the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research

I wonder if any of this is in Al Gore's documentary.

I just saw this on DrudgeReport. Very interesting. Everyone can at least agree that a few moron scientists relying on a phone call from some dude are really doing a horrible PR job for the rest of the scientists pursuing actual science.

a) (IPCC) benchmark report . . . glaciers vanishing . . .

c) (REPORT) based on a news story . .

d) (NEWS STORY) based on a telephone interview . . .

e) (INTERVIEW) was "speculation"

- - - SEND MONEY - - - supporting documents for sale . . .

MiseryTool seek help.

MiseryTool seek help.

An in depth analysis of the story at hand. Bravo!

I don't need to put dogshit in my nose to know it stinks.

I don't need to put dogshit in my nose to know it stinks.

#6 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-01-17 07:08 PM

And yet, you do it anyway...

Moonflapper you're such a predictable dumbass.

Ted Kennedy

Moonflapper you're such a predictable dumbass.

#9 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-01-17 07:21 PM

It took you two posts to figure out what I was actually saying, and you think that I am the dumb one. For that matter, if I was so predictable you would have gotten it in your first reply to me. Bwahahahaha

As a further correction: I was being a smartass, Dumbass.

I don't need to put dogshit in my nose to know it stinks.

#6 | Posted by LetUsPrey

I never said you voted for Obama. Can you give me a link to where I said that?

Ok children, it's past your bedtime.

"It took you two posts "

Posted back to back. I suppose you've never done that. DUMBFUCK.

I was hoping for global warming this year. That's why I didn't contract my propane. Is there a chance I can sue Al Gore for the difference?

Posted back to back. I suppose you've never done that. DUMBFUCK.

#14 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-01-17 10:29 PM

As I said, if I was so predictable you would have gotten it in your first reply. Dumbass.

Hint: Capitalizing your misplaced insults doesn't make you smarter, but if it makes you feel better then have at it. I could use a few more good chuckles at your expense.

HAPPY EXTINCTION IDIOTS!

ZATMAN

HAPPY EXTINCTION IDIOTS!

ZATMAN

#17 | Posted by Bani

Imagine that on a Christmas Card.

"If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change."

Nawwwww...really? Their biggest mistake was in ignoring the data from Zatoitchy's scientific, peer-reviewed pool. If they had paid attention to HIS reports, they wouldn't have all this grief. It has all caused ol' Zat to trip his circuit breaker and all he can do now is laugh like a maniac and scream, "extinction." His "scientist" buddies have now had to resort to faking data. Poor Zat...

So... On global warming... As I shoveled snow today, as the snow rapidly melted, I couldn't help but think this: Global warming deniers love to point at an isolated cold day as evidence that global warming is bunk ("Look! It's -2 in VT in January--there can't be global warming!"). Today I get to point to an isolated warm day (well, two--yesterday was amazingly warm) as evidence that global warming is absolutely true.

damnit!!!!
the science is settled!!!!!!

don't need to put dogshit in my nose to know it stinks.

#6 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-01-17 07:08 PM

And yet, you do it anyway...

#7 | Posted by moomanfl

Very funny--Letusprey, why don't you just walk around with your chin out inviting people to take a whack.

So... On global warming... As I shoveled snow today, as the snow rapidly melted, I couldn't help but think this: Global warming deniers love to point at an isolated cold day as evidence that global warming is bunk ("Look! It's -2 in VT in January--there can't be global warming!"). Today I get to point to an isolated warm day (well, two--yesterday was amazingly warm) as evidence that global warming is absolutely true.

#20 | Posted by pragmatist

Yep, came down to Fla. for a few days to get away from the cold and snow (3 years in a row)in Michigan. Sitting here with sweats on---might as well go back to Michigan.

Has anybody heard from zat?

The GWers were probably the same ones that were pushing the embryonic stem cell research that has been a colossal failure---what was that song?

Where have all the GWers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the GWers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the GWers gone?
DRers have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Has anybody heard from zat?

#24 | Posted by Sniper

This morning.

What fucking part of "I DON'T" don't you understand, you fucking moron?

Obviously the "I" and the "Don't" parts.

You would think zat would be here defending the lie.

He will, not to worry.

Here, Zatzatzatzatzat!

Here, boy!

* Whew-whew-whew-whew-whew! *

Heeeere, Zat!

Heeeere, Zat!

I recall a number of lefties at this very site claiming that the bogus research from a few agenda-driven scientists who were exposed in the email scandal could never have influenced IPCC reports at large. Will those people appear in this thread and admit they were full of shit?

words that are synonymous with marxists, commies, liberals, socialist are liars, worthless, hoax and chains, worthless, thugs, worthless, parasites, worthless, destructive, incompetent, worthless, regressive, , worthless, moron, worthless crooks, dunce, worthless liars, self serving pieces of shit, worthless antiAmericans, worthless dictator.

Time to take the pitch forks to Washington D.C., clean up the sewer, and put real leaders in charge.

How's that hoax and chains working for ya'll?

There needs to be psychological tests given to anyone entering American politics, they need to prove they are American born. Immagrants can not vote until they have lived in the U.S. 5 years, pass an intelligence test, can not vote if they are on welfare rolls. Illegals sent back to their shithole countries, create millions of jobs at U.S. Border patrol, save America 35 billion dollars a year supporting these parasites.
Eliminate antiU.S.Constitutional profiling laws.

Impeach that lying fraud dunce in the White House.

Remove pelosi and reid, they obviously have forgotten their alzhiemers medication.

Time to tear down the camel lot.
Vote intectually, VOTE REPUBLICAN!
The demon knows his time is short, he will vote for all these obamanations in the cover of darkness. That the American people do not want these worthless programs should invalidate them, and when this cluster fuck obamacare is shit into the shitpile of history, then the other 3 failed, bankrupt monstrosities (socialist suckurity, medicaide and medicare) should be thrown onto the shitpile as well.
Be well America, live free

Tutamen Deus

Remove pelosi and reid, they obviously have forgotten their alzhiemers medication.

Kinda like Ray-gun, am I correct Rightnut?

Now we see how 'consensus' has replaced hard science... and they wonder why so many of us are mocking them.

"Vote intectually, VOTE REPUBLICAN!"

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you!

I sorely needed a laugh today, and you, Sir, have most definitely provided one.

In fact, I just spit coffee all over my monitor.

P.S.: It's "intellectually." Jus' sayin'.

I saw that #32. "Vote intectually, VOTE REPUBLICAN!"

i want that made into a bumper sticker.

...

just remember, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 has always been a lagging indicator of historical global climate shifts, not a driver.

heaping all the blame of global climate change on a single trace gas, and a fix based on that assumption is too simple. humans yearn for simplicity, nature is intrinsically complex.

responsible, conservative ecological stewardship on the local and regional level are more important (and effective) than an international mandate on CO2 emissions.

Looks like the Brits are getting a taste of negative GW this winter, leaving nice carbon footprints in the snow.

"The scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report, and the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain that was speculation not supported by formal research."

The use of anecdotal evidence to reach conclusions is the hallmark of intellectuals.

The scientist just believed it to be true because it meet thier model, who again are the deniers?

I suppose ClimateGate was just the tip of the iceberg of the confirmational biased science that is GW/GCC science or my favorite "Global Chaos".

just remember, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 has always been a lagging indicator of historical global climate shifts, not a driver.

heaping all the blame of global climate change on a single trace gas, and a fix based on that assumption is too simple. humans yearn for simplicity, nature is intrinsically complex.

responsible, conservative ecological stewardship on the local and regional level are more important (and effective) than an international mandate on CO2 emissions.

#36 | Posted by JesusIsGod

Excellent post

"Excellent post"

#39 | Posted by matsop

And utter horseshit.

But you ignorant morons go on.
It's mildly entertaining.

You would think zat would be here defending the lie.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-01-18 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

He will, not to worry.

#29 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2010-01-18 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Here, Zatzatzatzatzat!

Here, boy!

* Whew-whew-whew-whew-whew! *

Heeeere, Zat!

Heeeere, Zat!

#30 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

How about his sidekick, Ringmaster?

OIC...Now the debate is about how fast they are melting, not whether they are or not.

Well, at least that is progress.

OIC...Now the debate is about how fast they are melting, not whether they are or not.

Well, at least that is progress.

#42 | Posted by RingMaster

Good for you, Ringmaster, glad to see you over here--you had me worried about your recent comment --a closed mind is not appropriate for a scientist such as yourself.

Matsop must be a woman. No man could be that much of a nag. LOL!

Oh, well! Women always did love me. :>)

yep, because being a responsible steward of your immediate and regional environment is utter horseshit.

it's why i dump toxic waste in my rivers while my national bureaucracy agrees to non-binding international mandates on CO2 emissions.

thanks for your support.

--china

p.s. the environment is gay and will be hanged.

You would think zat would be here defending the lie.

#28 | Posted by Sniper
--------------
He's probably outside getting the temp of his swimming pool so he can confirm that it is warmer. LOL.

Lonnie

I recall a number of lefties at this very site claiming that the bogus research from a few agenda-driven scientists who were exposed in the email scandal could never have influenced IPCC reports at large. Will those people appear in this thread and admit they were full of shit?

#31 | Posted by JOE
----------------------
THAT won't happen because they're still out there swearing climategate doesn't matter trying to give the thug-in-chief cover for his climate bills.

Deep down in places they hate to admit exists they know they are lying just like the thug-in-chief knows he's a pathological liar on this stuff too.

Lonnie

The GWers were probably the same ones that were pushing the embryonic stem cell research that has been a colossal failure---what was that song?
Where have all the GWers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the GWers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the GWers gone?
DRers have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
#25 | Posted by matsop at 2010-01-18 03:55 PM

What are you referring to? From what I've read stem cell therapies are now collecting from the individual in question and work without rejection. It appears to be an excellent way to re-grow heart tissue without any surgeries.

The embryonic cells have been compromised with non-human cells and limited to a few strains circulated for years - purposefully belaying the development of therapies by fundamentalist hypocrites and liars who are actually privatizing them.

Also, parts of the planet are warming and others are cooling. GLOBAL climate changes - not once or twice during your lifespan, but for YEARS to come. Enjoy!

"but for YEARS to come"

"A very deep layer of ice covered the Imja glacier in the 1950s (top photo). Over the next 50 years, small meltwater ponds continued to grow and merge, and by the mid 1970s had formed the Imja lake. By 2007, the lake had grown to around 1km long. Photograph: Erwin Schneider/Alton Byers/The Mountain Institute"

"but for YEARS to come"

"Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years"
www.sciencedaily.com
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Denial won't help you. Cap & Trade won't help you. Earth passed the tipping point before 1980.
"Regions of Arctic tundra around the world are heating up very rapidly, releasing more greenhouse gases than predicted"
www.reuters.com
Oh, as for this thread, it's bullshit.
Big surprise.
"Satellite images show Himalayan glacier receded 1.5 km in 30 years"
www.earthtimes.org
"Indian Ecology Minister Ramesh says 'I was right on glaciers' melting "
www.earthtimes.org
"Himalayan Glacier Melting Observed From Space"
www.sciencedaily.com
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA
#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-19 03:05 AM

Why the laughter? I don't think I want to understand you.

What about the atmosphere? That requires thousands of years to replenish O3 naturally..

There is an immense island made of garbage the size of Texas - what is being done to combat that?

Imo, we'll die from our own pollution long before natural catastrophes decimate the planet.

just remember, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that atmospheric CO2 has always been a lagging indicator of historical global climate shifts, not a driver.

Incorrect.

In the climate history seen in the ice cores, changes in CO2 concentration have lagged changes in temperature.

But CO2 is also a driver. (When the earth exits an ice age it warms, which releases CO2. The newly released CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect, which in turn causes more CO2 to be released. It is a positive feedback mechanism.)

Most importantly, CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas. CO2 is the #2 contributor behind water vapor, responsible for about a quarter of the overall greenhouse effect. And in the past few centuries, we have increased CO2 by 50%, and it continues to rise about 1% per year.

"Captured on camera: 50 years of climate change in the Himalayas"

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

They say correct.

Anyone who's still in denial on the issue of AGW by this point is almost not worth talking to.

"Never try to reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place"

Be Well.

The GWers were probably the same ones that were pushing the embryonic stem cell research that has been a colossal failure---

As usual matsop tries to qualify an argument with a false premise in the first sentence. Science has never been his/her strong point, but his/her ability to research is certainly even more suspect.

#54 by snoofy is a perfect example of how screwed up AGW deniers are when it comes to logic. He is of course absolutely correct. CO2 is released back into the atmosphere when plant and animal material decay. When ice advances it traps massive quantities of organic material in a state of suspended animation. Those forests took thousands or millions of years to grow. Decay comes to a halt until the next thaw. The process of desertification also kills off entire forests that add to the decay of CO2 and other gasses, like methane, back into the air and water. This is not a debatable theory, it is proven fact. It stands to reason that CO2 fluctuations follow natural and man made warming. It is the feedback loop that most learned scientists are watching most carefully and the reason for the urgency of looking for solutions.

It's kind of like putting your ear to a train track. You know when one is coming, but it's not a problem till the train is just around the bend. If it's moving faster then the speed of sound, you are soon headless.

[Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."]

As much as I hate to flog a dead horse on the use of semantics, this quote by Murari Lai is a politi-classic. Note what he manages NOT to say: 1) We were wrong and 2) We'll fix it. Instead he says IF the originator of the original quote OFFICIALLY recants (official by who's definition?) then he will RECOMMEND the assertion be removed from FUTURE assessments (not recanted from the current assessments). Classic doublespeak!!!

BTW, did you happen to take a gander at the "IPCC claim" thread...

No, and I don't make it a point to read Newsmax bullshit either. It was after all posted by a right wing nut case. I have my standards too.

#77 | Posted by RingMaster

What this has to do with AGW is not clear, but what is clear is it the fact that so much hot air from matsop is certainly a contributing factor and worth further investigation.

#56 | Posted by RingMaster

Ringmaster, lowering your standards?--I think so; it's natural evolution as the "scientific data" supporting this fraudulent theory crmmbles----just waiting for another shoe (how many of these exist, anyway) to drop---it's like a horror show, a veritable ongoing train wreck with big Al the engineer being compressed along with the engine against the caboose carrying ringmaster and other erstwhile disappointed and confused masochistic followers. It would certainly be humorous if it was not such a tragic love story.

"crmmbles(sic)"

LOL!

Fail physics much?

American Physical Society Statement:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

You certainly didn't do well in 8th grade English.

#60 | Posted by Zatoich

English?--spelling, Zat, spelling.

I've never seen someone so obsessed with the extinction of the human species. Almost seems to be a projection of disappointment in ones own lot in life. An individual to cowardly to take his own life, yet wishing doom on all of his species. Curious...

Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years"
www.sciencedaily.com

#61 | Posted by Zatoichi

That's what I love about these people--now they're supplying themselves cover since we'll be dead and gone by the time a 1000 years roll around and they would be held accountable---it's like saying Zat's going to be affected by these high CO2 levels and in 150 years will be thinking rationally.

but, but, but...you mean the doomsday religion of global warming got it wrong AGAIN??? My god. With each passing day they sound more and more like the Millerites. LOL!

Poor global warming fanatics. Y'all just don't get it do you? You're Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to provide the most accurate and clear picture of today's climate change. And yet your leading scientists neglected one of most basic scientific principles, know your source. What you don't understand is that this type of behavior by the supposedly best scientists on climate change is outrageous! Where is the outrage on your behalf? Why are you not screaming your head off at their incompetence?

And what else have they lied about? Here the IPCC is consulting the world on climate change all the while taking shortcuts and basing their 'science' on hear-say. This is what the best of the best climate change scientists in the world have to offer? "A friend of a friend said someone he knows thought the glaciers could melt." The problem that all of us deniers of, and pay close attention, "man-made"(very important) global warming have is the leading scientists predicting our human extinction are incompetent, lazy, and ever increasingly being shown as agenda (funding) driven. Give us REAL science that shows man's contributions to the C02 level have a direct role in raising the global temperature with which the global ecosystem can not cope. Don't you think the global ecosystem could compensate for the 0.00032% change in the atmospheric make-up? This thing is bigger than scientist's current comprehension and they do not understand the whole picture well enough to offer a definite scientific opinion. Man made global warming is not a proven scientific fact. It is still a funding driven theory. And from henceforth we will deny your accusations that man might be the cause of our own extinction by global warming and thus taxable for their perceived detriment to society.

And all the posts about how the earth is warming don't bother us. It's a cycle the earth goes through. Don't let your agenda get in the way when the next cooling cycle sets in. Oh wait, I think it already has.

Sincerely,

The Deniers

You're = Your

It's fun to watch lettucespray and others cling like religious zealots to the Global Warming scam. They no longer have any scientific research to back up their claims, and now exist only on faith and years-old liberal talking points. Arguments can come only by way personal attacks and deflection. Ringmaster tries to argue that the source of the article is biased, but fails to understand the simple facts expressed, which, facts, cannot be biased. The claim was based on a single interview, information that was admittedly mere speculation. Simple facts that destroy yet another claim by the so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Oops. When will they finallly come around? Probably when Al Gore can finally blame Bush for the whole scam.

Give us REAL science that shows man's contributions to the C02 level have a direct role in raising the global temperature with which the global ecosystem can not cope.

Yea right, like you can't find it on your own? You apparently have access to a computer and the internet long enough to write your ignorant post. Do you have access to a community college? You might try there, but you actually have to attend (not just say you did like matsop)and then take at least a dozen courses in math and science. If you are bright enough you might even be able to get into graduate courses at university level, but one thing is for sure, you won't learn if you don't open your mind up.

When you make remarks like REAL science you come off like someone who is too stupid to know the difference.

Give us REAL science that shows man's contributions to the C02 level have a direct role in raising the global temperature - Yea right, like you can't find it on your own?

No, because it doesn't exist. Remember that man-made Global Warming requires two things, neither of which has been proven: One, that Global Warming actually exists, and there is no reliable data to suggest it does, and Two, that CO2 is the cause of that warming, which has even less "REAL science" available as proof. The "science" of man-made GW chose the result - CO2 is causing GW, then went forth to find "science" to prove their thesis. Completely backwards from "REAL science."

#69 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER

Divert the topic and insult my intelligence. 2 points for team Global Warming. Go you.

And I'm sorry the term "REAL" science as opposed to "non-agenda driven, not for profit" science bothers you. Obviously that point sailed over your tiny little head. Dunce cap for Ringo the kid.

Ringmaster tries to argue that the source of the article is biased, but fails to understand the simple facts expressed, which, facts, cannot be biased.

What? Because of Post #56 posted by the jackass matsup? Read the post again shit for brains. He's quoting a post #77 from another thread that was taken out of context, like he has the jurisprudence and academic license to make an assumption that it applies here. We aren't even to post #77 yet in this thread.

Apparently spokanejim is just one more illiterate who got his education on the back of a cereal box too.

As for the article this thread is all about, it is only about how fast the glaciers are melting, not whether they are or not. What part don't you get now?

Obviously they are melting twice as fast as they were 40 years ago, but the facts given to the IPCC were wrong about the depth of the glaciers. It sure doesn't negate the fact that they are shrinking faster then ever. If you don't understand that, don't blame me. I didn't drop you on your head when you were a baby.

Obviously that point sailed over your tiny little head. Dunce cap for Ringo the kid.

I'm rubber you're glue...well you know the child's game anyway, yea gavaster?

#72 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER

Like I said, I agree that the earth is in a warming cycle. But scientist can't define the 0.00038% change in the atmosphere composition as the root cause of the warming, nor do they know if the global ecosystem has a way of dealing with increased CO2 levels, and they disregard the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth to propagate irreversible global warming. This article is either 1. a 1 in a million mistake or 2. evidence that these scientist have already decided which side of global warming they stand on and will do anything to sustain that opinion in the minds of the public.

Once again RingMaster resorts to personal attacks, proving my point. I likely have far more eduction than you, but regardless certainly far more capability of reasoning and deduction. But that's OK, sit on your island and keep giving us silly and inane insults while worshiping at the alter of the Almighty Al Gore and suckling at the teat of other GW fanatics.

#73 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER

I guess you have to hide your insults in sentences for the game to be "grown-up"?

So, what college did you receive your Bachelors of Science in global climate from? Or are you just reading the stories and publications like every other non-scientist?

Anyone who's still in denial on the issue of AGW by this point is almost not worth talking to.

"Never try to reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place"

Be Well.

#55 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-01-19 06:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, you must agree then that anyone who's still in denial about entitlement programs as a failed method of eliminating poverty is also not worth talking to? 40 years - poor still here, lower graduation rates in urban areas, higher crime in urban areas, more out of wedlock births than ever, higher divorce rates, .... The list goes on and on. Hard numbers too - not junk science and GIGO models by Bill Nye the science guys like ZAT and ringo.

Give us REAL science that shows man's contributions to the C02 level have a direct role in raising the global temperature with which the global ecosystem can not cope.

It's not that the "global ecosystem" can't cope with it. It's that we will have difficulty coping with it.

REAL science is pretty clear on the basics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our industrial way of life has increased CO2 concentration by 50%. It's getting warmer as a result.

"Give us REAL science that shows man's contributions to the C02 level have a direct role in raising the global temperature with which the global ecosystem can not cope."

REAL science is pretty clear on the basics.

If someone is pushing a simplistic explanation for anything, you're not getting the full story.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Our industrial way of life has increased CO2 concentration by 50%.

Yes and probably - industrialization has increased atmospheric greenhouse gases.

It's getting warmer as a result.

Not necessarily. I don't read climatology journals, but I have not read much elsewhere in the way of scientific discussions of potential confounding factors. When you want to say "X causes Y," you have to very rigorously account for everything that could impact your data. I haven't seen that done, at least in most public environments. You won't get a good picture of why climate change is occurring without that information.

That being said, it's pretty ridiculous to see politically motivated character assassination campaigns and laymen complaining about methodologies they don't remotely understand.

"I haven't seen that done"

I just pointed you to thousands of examples.

Good point spud, but it is after all just a source of amusement for me, as I have stated several times in the past. I try to post reasonable arguments concerning the subject, as have many others. I have studied climate change and it's consequences long before most deniers even admitted global warming was happening. Many of them still don't believe in REAL science in spite of overwhelming evidence that is in their face now every day. What the deniers nearly always resort to is lies and innuendo based on lies, but never once has one of them offered links to solid facts that cannot be refuted by dozens of references from other quality sources.

So, I don't take them seriously, but when it comes to personal attacks, I am amused. I'm just better at it then them. They can cry all they want too. I could care less. Let them make fools of themselves. I love it.

Here is proof for Zatoichi concerning the Plasma/Electric Universe:

The earth was fine before us and will be fine after us; we are but leaser's awaiting an eviction notice.

#78 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And the man-made contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.00005%. Should we reduce our emissions where we can? Yes. Does it have an effect? Minimally. Can the environment absorb the extra CO2? We don't know. Again 0.00005% of all green house gases are attributed to man's energy consumption.

Man made CO2 is not a driving factor in the earth's warming and cooling. The earth heats up and cools down every year. We've had ice ages and heat waves in centuries past. To say that now we've gone too far and are on the verge of forever tipping the scales to the point all ice will melt, the sea will rise, and we could become extinct is the epitome of scientific arrogance.

#73 by gavaster

So far all you have done is posted one opinion after another. We all know what an opinion is like, don't we?

Post some Real science and back it up with solid links and maybe I'll look at it if I respect the source. Just don't link to the usual junk science links that right wing political hacks favor so much. I've already heard all their lame arguments and I don't waste time on pure garbage like the Heartland Institute or Exxon mobile supported sites. They are never peer reviewed.

#85 by gavaster

Another opinion piece. See what I am saying now?

I guess you have to hide your insults in sentences for the game to be "grown-up"?

So, what college did you receive your Bachelors of Science in global climate from? Or are you just reading the stories and publications like every other non-scientist?

#75 | Posted by gavaster

That's okay, gavaster, you're in good company. Ringmaster is very consistent and has used the same techniques on me---he drifts that way when he's been taken out to the back shed and rationally and intellectually spanked.

"Can the environment absorb the extra CO2? We don't know."

This is interesting, because "science" assumes that volcanic, and other natural sources of CO2; e.g., termites and other animals; is reabsorbed by natural processes. Meanwhile, something called "Anthropogenic CO2" is apparently not so reabsorbed and *accumulates* so that Greenhouse Chicken Littles can try and redistribute wealth to solve the "problem".

It is interesting to note that it is the Democrat Chicken Littles who are running around like their heads have been cut-off, in order to get some power for their fascist party ...

#71 Ringmaster> Obviously they are melting twice as fast as they were 40 years ago, but the facts given to the IPCC were wrong about the depth of the glaciers. It sure doesn't negate the fact that they are shrinking faster then ever.

When you say "shrinking faster than ever", exactly what time scale are you using? Are they shrinking faster than at any time in the earth's history? Are they shrinking faster than they ever have within the past few hundred years?

There is a lot of difference between the two. In the past the earth has seen periods where it was much warmer before mankind's industrialized period.

"science" assumes that volcanic, and other natural sources of CO2; e.g., termites and other animals; is reabsorbed by natural processes. Meanwhile, something called "Anthropogenic CO2" is apparently not so reabsorbed

Wrong again, tadpole. A finite amount of CO2 - the most abundant of many man-made and natural greenhouse gases - can be fixed in the carbon cycle. The addition of anthropogenic CO2 to natural sources could potentially outpace the rate at which it is being reabsorbed. That should be your issue of contention, not a bunch of conspiratorial drivel (not that I would expect an intellectually honest comment from you).

There is a lot of difference between the two. In the past the earth has seen periods where it was much warmer before mankind's industrialized period.

#90 | Posted by AKat

Yeah, the dinosaurs loved it.

#87 | POSTED BY RINGMASTER

This is an opinion blog.

I'm not the one trying to prove that after millions of years filled with ice ages and droughts, man has become the driving factor in the earth's temperature. The burden of proof is on you. The science behind man made global warming is what is on debate. And it is falling apart piece by piece.

I have not seen enough unbiased irrefutable research to say man is the cause of climate change. And it makes me laugh when scientists say, "We now know!" because 10 years from now these same scientists will be arguing the opposite truth and saying "We now know!". I guess you're right, I'm not like you, I don't believe everything scientist say. Because they're usually wrong.

And the whole PC open mind thing is crap too.

" Because they're usually wrong."

So stop using transistors, the internet, modern medicine and electricity immediately, Copernicus.

So stop using transistors, the internet, modern medicine and electricity immediately, Copernicus

I'll schedule him for a trepanning at 6.

#94 | POSTED BY ZORG_THE_VOGON

"So stop using transistors, the internet, modern medicine and electricity immediately, Copernicus."

Transistors, internet, and electricity? Things that are tangible don't need scientific explanation. It'd be like studying trees to find out if they were real.

Modern medicine? You mean like Rezulin
Lotronex, Propulsid, Redux, Fen-Phen, Duract, Seldane, Hismanal, Posicor, or Raxar? Hilarious

I assume you don't use antibiotics to maintain intellectual honesty. Don't forget, you have an appointment to let the demons out at 6. Make sure you have someone there to drive you home, sometimes the procedure leaves patients a wee bit groggy.

Zombie gives orders, "That should be your issue of contention, not a bunch of conspiratorial drivel (not that I would expect an intellectually honest comment from you)."

What are you talking about? Scientific data shows volcanic activity increasing over the last 60 years, but mankind's less than 15% of 3% of the atmosphere is causing GW?

Isn't that the "drivel" you attempt to lay-off on me, personally? That's quite typical of you GW Chicken Littles ... you get hysterical when you are contradicted and begin to project your own faults onto those who attempt to inform you ...

... hatemongers, that's what Democrats have become as a collective; kill-the-messenger haters for party uber alles ...

What a pathetic bunch of fascists you happen to be in science and politics ...

A bit of focus we are.

I said "I don't believe everything scientist say". The medicine can do what it says, it's the scientist saying it won't cause cancer that I don't trust.

So stop using transistors, the internet, modern medicine and electricity immediately, Copernicus."

Transistors, internet, and electricity? Things that are tangible don't need scientific explanation. It'd be like studying trees to find out if they were real.

Modern medicine? You mean like Rezulin
Lotronex, Propulsid, Redux, Fen-Phen, Duract, Seldane, Hismanal, Posicor, or Raxar? Hilarious

#96 | Posted by gavaster

I'd have to disagree with you on that one, Gavaster--let's see, science is used in inventions and Zorg mentioned tangibles; so science is used in the inventions of tangibles; therefore, since GW isn't a tangible it must be an invention within the minds of the addled---and since there is no definite objective retrospective science/studies to support hypothesis then it must be based on faith and wouldn't that make it a religion--that's it, it's a religion---can't be based on a longitudinal study since that type of study is based on observation of the state of the world without manipulating it---MANIPULATION??--does that mean manipulation of data--WOW, for sure, GW must be a religion.

Scientific data shows volcanic activity increasing over the last 60 years, but mankind's less than 15% of 3% of the atmosphere is causing GW?

I never said it was, only that it is important to find out the causes of climate change. Do you want to continue this discussion, or should I leave you with your strawman?

I think the big problem with this thread that everybody has is that the IPCC which is supposed to do its homework, or so they say, believed pure conjecture and took it to print. This coupled with the recent e-mails suggesting incorrect or falsified data makes the AGW crowd look suspicious at least.

You must admit, no matter what side of the fence you are on, this is a problem with the IPCC AGW and its research being brought into question

AGW crowd look suspicious at least.

You must admit, no matter what side of the fence you are on, this is a problem with the IPCC AGW and its research being brought into question

#102 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

AGW?--GW?

Zombie says, "I never said it was, only that it is important to find out the causes of climate change."

See? Back to square one, and where you *already know* that the cause of climate change is the energy output of our sun, and its impact on the major cause of warming or cooling in our atmosphere: water vapor (H2O) as cloud and absorber of reflected heat.

Three to four percent (3-4%) of the atmosphere that is CO2 literally cannot be the cause of GW/GC So, of course mankind's amount of that 3-4% which is about 15% of that total ... cannot be the cause, either.

Only "scientists" who are politically motivated (along with the dupes of science who parrot their Chicken Little claims) are those raising "strawman" arguments claiming that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing GW ... liars and frauds, and along with their stooges who are the only ones accusing mankind of causing it, on this site. What a bunch of sleezy hypocrites they are and foresworn to the scientific method with their inane consensus ...

I am speaking of anthropogenic global warming, so, AGW.

Three to four percent (3-4%) of the atmosphere that is CO2 literally cannot be the cause of GW/GC

Yea, prove it tadowe. Just being a motor mouth doesn't prove a thing. Where's the beef?

Ring says, "Yea, prove it tadowe."

I've posted the math, before, but of course you didn't bother to read it, or understand the conclusions made.

The Global Warming sandwich is made up of the sun's energy, water vapor, and various greenhouse gasses, all of which (not including H2O) make up less than 5% of the entire atmosphere.

Of that 5% of the entire atmosphere, mankind's portion is 15% of that.

So, if Global Warming was equal to 1 dollar ($1), then mankind's contribution would be less than 1 penny (1c) ...

You're trying to make less than 1 percent, the cause of all of it ...

... but that's because you are ignorant, just a dupe for the consensus pretending to be scientists ... and actually a flock of Chicken Little chickenshits ...

Tadowe-
There's such a thing as greenhouse gasses?

Commie stooge ilk.

I am speaking of anthropogenic global warming, so, AGW.

#105 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Never liked acronyms since grad school--one of the students from Japan was presenting to the head of the department and using a number of acronyms--the head suddenly exploded with expletives and said among other comments that nobody knew what the heck anybody was talking about anymore because of all the acronyms used and if he heard this poor dude say another one he'd cut his testicles off and send them back to Japan--since then never liked acronyms.

"Three to four percent (3-4%) of the atmosphere that is CO2 literally cannot be the cause of GW/GC"

While the argument is correct, the stats are way off. CO2 is merely a trace gas, only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Oxygem = 20.8%, Nitrogen = 78%, all other gases = 1.2%. But the questions remains, and GW fanatics like Zat and Ring have been unable to answer, either on their own or through any citations to scientific research, how such a minute amount of a "greenhouse" gas can cause the amount of warming they claim. The GW fanatics are rapidly becoming the Birthers of the Left.

"or through any citations to scientific research"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Try to get up to the 19th century, imbecile.

Guess anyone stupid enough to be from Spokane (Yes I've been there, hopefully never to return.) needs a picture.

Happy Extinction suckers. hahahahahahahaha

Indeed, Earth's temperature over the past century of industrialization has risen by about .5 degrees Celsius, but the theory holds that greenhouse warming should be highest in the troposphere, the place where the greenhouse warming effect begins. Utterly confounding global warming temperature models, weather balloon data has shown the opposite; the troposphere has been consistently cooler than surface temperatures. When faced with real atmospheric data, one of the most fundamental assumptions behind climate change due to greenhouse warming absolutely breaks down.

Sorry Tadowe.

If you want attention publish in Astrophysical Letters.

Otherwise your best bet for the human race is suicide.

Too bad you have those useless 22's.

Try a knife.

Zat the Rat proves my earlier post that GW fanatics have little more argument than personal insults. I live in Spokane and therefore am wrong? Imbecile, moron, yada yada dumbshit. It's hard to argue with someone so incredibly stupid. What's amazing is that Zat has enough brain power to remember to breath. But keep going with your rants, the rest of us have more than two brain cells to allow us to think for ourselves.

"Please pass 5th grade science or just kill yourself." Seriously? You expect someone, anyone, to take you seriously with such claptrap as this? Blithering idiot doesn't begin to describe your blatant inability to converse on the level of even the most ignorant and uneducated flying tree monkey. If your head was any further up your ass you'd be farting out your face. But perhaps that's your problem. So please pull your dick out of your brother's ass and try to act like a man.

Tardow's last chance at honor: Seppuku on YouTube.

Zat says, "Too bad you have those useless 22's."

I carry the .22's, not the .45, or the .357, which are too heavy for concealed carry.

When I wear the .45 or the .357, it is belt and holster. Save your mockery for someone timid enough to be intimidated by a progressive creep like you.

All of this is because you literally cannot explain magnetic fields extending millions of miles through space, without having an electric current to generate them ...

... so of course you must spew some personal hatred to misdirect your failure to do so ...

Utterly confounding global warming temperature models, weather balloon data has shown the opposite; the troposphere has been consistently cooler than surface temperatures.

The troposphere is always cooler then the surface. It is higher altitude. If you mean it is consistently getting cooler then it's past average, then I say you are wrong. Explain this link:

#121 | Posted by tadowe

Big gun, little pecker syndrome.

SpokaneJim says, "While the argument is correct, the stats are way off. CO2 is merely a trace gas, only about 0.038% of the atmosphere."

Yes, you are correct. However, the 'faithful' of science can fit any amount of temperature change on the point of their pinheads; like religionists can place any number of angels on theirs. The only thing is that those faithful can't face reality and always dismiss the scientific data they can't explain by mocking and reviling the messenger.

All of them are seemingly leftist Democrats!!!

"Zat and Ring have been unable to answer, either on their own or through any citations to scientific research, how such a minute amount of a "greenhouse" gas can cause the amount of warming they claim."

Zat answered, above, with personal attacks and mockery. Indeed, he posts specious links but absolutely refuses to explain what he believes them to mean, or in what way they contradict the rebuttals of GW.

He actually can't, because how can less than 3/10 of 1 percent cause GW.

#124...tadpole.

Yadda, yadda, yadda but so far, not one link to any real science. Some things never change.

Ring says, "Big gun, little pecker syndrome."

Well, if that is so, then it is Zat who made the claim. I just tried to explain why I carry a .22 ... not a "Big gun" at all, whatever the size of my privates happens to be.

Ring blathers on, "It is from the EPA. Let's see your source if you even have one mysterytoy. Don't even bother with some bloggers opinion. You already tried that. It's not proof of anything other then partisan opinion like your own."

My opinion on science isn't based on partisanship like it is for Democrats. Democrats are attempting to gain power by selling the idea that mankind (and mostly the USA) is causing GW.

The sun is causing GW, not mankind ... if you say otherwise, then you are disagreeing with Zat, who admits that the sun is the driving force of weather change ... throughout the history of the planet.

...the sun is the driving force of weather change...

The sun is only one driving force. At least get that part right.

As for your penis size, I really could give a shit. I'm just stating a well known cliche.

BTW...I think people go on line and brag about all their guns have mental issues that are best discussed with a professional shrink.

Ring can't stop mocking, "Yadda, yadda, yadda but so far, not one link to any real science. Some things never change."

I've posted over-and-over again, but receive nothing more than mockery for doing so. I posted on the troposheric changes with several references, and which indicate that the data shows, cooling for the last 10 years. What happens?

You and others mock and revile the messenger as some icon of stupidity for even daring to voice an opinion contrary to the progressive one that mankind causes GW ... when you know that is utter nonsense.

However, let's give you another try:

#128

nasif nahle sabag et al? He sounds like an arab oil middleman from Beirut.

I never heard of the guy. At any rate he is listed as a biologist from Mexico that never graduated from a reputable science university and the articles tadowe linked to are not peer reviewed. The site is in fact a personal blog site as I suspected. I'd bet even money that Exxon Mobile or Chevron funded him to speak at the IPCC conference as one of Mexico's contributions to the world of ethical commerce.

Ring says, "The sun is only one driving force."

What other source of energy is causing GW/GC? Perhaps you think that the Earth's core's heat is being factored into the Chicken Little (CL) claims that mankind is causing GW?

"At least get that part right."

You are rhetorically challenged - the word you are grasping at is "Factor" ... isn't that part right?

If so, then yes, there are many factors in the issue of GW/GC, but the CL's won't acknowledge them because they *know* that mankind is causing GW ... not any other factor ...

Ring excuses himself by dismissal, "As for your penis size, I really could give a shit. I'm just stating a well known cliche."

You're a leftist hatemonger who naturally dehumanizes anyone who disagrees with the party's fascistic propaganda. Naturally, you resort to cliches to revile and spew your personal hatred. And, of course you dismiss it when you realize that your attack was misdirected. Sheesh, you're a slavish minion of progressive socialism - of course your 'cliche'.

Ring can't stop with his hatred, "BTW...I think people go on line and brag about all their guns have mental issues that are best discussed with a professional shrink."

I think slavish partisan Democrats are the ones with the problems that they insist at projecting onto others ... what a jerk!

Ringmaster gets xenophobic (go figure), "nasif nahle sabag et al? He sounds like an arab oil middleman from Beirut."

Now, you spew your hatred at someone with a foreign sounding name? I knew, of course, that you wouldn't acknowledge any information/data that doesn't agree with your propaganda brainwashing from Gore, et al. So, naturally you progressive attack artists display your ethnic hatred for others who are different in name than your ilk ... the Democratic party hates all races, religions and ethnic groups that don't agree with their socialistic, tyrannical idea of government or science.

Ringmaster (they name themselves so unconsciously) shows just who the elitists of politics happens to be, and he is one of that ilk, "I never heard of the guy. At any rate he is listed as a biologist from Mexico that never graduated from a reputable science university and the articles tadowe linked to are not peer reviewed. The site is in fact a personal blog site as I suspected. I'd bet even money that Exxon Mobile or Chevron funded him to speak at the IPCC conference as one of Mexico's contributions to the world of ethical commerce."

That means that not one iota of the information was even perused ... you hatemongers of the Democrat party are so self revelatory, aren't you?

Cl says, "People ... tend to look at the problem in simple explanations like the effect of CO2 on the reflectivity and absorption factors affecting the global temperature, but these kinds of arguments are laughed at by real scientists."

So we know now that you aren't a "real" scientist, don't we, since you do nothing but laugh and mock at the information you heuristically ignore.

"There are several very important gasses and of course water vapor that must be calculated, as well as ocean thermohaline currents, sunspot activity, volcanic activity and albedo. The latter being perhaps the most important factor and the one most often overlooked by amateurs."

Ah, you've been over to Wiki, eh? That all sounds good, but where does the GW crowd factor in water vapor ... please post a link to the site where your factors are measured in transfering the sun's energy to the atmosphere ... please?

I doubt you will find even one that mentions anything more than methane of carbon dioxide ... want to bet? Except, perhaps ones where manmade GW is criticised ...

"What the real problem is can not be defined as simple a CO2 issue. It is only one of many factors that real scientists have weighed in order to conclude that unless we wake up and take action, we are in deed a doomed specie along with any thing more advanced then a cockroach."

CO2 is orders less important a factor than is water vapor, but here you are attacking me for mentioning the various factors ...!?!

Now, you seem to be playing at scurrying around that fact, like some progressive poltroon's crablike perambulations ...

You're the simpleton who has been touting man's CO2 as the main *factor*, while ignoring that all of CO2 is only 0.034% as a *factor* ... what a schmuck ...

What other source of energy is causing GW/GC?

The Earth is alive with energy producing sources. Even this planet's very core is a source of life and metabolisms are thriving on that internal heat that we are just beginning to understand. Have you ever heard of tube worms? Every mammal produces so much heat we require a full time cooling system to get rid of it. Even exhaust gasses from internal combustion engines are hotter then the air that went through the intake manifold.

You have a lot to learn tadowe.

18 January 2010
Stranger and Stranger

The fallout from the IPCC Himalayan glacier situation gets stranger and stranger. Now an IPCC lead author has stepped forward claiming that the error has been known by the IPCC all along. From Agence France-Presse:

A top scientist said Monday he had warned in 2006 that a prediction of catastrophic loss of Himalayan glaciers, published months later by the UN's Nobel-winning climate panel, was badly wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said in 2007 it was "very likely" that the glaciers, which supply water to more than a billion people across Asia, would vanish by 2035 if global warming trends continued.

"This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

It gets more interesting:
Kaser suggested the initial error originated from a misreading of a 1996 Russian study or from findings on a handful of glaciers that were mistakenly extended to apply to the whole region.

In either case, he suggested, the fact that it found its way into the report underpinning global climate negotiations signalled the need for a reform of the way the IPCC collects and reviews data.

"The review community has entirely failed" in this instance, he said.

Kaser was a lead author in Working Group I of the IPCC report, which dealt with the physical science of climate change.

For the global warming sceptics, personally, I hope that global warming is a lie because people I know in the Indo part of the Indo-Gangetic plain depend on those glaciers for sustenance. And if the Himalayan glaciers are not melting, a big thank God. But, that does not obviously mean that global warming isn't happening. I hope it isn't happening, but it is and we might as well do our best to make sure it doesn't screw too badly with our lives.

I can't wait to hear a response to #135.

Happy Extinction Morons?

#135...That's the whole point of this thread Bani. It was an incorrect assessment. Now it's just a blogfeast. Nothing new here. It really doesn't change anything. The glaciers are still melting much faster then normal. The question is why.

BTW...There will be other unsettled details and perhaps even deliberate sabotage of the real facts. There is a lot of money at stake and convincing the ignorant masses that there is a hidden agenda will always be the retort. The facts are there for anyone who can get past the BS. All you have to do is look at the planet and the sudden changes. It's your choice.

All you have to do is look at the planet and the sudden changes. It's your choice.

Posted by RingMaster

still doesn't prove it's man made & carbon taxes to fleece us is the way to solve it

still doesn't prove it's man made & carbon taxes to fleece us is the way to solve it...

What carbon taxes? There is none, and none have been proposed. Be careful now. There is a banana peel in your path.

North Dakota vs. Minnesota: Dust-up over carbon
North Dakota is none too pleased with Minnesota as a deadline nears for what North Dakota claims will be a tax on coal-fired electricity.

By JENNIFER BJORHUS, Star Tribune

Last update: January 15, 2010 - 12:13 AM

A long-simmering dispute between North Dakota and Minnesota appears to be coming to a head. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is saying he very likely will sue Minnesota over its so-called "carbon tax" on emissions, calling it an illegal attempt to regulate another state's industry.

Wow, here is a shocker...
Another story about how GW is a scam!! Whodda' thunk it?
As usual though, this will be ignored by our "leaders" & chalked up to the right wing conspiracy that is trying to kill the planet.

#139 | Posted by RingMaster

C'mon ringydingy, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass!!
You & I have been over this so many times. You like to spout off about this fact & that fact. Problem is you NEVER have anything to back up your position.
Stop being a sheepeople to your party!! Actually so some research for yourself.

#139 | Posted by RingMaster

C'mon ringydingy, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass!!
You & I have been over this so many times. You like to spout off about this fact & that fact. Problem is you NEVER have anything to back up your position.
Stop being a sheepeople to your party!! Actually so some research for yourself.

You & I have been over this so many times.

You are such a clever boy. I'll bet you tell the girls that too when you keep getting told to fuck off.

"Hasnain denies giving 2035 as year for Himalayan glaciers melt "

"They documented that most of these glaciers have retreated significantly. In 1962 a total of 2077 square kilometers was covered by glaciers and in 2001 that area was reduced to 1628 square kilometers. This represents a deglaciation of over twenty percent over a forty year period."

Hey Zat, do you have the numbers for each forty year period up until 1962 so that we can compare the average glacial loss over other 40 year periods? If not this first 40 year period is kind of useless until we get more long term data no?

"each forty year period up until 1962"
#150 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-01-20 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag: idiot

In 1997 the U.S. Geological Survey began the Repeat Photography Project in the Montana park to compare how glaciers have changed over the last century. Photographers returned to locations where old-timers had taken photos long before they could possibly have imagined their scientific value. Locating these vantage points was the trickiest part of the project, as some required extensive off-trail hiking.

The before-and-after pictures released this week are dramatic all that remains of some glaciers are big puddles. Others have simply faded away to expose bare mountainsides. The images were taken at similar times of year under similar conditions.

Based on the pictures and global recession rates, scientists predict that Glacier National Park will be glacier-free by 2030.

Before And After Glacier Gallery

Looks like the GW Birthers are at it again. Zat and Ring have drunk the kool aid and leaped from the cliff. Nothing is going to save them now. But if they weren't around to make these silly posts, how would we know what kind of stupidity the libs are following this week?

Zat, that is not what I am talking about. I am mot asking for other 40 year periods around the same time for different glacial areas, I am asking for multiple 40 year periods for the range, i.e. 1962-2001 / 1922 - 1962 / 1882 - 1922 etc. If we do not have long term trends to look at, doesn't that cause some problems with indicating what the cause is?

Also, do we have shorter periods of pictures for the same ranges so that we can see if the average melt rate has increased or decreased with various other events taking place during the time? If not, isn't it hard to formulate an accurate evaluation of the melting with a broad, not descript and detailed 40 year period with no shorter interval evaluation to compare and average melt rates and conditions? Also, have they proved that this melting has taken place to do anthropogenic causes?

"You're all toast!"

But not YOU, right, Zat? You gonna catch the next shuttle and emigrate to Buffaloed_Boob's palace on the moon? You'll be fine there, Zat, no global warming...no glaciers either. Bon voyage..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!-

Zat has the God of CO2 control, so he has no worries concerning death. He will be in a temperate utopia when he is fried, drowned and boiled by natures wrath on humans impact concerning global climate behavior.

Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, was a gay republican too.

Somebody was simply misquoted as saying that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. That's it. No misleading, no fraud. An error. They may not be gone by 2035, but they are still disappearing quickly.

The fact is, out of the 442 major known glaciers, 398 are diminishing at accelerating rates. Global warming is happening. Words can not change that.

Derek, the problem is not with Global warming, but with Anthropogenic Global Warming. If the globe is warming by no means of ours, we have no right or means to stop it.

People have a problem with someone pushing an agenda and then over emotionalizing, or dramatizing the implications of that agenda in order to get people to believe it or act in a certain way. Lying and misrepresenting information to support your agenda is not admirable and calls that whole agenda into question.

If this was not used to push for AGW it would be a mistake, however when it is used to push for AGW in order to make a populous act faster based on false data that is deceit.

Global precession has more to do with global warming and cooling and the ice ages than everyhng else combined.

Looks like the GW Birthers are at it again. Zat and Ring have drunk the kool aid and leaped from the cliff. Nothing is going to save them now. But if they weren't around to make these silly posts, how would we know what kind of stupidity the libs are following this week?

#154 | Posted by SpokaneJim

I'm getting concerned about folks like Zat and Ringo---like the dinosaurs they may become extinct--every weird movement of theirs is being discredited and disappearing--they're hanging on by their fingernails (the cliff?) and continue their inane BS--I guess they could always run for POTUS--they might have a good chance.

I'm getting concerned about folks like Zat and Ringo...

You should be worried about yourself, you old woman. Your are delusional, demented and over medicated. Your have PMS so bad I can diagnose it from Hawaii. I suspect you are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Seek help matsop before it is too late.

"false data"

ROFL!

"This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832.

"false data"

"false data"

Perhaps the most visible sign that Earth's climate is warming is the gradual shrinking of its glaciers. In North America, the most visited glacier is the Athabasca Glacier, one of six glaciers that spill down the Canadian Rockies from the Columbia Icefield in western Canada. Visitors who return to the glacier a few years after their first visit will notice the change wrought by warming temperatures. In the past 125 years, the Athabasca Glacier has lost half of its volume and receded more than 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles), leaving hills of rock in its place. Its retreat is visible in this photo, where the glacier's front edge looms several meters behind the tombstone-like marker that indicates the edge of the ice in 1992. The Athabasca Glacier is not alone in its retreat: Since 1960, glaciers around the world have lost an estimated 8,000 cubic kilometers (1,900 cubic miles) of ice.

Global precession has more to do with global warming and cooling and the ice ages than everyhng else combined.

If that were true cyclic climate changes would be predictable. Mankind's influence is however changing that too. Milankovitch cycles do play a small part but no more then solar cycles, but is all a part of the big picture. Nice try though.

Zat,

Careful with your links.

Not less than 2 weeks ago you provided a link supporting the 'hockey-stick' graph. The link was dated 2006. In 2008 that graph was so thoroughly-debunked that its author owned up to it.

Zat,

This is the most serious and sincere question I've ever asked you in our entire sharted-time on this blog (over 6 years):

What is your take on 'Climate-Gate'?

are there Bible verses encoded into the glaciers?

if so . . is it legal??

I wonder if ringo and zat are scientists making some bucks off this fraud-- that can't be,since true scientists with integrity wouldn't believe in any climate change models based on wild and varying assumption possiblities that allow all kinds of mischief from playing with and manipulating positive feed-back mechanisms to your liking--maybe ringo makes money off of talks to grade school students or to impress his dreamed about concubine.

This whole GW ponzi scheme is similar to the financial ponzi scheme---frauds make their living at it but it's coming to an end--about a $170 million budget in the late 80s and now $5 billion--the environmental Bernie Madoff's days are numbered.

I don't know why these concerned individuals don't want to deal with a real greenhouse gas, water vapor--but then again, they would really have to dream up a way to raise revenue from that one--that wouldn't work very well for their agendas.

Better we try to figure out a way to change the orbital eccentricities of our planet or its' axis wobbling--how about cosmic ray flux or other celestial possibilities---NASA should send ringo and Zat on their next orbital mission to study these possiblities--then we could discuss more important issues that really impact our lives--but then again, the cheap humor we get from these 2 still trying to support a discredited junk science would be lost.

#163...deja vu . I knew it, he finally cracked. LMAO!
Anybody got a big butterfly net and a straight jacket?

Hey Zat, instead of cherry picking a phrase such as "false data" and going on some irrational diatribe of links concerning "false date" why don't you answer my question in post #155?

Also, in terms of false data, saying that the glaciers are going to melt within 35 years would be a statistic, and therefore it would become data, especially when used to formulate a position in the way that the IPCC used it. Once that data influencing a position or though becomes falsified, it is what is called false data.

I know you are very sensitive and defensive when it comes to your Nasa and climate data coming under attack, but I was speaking of this instance in this article, not a bunch of other links. False data is false data. They gave data, it turned out to be false, and it had a heavy influence o their view for a time. You cannot contend that there was false data propagated by this falsified claim

Now, please answer my question in #155 with a rational answer and not some foolish, childlike ranting and raving over finding out their Tonka truck is actually just a cheap Wal-mart ripoff.

"have they proved that this melting has taken place to do anthropogenic causes?"

#177 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-01-21 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag: not real bright

yes

It's been in the literature for 113 years.

Do try and keep up.

"Human Fingerprints"
http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science_and_impacts/science/ global-warming-human.html

Happy now fuckwit?

#177 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-01-21 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag: still not real bright

Here's a bibliography for you, dimwit.

The fact that the Himalayan glaciers are melting is undeniable.

The fact that some folks think that someone saying that the timeframe fer a complete melt *might* be off is somehow proof that AGW is a "bogus" is farking hilarious.

And maybe a little sad.

Be Well.

Since you are probably too lazy and stupid to actually read the papers in the bibliography:

The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature

Callendar, G.S., 1938

Beginning in 1938 and continuing throughout his life, the British engineer and scientist Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964) identified important links between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming.

"And maybe a little sad."

Well, Americans do have the lowest average IQ in the industrialized world.

Hey Zat, thats all well and good. You and Spud seem to think that certain people are saying that AGW is not happening, which is not true. I am looking at the issue right now. I have implemented many things in my personal life to curb CO2 emission regardless of whether I believe AGW or not. That is a non - issue.

I am asking you for long term data concerning the individual glaciers in terms of evaluation of melting trend over a wider range than just one 40 year section each. Again, refer to #155, it seems as though you were too lazy to go back and read what I asked you there, instead picking and choosing what you desired to respond to. Is there long term data, stretching back in 40 year periods that has been evaluated incrementally so that we can compare let rates in shorter terms and see of the average is the same over a long time, or if it truly is increasing.

Thanks. You also failed at the rational part. I'll include another chance. Try to respond like an adult human being who is not so self-worshiping in terms correctness.

now it appears as tho NOAA and NASA Godard books are also cooked

#186 | Posted by markh at 2010-01-22 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag: can't even spell Goddard

"This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832.

Data from July 2000 until undefined 2010 is available in digital format rather than as a scanned image. "

#185 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-01-21 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag: unable to look at a picture

Melting Glaciers before and after photos