.

To use an analogy: it is easier to (accurately) predict that it will be warmer in the Northern Hemisphere in six months than it is to make the same prediction for a specific location in six days. Isaac Asimov appreciated this concept when he wrote the Foundation Trilogy and introduced the concept of "psychohistory". The story's premise is that it was possible to predict the overall "history" for a society even though it was not possible to predict EACH event within the course of that history.

#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I knew I could count on something stupid.

I knew I could count on something stupid.

#32 | Posted by Ray at 2010-01-10 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You must be talking about your own post, since you have run out of rational counterpoints. I was bored talking to someone with your limited intelligence anyway---you lived up to my expectations. Thanks for the confirmation of your low IQ.

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

#17 | Posted by JaySherman"

So what's the story on this? Everything I saw on the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre website indicates a net loss of arctic sea ice??

Re: #34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2010-01-10 11:55 PM

They are actually referring to the extent of the Arctic sea ice during the years 2007 and 2008, which were an all-time record LOW of the satellite record. Basically, there's been a one-season increase from the all-time record low.

Obviously, that's hardly indicative of an overall trend and/or an apt description of the current situation. If one selects a narrow enough interval in any data set, one can always (truthfully) say there is an increase (or decrease). However, by doing so, one would then draw a false (even misleading) conclusion. Of course, that would be sloppy/poor data analysis (at best!).

Here's what the NSIDC has to say on 6 October 2009:
"At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record."

ice has not recovered to previous levels

Of course, when the Gulf Stream shuts down I wouldn't want to be in England.

#2 | Posted by Zatoichi

The Gulf stream is in no risk of shutting down.

That's a point conceded by almost all climatologists these days.

Are you still using the hockey stick graph?

if a hurricane is coming your way and there is a possibility that it hits land? you prepare. even if it might NOT hit.

Except with your analogy, what we're doing isn't preparing for the strike of a hurricane. We're trying to steer it.

Are you still using the hockey stick graph?

He's still using his peer reviewed swimming pool.

Liberals, by definition, are not control freaks.

That all depends on which definition of Liberal you choose to use. Classical? If so, there are very few classical liberals in governance. Now if you want to talk about hold your hand, spoon feed you nanny state liberalism in existence today...we've got plenty of that, and they're about as close to control freaks as you can get.

#38 | Posted by Axiom at 2010-01-11 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

Here, let me help you Axiom, since you're probably too fucking stupid to use a spreadsheet.

The red line ("planet") is from NASA.

#39 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-11 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Thinks advocating we prepare for possible global catastrophe that even he has predicted is the same thing as climate change denial.

Zat, learn to swim. See you down at Arizona Bay.

nice to see zat being the scientific version of the armageddon fan club.

nice to see zat being the scientific version of the Armageddon fan club.

Just goes to prove that, on either end of the political spectrum, there are fanatics who can't wait for the world to end so they can be right.

"Well, it seems that there are at least a few scientists concerned with climate who have actually looked out the window:"

9:00am, 63 degrees looking out MY window. Suckers.

"Biodiversity loss is 'wake-up call'
news.bbc.co.uk

"The rate of species loss leads some biologists to say that we are in the middle of the Earth's sixth great extinction, the previous five stemming from natural events such as asteroid impacts."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Zat,
You might have noticed that the article said that this was caused by land use and other human activities, not AGW/Greenhouse gases....

we should prepare and do whatever we can to minimize the impact.
and if it doesn't, what harm was done??

#5 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD AT 2010-01-10 11:59 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I agree with you in theory on this. I think that the harm, though, is a ceding of a lot of rights and a power grab by those who twist information with a hidden agenda.

I agree with you in theory on this. I think that the harm, though, is a ceding of a lot of rights and a power grab by those who twist information with a hidden agenda.

#49 | Posted by somoco at 2010-01-11 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

And the money could be spent in mitigating the affects of warmer temps, ie levies, crop studies, etc. We could also spend money that will get flushed down the toilet in the current UN plan, saving humans alive today from malaria and other solvable problems. Let's give people today clean drinking water instead of giving it to corrupt third world leaders as payment for our so-called sins of CO2 emmissions. The ordinary person won't see a penny of this money going towards helping them in any way, shape, or form.

Let's give people today clean drinking water instead of giving it to corrupt third world leaders as payment for our so-called sins of CO2 emmissions.

To do that, we'd have to stop bottling their water up and sending it across the globe.