Meanwhile, and activist "scientist" says that skeptics should be treated as having a mental condition. Is this the future we face, if it is run by warmists?
None of what you posted matters, kido. The supposed *evidence* supporting global warming is coming apart faster than a Soviet car. That is all that matters, not some opinion pieces on Conservatives.
Your right, the info I posted has nothing to do with global warming. It was just something I found funny when I read through this post today and it sparked the question. I am glad that you have all this covered with your facts and data from your scientists. Is life easier when you go through it with blinders on?
Your right, the info I posted has nothing to do with global warming. It was just something I found funny when I read through this post today and it sparked the question. I am glad that you have all this covered with your facts and data from your scientists. Is life easier when you go through it with blinders on?
This proves you have either not read nor understood ANY of the science I've posted here.
This proves you have either not read nor understood ANY of the science I've posted here.
I have read the science that you have posted, as well as the science that others have posted as well. You simply don't realize the simple fact that you are devoted to one side of the science. With your views on other topics, it is easy to see that your view of the science is politically motivated. Your conservative political views force you to acknowldge only one side of the discussion, any other view is a hoax or a scam. You have used this tactic in this thread along with many others. It seems to be a common out in the conversation around here when someone wants to discount anothers view or opinion. You will never see this fault on your own, but your political pigheadedness is the reason I said what I did. I am not here trying to convince you that global warming is real or not, just simply pointing out your bias on the topic. You've been beating this argument to death for years now, so I am pretty certain that you will not bother to read data that you "don't agree with", let alone change your stance on the subject.
You sir, are an angry little man. Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change that.
Originally posted by KidO You sir, are an angry little man. Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change that.
Classic liberal/progressive move. If they are taking a beating, they will insult the other person and insist the other person is wrong, with no facts to back up their statements. Alinsky would be so proud.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-06-2012).]
Classic liberal/progressive move. If they are taking a beating, they will insult the other person and insist the other person is wrong, with no facts to back up their statements. Alinsky would be so proud.
Another example of political pigheadedness. If you don't like it, blame (or call them) a liberal. Don't you have an email about the end of the world because Michele Obama bought a new pair of panties or something to cut and paste?
Originally posted by KidO Another example of political pigheadedness. If you don't like it, blame (or call them) a liberal. Don't you have an email about the end of the world because Michele Obama bought a new pair of panties or something to cut and paste?
Butt hurt much? If you can't stand the heat, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN! I also noticed that you didn't deny that you are a liberal/progressive in your reply.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-06-2012).]
I have read the science that you have posted, as well as the science that others have posted as well. You simply don't realize the simple fact that you are devoted to one side of the science. With your views on other topics, it is easy to see that your view of the science is politically motivated. Your conservative political views force you to acknowldge only one side of the discussion, any other view is a hoax or a scam. You have used this tactic in this thread along with many others. It seems to be a common out in the conversation around here when someone wants to discount anothers view or opinion. You will never see this fault on your own, but your political pigheadedness is the reason I said what I did. I am not here trying to convince you that global warming is real or not, just simply pointing out your bias on the topic. You've been beating this argument to death for years now, so I am pretty certain that you will not bother to read data that you "don't agree with", let alone change your stance on the subject.
You sir, are an angry little man. Nothing I or anyone else says or does is going to change that.
Despite your insults and irrelevant comments, I'll answer anyway.
The simple FACT is, the REAL WORLD data shows that global warming is bullshit. The warmists have to manipulate the data, and use "computer models" to support their position. The real world data proves them wrong EVERY time. Political agenda has nothing to do with those basic facts.
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Now on to the Club of Rome. "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” "[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.
Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.
Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress. "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.” “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.” “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
NASA's response is Orwellian. They claim open debate while advocating one side. I have yet to see anything even remotely skeptical about man-made global warming from NASA.
NASA responded on Wednesday by saying they don’t “draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
“We support open scientific inquiry and discussion,” NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati said.
He added: “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate.”
Can anyone find ANYTHING skeptical about man-made global warming on NASA's site?
NASA responded on Wednesday by saying they don’t “draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”
“We support open scientific inquiry and discussion,” NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.
“If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse,” Abdalati said.
He added: “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate.”
I am confused, in the above quote, Waleed says that they don't draw conclusiosn from the data they collect, yet one their website they are blaming man for climate change: http://www.nasa.gov/centers...08/human_impact.html
Also his quote about the "relantionship between carbon dioxide and climate" - of course they are going to study the bejebus out if it, after all they are receiving $1 billion from the US government to be doing this. Hell, I will even 'study' it for a fraction of that money, and for just 10% of that billion dollars, I am willing, to borrow a quote:
quote
Originally by Winston Zeddemore: If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Now on to the Club of Rome. "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” "[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." "The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security." Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.
Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.
Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress. "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."
Wowsers, if only THIS was aired on NAT GEO or something.
Originally posted by KidO: ...let me just say that I am not here to argue for or against global warming. I simply questioned why those who argue against it do, basing the question in regard to the political leanings of the posters in this thread. ...
There is the flaw, as happens on both sides. You don't always have to base things on ones political leanings. Many Americans do think for themselves, and still think that the man made global scare is a scam. You went out looking for an answer to suit your desire, the desire to see your label of all who don't push the global scare as being politically motivated.
There is the flaw, as happens on both sides. You don't always have to base things on ones political leanings. Many Americans do think for themselves, and still think that the man made global scare is a scam. You went out looking for an answer to suit your desire, the desire to see your label of all who don't push the global scare as being politically motivated.
Your right, not everything is based on an individuals political leanings, but this thread is....
From page 1:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
I didn't start this thread because I don't care. I started it because we're being scammed. Clean the environment, reduce pollution, find an alternative to burning gas...fine. Just don't f***ing LIE to me about it. We're being lied to, and I'm going to show you how.
Like I said before, I am not here to argue global warming. I do however like the fact that some of the results of the "scam", as fierobear puts it, help our environment. As more people live on and (ab)use the planet, it benefits us all to take better care of it. When it comes to carbon emissions, and more so pollution in general, especially from fossil fuels, I am more interested in the health risks and concerns of what we are adding to our environment.
Originally posted by KidO: Like I said before, I am not here to argue global warming. I do however like the fact that some of the results of the "scam", as fierobear puts it, help our environment. As more people live on and (ab)use the planet, it benefits us all to take better care of it. When it comes to carbon emissions, and more so pollution in general, especially from fossil fuels, I am more interested in the health risks and concerns of what we are adding to our environment.
So you agree with this point of view: "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." -Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
Also I don't see politics on your quote from the OP. Politics is involved of course, as Gore got it in the spotlight.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-12-2012).]
So you agree with this point of view: "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." -Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
Also I don't see politics on your quote from the OP. Politics is involved of course, as Gore got it in the spotlight.
No, it's not about riding global warming. However, it is a topic that made headway where others have failed.
As far as politics go from the OP, there are 46 pages to this thread, go ahead and read them. You are a smart guy and can figure it out. Just in case though, who are the scammers? I'll bet you'll find the word liberal more than once.
It is quite correct to say that most of the enviro-nazis are leftist in their views. Big government spending huge tax dollars to serve a ideologially driven agenda.
The point is not about leftist or rightist ideology. It is more about politicians who see America as the fatted calf and want their money and their lifestyle. They want an excuse to milk Americans and Canadians for all the money they can get.
The whole Global Warming scam serves to create a mechanism to transfer the hard earned wealth of Americans or Westerners to 3rd world countries. Carbon taxing is simply a tax to transfer wealth.
Global warming has not resulted in any of the forecast global catastrophies. No record hurrican seasons, no flooded islands, no parched earth, and the ice caps have not melted. Moreover, the earth has not warmed over the past 10 years since Al Gore and company came up with the scheme. By the way, Al Gore wants YOUR MONEY to go to the 3rd world, not HIS MONEY.
The university researchers who falsified the data are in their well paying jobs courtesy of guess who? The tax payers. And who are protected by the educational elites in Great Britain and the USA? Those researchers who created false computer models to sell to the public.
When you read (if you care to take the time and make the effort) the historical "empirical" data for the past decade you quickly learn that the modelling predictions were false.
If you do a real count of polar bears (like the Canadian Inuits have done) you discover there are more today than there were 10 years ago. In fact, they are so plentiful they are creating problems for Northern communities.
(Sorry, no drowning, or starving bears either)
In short, any increase in CO2 does good things for crops, increasing our food output, and does nothing to impact world climate.
This is not about Socialists vs Capitolists. It is about people with a world agenda to decimate America, and that includes deluded Americans who get unjustifiable awards from foreign governments.
And no matter what anyone has told you, global warming cannot cause colder than normal weather. It’s not in the physics. The fact that warming has been greatest in the Arctic means that the equator-to-pole temperature contrast has been reduced, which would mean less storminess and less North-South exchange of air masses — not more.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 04-15-2012).]
"Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe."
...
"And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments."
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 04-15-2012).]
40+ pages and still believe Gore is right? (and not a hypercritical bastard?_)
Climate change is a very real thing. Happened / has happened for millions of years. Our impact is a blip on the geologic scale. Converting everyone on the planet to CFL bulbs and 25% ethanol bled fuels won't amount to more than a fart in the wind when it comes to what Mother nature throws at us next. 2011 hurricane predictions.. basically we were going to erase FL.. Ray and associates.. how did that turn out? In case you were not informed NASA said you''re all dead.
Global warming poster child not in decline because of manmade global warming. From Newsmax.com
quote
Climate change doomsayers have for years claimed that declining polar bear populations in the Arctic are a consequence of manmade global warming.
But a new study has found that the bear population in part of Canada is larger than many scientists thought and might actually be growing.
In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay had dropped 22 percent since 1984, to 935 bears, and they estimated that by 2011, a continuing decrease would bring the number down to 610.
The Hudson Bay region is considered a bellwether for how polar bears are faring elsewhere in the Arctic, according to Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail.
The decrease, the scientists asserted, was due to warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin the bears’ ability to hunt.
“That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them,” The Globe and Mail reported.
The World Wildlife Fund even stated in 2008: "If current warming trends continue unabated, scientists believe that polar bears will be vulnerable to extinction within the next century."
But a survey released on April 4 by the Government of Nunavut — a federal territory of Canada — shows that the number of bears is now 1,013 and could be higher.
“The bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”
He added that the media in Canada have led people to believe that polar bears are endangered, but “they are not.”
He estimated that there are about 25,000 polar bears in Canada’s Arctic region, and “that’s likely the highest [number] there has ever been.”
Nunavut, which is the size of Western Europe, is home to only about 32,000 people.
Is the Pope Catholic? What would people say if he were to come out and admit he might be wrong about the divinity of Christ?
That is essentially what has occurred in the Church of the Green Goddess; James Lovelock, father of the Gaia hypothesis, Defender of the Environmentalist Faith, most radical of Global Warming alarmists, has recanted!
Well, he has retreated, at any rate. Much like the legend of Galileo he has mumbled under his breath "and yet it still moves" (an unproven comment attributed to Galileo at his heresy trial.) Lovelock has stated that, while he was "alarmist" still there is Global Warming, but we just can't seem to find it. We've checked all the usual places; in the oceans, in the troposphere, in the ice caps, in the dryer, under the couch, under the pile of junk mail, and the missing heat just isn't to be found. That tricky Gaia! She likes to play with us so! In an interview with MSNBC Lovelock made such statements as:
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,"
"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,"
"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that...."
Lovelock was wise to walk this back; too much of the evidence simply fails to justify the catastrophic vision of Global Warming theory.
There is the matter of the missing heat which alarmists theorize is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. But they have no mechanism for this heat moving downward, something heat does not normally do, and cannot find it through deep-sea probes. While Arctic ice has been weak, it has reached a new high for recent years. Himalayan glaciers have stubbornly failed to melt and some have even grown. Worldwide precipitation has stubbornly failed to increase in a statistically meaningful way . There is no solid evidence that sea level rise has accelerated in recent years . Oh, and it hasn't warmed since Bill Clinton's first term in office.
The next few years should be fun, as Alarmist scientists, desperate to disassociate themselves from this failed theory, run for the tall grass. The Alpha Male of the pack has just retreated.
President Obama is vowing to make the case for action on global warming during the 2012 campaign.
“I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way,” Obama told Rolling Stone magazine in a newly published interview.
Obama’s comments follow a first term that saw global warming legislation collapse in Congress but several administrative steps to address climate proceed, such as tougher auto mileage rules and first-time greenhouse gas standards for new power plants.
IMO terrible article with cherry-picked data. I'm sure you didn't expect otherwise but just looking at the ice extent data is hilarious, if one actually READS what the scientists data says about arctic ice minimums, maximums and the thicknesses. Anyways continue on with the copy and paste fest from these "great" sites.
Originally posted by newf: IMO terrible article with cherry-picked data. I'm sure you didn't expect otherwise but just looking at the ice extent data is hilarious, if one actually READS what the scientists data says about arctic ice minimums, maximums and the thicknesses. Anyways continue on with the copy and paste fest from these "great" sites.
The only "cherry picking" is being done by the so called "scientists".
The simple fact is, they've been screaming for nearly 20 years that we should be in the middle of runaway warming and horrible disasters right about now, and it ain't happening. The temperature data shows why - NO warming. That is a FACT, newf. NASA-GISS, NCDC, NOAA, Hadley Center - those are the data sets that the warmists quote, and they don't support the warmist's cause. They all show that warming has stopped for over 10 years. At best, there is no evidence of a significant trend either way.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-06-2012).]
The only "cherry picking" is being done by the so called "scientists".
The simple fact is, they've been screaming for nearly 20 years that we should be in the middle of runaway warming and horrible disasters right about now, and it ain't happening. The temperature data shows why - NO warming. That is a FACT, newf. NASA-GISS, NCDC, NOAA, Hadley Center - those are the data sets that the warmists quote, and they don't support the warmist's cause. They all show that warming has stopped for over 10 years. At best, there is no evidence of a significant trend either way.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-06-2012).]
More dicking with past temperature records to make the past look cooler, today hotter, and the slope greater. How do these goddamn crooks continue to get away with this?
So you are calling a temperature fluctuation over a decade, which is 0.025 degree C. a significant fluctuation caused by humans? That much fluctuation is entirely within the scope of the natural fluctuation cycles. Nice try
So you are calling a temperature fluctuation over a decade, which is 0.025 degree C. a significant fluctuation caused by humans? That much fluctuation is entirely within the scope of the natural fluctuation cycles. Nice try
You should read the comments at Wattsup on this subject. Samples:
“The study …. examined a dozen different models used to project climate change and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
Its all a bit like
“The study examine a dozen different star clusters and only found one that matched the requirements to indicate the presence of the God Aries.”
==========================================
The models can’t explain it, so it can’t be natural? Really?
==========================================
““We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.”
Did what? Ran 12 models and kept the answer you were looking for? Is there any other field of research where models trump actual observation or is climate science the only one?
==========================================
More of the model based junk science.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
“Climate models are confirmation bias on steroids.”
==========================================
So that’s it then we know everything about global warming and don’t need to spend any more money on climate scientists. Time to sack them all and save a bit of money!
