What Do You Get When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?
That’s the droll title of an article by Patrick Michaels at the prize-winning science blog Watts Up With That. Michaels is having fun while making some trenchant observations about the uproar surrounding a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “No Need To Panic About Global Warming.” It’s by sixteen concerned scientists, including the estimable Richard Lindzen of MIT, who were aiming their words, at least in part, at the current presidential candidates (hello, Newt Gingrich).
This article apparently set off a @#$%storm in the already beleaguered warmist community, including the NY Times‘ leading enivro blogger, The Guardian, a gaggle of “climate scientists” led by Kevin Trenberth of Climategate fame, and the rest of the usual suspects. It’s amazing these people still cling to their views, but cling they must, I suppose, even in the face of more bad news like this from The Daily Mail: “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about” (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again).
The supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. [Remember them? -ed.] It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Oh, well. But there’s hope for warmists yet. Much of the U.S. has been having an exceptionally balmy winter. Says the L.A. Times:
In New York City, where “unseasonably mild” and “balmy” have been the forecasts of late, temperatures this week have been at least 10 to 20 degrees warmer than the usual average high of 39, a pattern seen across much of the eastern half of the country.
In Wichita, Kan., where the average high temperature last month was 37, about 6 degrees above normal, it hit 62 on Thursday — warmer than Las Vegas. Washington topped out at 56 on Thursday. In Chicago, where the average January day is 29.5 degrees, it was 59 on the last day of the month.
Wow. On the other hand, there’s Alaska. From U. S. News:
Even if it has been warmer than usual in much of the United States, there’s no denying Alaska is seeing a real winter, even by its standards.
Anchorage is shivering through one of its coldest January’s on record, while in Fairbanks, folks preparing for a sled dog race were being tested by temperatures nearly 50 degrees below zero. Farther inland, Fort Yukon has ranged from minus 50 to minus 62 degrees over the last three days, getting close to its record of minus 78.
Minus 62?! Get out your thermal underwear, Al Gore, and don’t forget your mittens.
And speaking of Al, still no word from the Academy on my and Lionel Chetwynd’s request for our colleagues to rescind the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. That prize is getting to look more and more like Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer for covering up Stalin’s starvation of the Ukrainians. Well, not quite as bad as that but…. close.
The socialist journOlists go with Pravda. The socialist scientists go with Trofim Lysenko. It’s the Obama way.
Sometimes I get hit with the notion (and it occurred to me a few years ago) that one of the big reasons the Global Warming pushers were so damned fierce about shoving us into nonsense like the Kyoto thing was because they knew full well this enormous cold snap was on the way and they wanted to look like they made it happen with their policies. They would be the saviors of the world with their weather-changing strategies, so we should listen to them about everything.
Am I paranoid?
“..the Global Warming pushers were so damned fierce about shoving us into nonsense like the Kyoto thing was because they knew full well this enormous cold snap was on the way and they wanted to look like they made it happen with their policies.”
I took a meteorology course back in 94′ and had a prof who actually did work regarding the Kyoto study. He told the class to be on the watch for Kyoto and be weary of political actions based on pseudo-science. From his experience, the 10 year study revealed in the end there isn’t enough evidence to actually ascertain man made global warming, but the summary was rewritten to suit political expectations. Global warming is bunk and the quasi cult status is disturbing, but in the end it was always about power and control. Still is.
You are 100% correct. Al Gore should be made to pay for the error of his ways. Why do you think his wife left him? She was sick and tired of the same old, same old. Mother Nature (God) is in charge, we humans are but a speck of fly scat on this earth, and if we do not stop trying to engineer the weather, the animals, the earth we will pay. Get ready for the ICE AGE, it’s coming and only the strong will survive. I may not like it, but I can certainly take care of myself and my family with little resources. I do believe that at some point in the near future, I will find myself and all my family living in one abode. Probably living much the same as my ancestors did. But as for both the left coasts (east and west), they will not survive. Too wussified.
You are right, Elsie, however there are many of us here in the east that are tough outdoorsmen!! But we certainly are in the minority!!
His wife’s leaving him might have more to do with the “climate change” in their bedroom as a result of his attempts to globally warm unwilling massage therapists.
“because they knew full well this enormous cold snap was on the way and they wanted to look like they made it happen with their policies.”
I don’t think they’re that smart.
Kyoto was just another way to suck money out of the developed world and pump it into the developing world. It is merely transfer payments, or, if you like, a form of international welfare.
As soon as I realized that carbon or polution “rights” could be bought, I saw the whole thing as a giant scam.
>Kyoto was just another way to suck money out of the developed world and pump it into the developing world.<
Seeing the lifestyle and locations where jet setter 'scientists' and global warming activists congregate, I have to call you on that statement. There couldn't be more than ten cents on the dollar going to third world countries, and there has been a concerted effort to deny these countries any hope of industrialization and a higher standard of living
One of my favorite signature quotes:
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist
Pure rot, mate. The third world has had hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid sent in from the United States alone. Unfortunately, it remains in the hands of the dictatorial rulers who control third world nations.
The major obstacle to industrialization, aside from the dictators, of the third world is the lack of means of transportation. There are no highways, bridges or navigable waterways. To build these would send the environmental crowd over the edge. They prefer to sing of peril from their ivory towers while the black race in Africa pays daily with the death of their children. Three million black children a year die in Africa from malaria because of the wise whites who deem DDT a hazardous chemical. When used properly it saves millions of lives and doesn’t effect the environment.
YES.
Thankfully China and India decided it was in their best interest to develop an economy and ignore Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc.
But the warmist are now playing the name-change game, trying to rebrand the movement, “climate change.”
Confront a warmist with facts and they start talking about all the unusual weather events that are happening as proof positive that carbon is the enemy (and should be controlled by the government).
This enviro-religous movement still has sway with the EPA and other deluded governments. They are now targeting television weathermen who do not agree with their fantasy. This battle is far from over.
There have been lots of stories across the internet lately on
global warming(oops, sorry lefties!) climate change. So the earth isn’t warming? (damn sun!) And the eco-nazis are in a quandary. I know what is coming – they’ll argue some BS story like how our excessive electricity generation from human activity is having negative effects on the sun. Or that our computers put out synthetic cosmic rays that negate the natural cosmic rays from Gaia that encourage the sun to radiate at a constant – or some such bull-crap story like that.It feels like 1975 again – the earth was only decades away from another ice age. And only they can save us – but its gonna cost us. They think we just don’t ‘get it’ how lucky we are to have them around.
The Goracle is drawing up his contingency plans (and creating a few new Swiss bank accounts to hold the money) as we speak. He – and them – just have to get the right angle to milk us.
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear! (you date yourself if you know where that comes from) It’s ’75 and even though he’s gone in disgrace, Nixon has destroyed the anti-war movement by eliminating the draft. It never was opposition to the War, it was opposition to getting one’s little pink ass shot off in Vietnam. There may have been 100,000 people at “anti-war” demonstrations in ’72, but 99,900 of them were there out of a vague opposition to being drafted and looking to get balled and high. And then Tricky Dick took it all away from the communists and gave them yet another reason other than HUAC to hate him. Since they lost the War in Vietnam as an organizing tool, they needed a new schtick and “Silent Spring,” “The Population Bomb” and such tripe gave them one. Ironically, that supremely technological and imperalist program, the Man on the Moon program, gave them their greatest organizing tool; that shot of Earth from the Moon that graced the cover of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” think I still have one in a box in the garage. They’ve convinced the stupid that the Earth was starving, choking, freezing, scalding, and drowning over the last forty years, but it has kept the money and disciples coming in. Only the medieval Church’s power was more rooted in ignorance and superstition. Maybe if all the grant-whoring professors had dressed in silk and surrounded themselves in clouds of incense, they’d have gathered a larger and more faithful flock.
Nixon resigned in August, 1974. Other than that, you’re spot on.
Um, yeah.
So, in ’75, he would rightly be regarded as “gone in disgrace”, right?
Right.
Your comment means what?
Another interesting thought: What if the govt of South Vietnam had been identifiably “socialist” (like the “communist” but anti-Soviet Yugoslavia under Tito) and that of North Vietnam had been “fascist,” say the result of a Vichy cabal. Presto: No lefty-led “anti-war” movement in the U.S. No Pete Seeger and Jane Fonda acting out their bolshie fantasies. In fact, you’d have seen a resurgence of the “Lincoln Brigades” volunteering to help the poor South Vietnamese against the vicious North. It would have been almost a total reversal of everything that happened back then.
It will be (already is) about overpopulation again very soon. This time the meme will be driven by food.
@Bear. Nah. That one’s been done a couple of times already.
We have an excess of smart and industrious people in this world, I am sure that we can come up with artificial environments and surface area to grow food if we had to. Skyscraper farms maybe… why not? We would adapt if the earth got cooler.
Nah. My kids know that line.
Of course, they don’t know many of the current lines, but I consider that a good thing.
My lingering question is, “Who plays Tonto to Al Gore’s Lone Ranger? Or, who plays Tonto to Barack Obama’s Lone Ranger? (Those of you who do not understand why I bring up these questions are decidedly younger than I am.)
“What’s this we s*(t, kemo sabe?”
So in a nutshell, we are altering the sun’s output due to the Mellissa virus. Damn, was there anything that email couldn’t do?
Ukraine is also going through a bad cold spell.
We don’t know what will happen with the climate. It makes perfect sense to support energy research and to test new techniques. What makes no sense is a one-size-fits-all application of unripe technologies (eg, solar energy in cloudy Germany) because people are panicked or want to atone for their sins. Even dumber is setting up a worldwide cap and trade system that invites crooks to take our money. Then again, some IPCC supporters may see attractive possibilities to use their connections.
I am really close to a breakthrough with my rainbow/unicorn fart energy source. I have submitted for a research grant from the government. Keep your fingers crossed!
Whoa, whoa, whoa… hold on there Sparky. I’ve been following the same line of research and filing for patents next week. Race ya to the Patent Office!
@5 I think the two of you should collaborate. It will be like Rodgers and Hammerstein. Some Enchanted evening………………
I doubt the story of Al Gore’s global warming crusade will have a happy ending for him; despite how much he wants one.
“What Do You Get When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?”
Abrasions?
If we rub them together fast enough, long enough and with enough force, do you think we could start a fire? Sounds like an interesting science experiment!
Watch out for those carbon emissions if you try that!
I’ve got an industrial 10 horsepower electric motor I’ll donate to the cause!
I strongly recommend NOT going to the Guardian’s website to challenge these punks. I don’t think it’s an accident that both times my computer succumbed to hostile attacks it was in the midst of arguing Gorebull Warming there. One of the party faithful even offered to send me “a bit of code I wrote that will prove it”. These people are unhinged.
You can protect your computer when you go there. I read articles on The Guardian all the time. I use FireFox and disable scripts for that site. No scripts – no problems. Can’t do that with Internet Explorer.
Can we have our light bulbs back now?
Forget the light bulbs. How about toilets that flush properly?
They flush properly just not efficiently. A normal human being requires 3 flushes for an Il Duce with ample TP. Not very Gaia-friendly.
Roger, you are such a shill for the ignorant. The estimable Richard Lintzen indeed- he who says that smoking does not cause cancer. Those 16 scientists are not climatologist and many get their funding from Exxon. One of those “scientists” declares that asbestos is not harmful. I suppose he gets many industry fees at trials and conferences when he spouts such nonsense. Now I never have suspected you were a dupe but come on even a HS student knows enough to check things out is something appears in the Daily Mail that paragon of science literature.
Their rebuttal is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/check-with-climate-scientists-for-views-on-climate.html
Of course many conservative always consult people who don’t have expertise in the field so they can get an answer that fits their “faith.” Heck there is one Republican congressman who says global warming cannot happen and if it does it won’t be bad because god will protect us. Now with that reasoning how can one argue.
Don’t you have any scientists who write here? Maybe you can get a dentist to discuss Oil Drilling as they both drill.
Here is a bit more about your esteemed scientists (guffaws here).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
You should stick to things you know something about whatever that is
There’s plenty of potential evidence for global warming or cooling etc. What has never ever been demonstrated is any solution to the ‘problem.’ So far all we get is: “hand to us, the environmentalists, power over the whole world to create the most fascist form of empire ever imagined, and WE will fix the problem by our magical powers of righteous awareness.”
When the solution to every problem is always the same, it makes me wonder if there is a problem at all. Somehow the answer for the coming ice age, the destruction of all biodiversity, the ozone hole, acid rain, and global warming was always the same: WORLD FASCISM NOW!!
The trouble is that no actual real solution has ever been proposed. Just the magical belief that putting the ‘right’ people in charge of commanding every little detail of our lives will somehow solve every problem. Sorry, I’m not buying. Quacks like a fascist: it’s a fascist.
Actually there is little evidence the earth is cooling. However before one even considers if we should do anything about global warming one has to at least understand what is being discussed in a rational way. The science is pretty much settled in regards to climate change and what really needs to be discussed is what to do?
At this point I’m more inclined to do nothing. Certainly not cap and trade. I would consider Cap and Pay in which we tax at the source only various types of energy if they are producing Co2. Hydro, Gas, Solar, Wind, Nuclear get almost zero in tax – oil and coal get taxed more and some types like tar sands get even taxed more. We take this pool of money and give 80% back to the people equally (not corporations). Hence people can now decide how they want to heat their homes, businesses can decide should we convert to more gas etc. Thinks would happen faster to lessen Co2. Monies would get back to the people and not stay in Washington or in the hands of the wealthy. The remaining 20% split between basic research and paying down the debt. Oh and I would also consider rating countries and adding a tax/fee/tariff onto their goods so we are at a level playing field. Not overnight but gradually work it into the price of products. That fee also goes back to the people. Have the market determine the winners and losers.
But first let’s at least stop this attack on reason and science. It makes the deniers look like ignorant rubes.
Any time you hear someone say the science favoring global warming is settled, ignore everything that follows as it is opinionated ignorance.
Exactly. The one who complacently bleats “the science is settled” is the one who truly attacks reason and science. Many advances in science have involved the overturning of previous “settled” scientific theory.
Settled science. That’s the que, everyone move on, nothing to see here.
Settled science… yes like the ‘earth is flat’… that was ‘settled’ science. The Glo-bull warming followers are NOT scientists, they are political HACKS… sucking off the government tit… and the tit is dry and they are starting to SCREAM… it is going to be tough weening them… but I think we can do it.
Your mind is too complex, which may be counterproductive, so now for the simple solution: Let us slaughter all the cows, and put the beef in solar-powered deep-freezers. So much farting will have been prevented that CO2 levels ought to drop sharply.
If it results in temperature falling to uncomfortable levels, start breeding again, obviously selecting a cold-resistant variety (e.g., Highland cattle), and continue breeding as long as it takes for the happily renewed farting to produce enough CO2 to raise the temperature. Hopefully.
This would also boost the number of job opportunities in the tanning and related industries, and provide plenty of hide to all but eliminate man-made materials from outerwear. Everybody wins.
We could get the same effect much more cheaply just by shutting up Al Gore.
Poor Social Engineer – it’s not Co2 that will be reduced by all those dead cows but methane. It’s methane that is in those farts – any you want to talk science? rotflmao
“it’s not Co2 that will be reduced by all those dead cows but methane. It’s methane that is in those farts – any you want to talk science? rotflmao”
Wrong, as usual. There is more CO2 in intestinal gas than there is CH4.
Lefties think they know it all…only most of what they know is wrong.
And, that’s true whether you’re talking climate “science”, politics, or just flatulence.
Dave Surls, the average cow will belch and fart far more methane than Co2. Much of the methane will come from belching as they have four stomachs. Far more methane is belched than farted from cows and sheep and methane is far worse (over 20 times) than Co2 as a greenhouse gas. An average cow can belch and fart between 300-500 liters of methane in a day.
They are experimenting with garlic which has been shown to reduce this by 50%.
You are simply incorrect. There is more CO2 in intestinal gas than there is methane.
Your assertion that CO2 is not a component of intestinal gas is, like most of your statements…arrant nonsense.
To put it bluntly, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about most of the time.
You’re right, Dave, According to the following it’s 60% CO2 and 40% methane gas in cows.
http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/Scientific-articles/Animal-health/The-stomach-of-the-dairy-cow/
Yeah, that sounds about right, composition-wise (it varies from cow to cow) for what your linked article calls “waste gases” (I guess they mean greenhouse type gases). However, the primary component is nitrogen. Cow farts, also tend to be oxygen rich, which isn’t the case with human beings.
Of course, it might be different for leftards, they being a lower form of life and all.
“However before one even considers if we should do anything about global warming…”
LOL. Governments are notoriously inefficient and ineffective at even the simplest tasks unless they have gargantuan sums of money to throw at it. For them to tackle these kinds of “possible” complex problems is preposterous. It is merely pretex for graft and corruption on a planetary scale. They may be relied on however to produce an attractive color brochure and phone recording after we have all gone extinct.
Everyone who talks about “man-made global climate change” and then uses any reference to carbon dioxide but ignores the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas (H2O) just marginalized themselves. CO2 is a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gasses and proportionally has as much effect as an ant fart in the wind.
Settled? Are you kidding? You postulate this wonderful plan on how to fix global warming and no one even knows what causes it or global cooling for that matter although I’d lay a wager it has something to do with the sun. It’s only speculation that it is caused by carbon dioxide which is what makes this planet habitable. You want to buy into it, be my guest. Don’t expect me to snap at the poisoned meat!
There is no such thing as “settled science”.
If you had stayed awake in your Research Methods class, you would have known that.
So, the temperature goes up or down and CO2 is to blame? Can’t win with you.
Egad. Pretty much settled? Not.
Data supporting AGW is obviously manipulated corrupted stretched falsified tortured and extrapolated based on a priori assumptions which are self serving and richly remunerative and career enhancing for the formularies. In short, AGW is a hoax and scam whose formulators need to be punished by serious jail time.
Look at any list of panel members from the various IPCC groups, and you see the same range of specialties, many of them equally “not Climate scientists.”
As you are probably aware the IPCC does not do any research but nor does it monitor climate. The collect data from other sources within the scientific community. When articles are published the are done by the scientists with their specialty. They don’t ask physicians to research volcanoes.
The 16 scientists the Roger Simon seem to think are climatologists are not. Many of those “scientists” use to work for Exxon. Only four every published anything about climate:
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Shaviv has published some research on galactic cosmic rays, and Kininmonth and Tennekes published a couple of climate-related papers in the 1970s (although most of Tennekes’ research as been in aeronautics). Lindzen is the only climate scientist of note on the entire list, and is mainly noteworthy for his history of being wrong on climate issues.
Here is where Lindzen is wrong so often: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html
You completely miss the point.
If, from what you / SkepticalScience say, the “non-Climatologists” should be discounted as not credible, then it simply has to be for the reason that they do not possess the detailed scientific training to fully understand all of the data and nuances to the science. Thus, it is implied, their determinations will be wrong.
And yet, moments later, you provide a free pass to the same “non-Climatologists” who determine what is and isn’t “accepted,” what should or should not be done about it. On a global scale, across all nations.
The simple fact is, we’ve been hearing dire and catastrophic resultants from a runaway greenhouse warming trend, and those catastrophes keep not happening. Each year for over 15 now, I have been sagely informed of something truly Malthusian waiting, just around the corner.
And then they DON’T happen.
So thank you for your link to the opinions of a couple of guys on a website with a pro-warming agenda, but I’ll trust my senses, intelligence, common sense, and training, thanks.
Well that site isn’t just a few people but probably all the noted climate scientists and some deniers as well.
As for the free pass – not sure I understand but I’m not going to let scientists dictate what should be a political decision on what to do about it. There has been no scientist that has predicted that global warming will wipe out humanity. What they have stated is that things will change and many areas populated now will not be populated in the future. Oh and what the scientists have been predicting has been happening – in some cases faster than expected in regards to glaciers. More and more extreme weather.
What the politicians need to do is at least start to make some plans that might benefit the people. Putting ones head in the sand has never been a good approach to solving problems.
“Oh and what the scientists have been predicting has been happening – in some cases faster than expected in regards to glaciers. More and more extreme weather.”
Completely and utterly wrong.
But, then, you *ARE* a brilliant parody of the cult of the left, so you would be “completely and utterly wrong”, wouldn’t you?
I would rather put my fingers in my ears and chant la la la la can’t hear you!
Other than that there is no reason to worry about the planet. We have taken nothing from the planet or added to it. The earth will be fine after we are all gone so who cares? That is what the enviromentalists want anyway; is for us to just go away or pay pennance for being higher thinking beings that don’t think what they think. We deserve to make our lives so dreadful with socialism that we turn to the government and Vodka in the end. (its been done before) Wait! I will take the vodka, but you can keep the socialist clap trap.
@flaming I’m posting the url to the anti-global warming petition which has been in existence since 1998. It was signed by approx. 30,000 scientists. The warmists have been trying to trash it ever since it came out and have actually done a good job of it because most people have no idea it’s even in existence.
I found it by accident and to my surprise found the names of two of my phD friends on it whose specialties are in the earth sciences. One has even written a paper on the subject of global warming. This is the website if you’d like to check it out. Remember that this has been out since 1998 so some people have since died and there are some names on it that duplicate celebrities, like no one ever had a duplicate name. I was almost arrested once because I had the same name was a woman who was kiting checks all through the midwest. http://www.petitionproject.org/
you seem to be impressed with the figure 31,000 people sign this petition. How many were Climatologists? What was the means of gathering these signatures?
Well the petition was circulated to almost every scientist in every field by mail initially and considering there are over 10 million in the US who qualify and the original response was signed by 15K I say the initial response was quite small. It’s now available online. Wow.
In their second paragraph:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
—–
Notice the words is or will cause Catastrophic heating – heck we aren’t experience it now and even I question the word catastrophic.
But more to the point if one is presented with a signature of 31,000 people who say the earth is 6,000 years old will you believe it? Should you even try?
97% of climate scientists believe the earth is warming – are they full of it or people who believe people who sign that petition.
Oh and one other little fact – one of the people involved in that little petition also worked for the cigarette industry when they were trying to convince us that smoking was good for you. They even put out a petition signed by doctors saying smoking was not harmful in the 70’s. That’s their style and it’s very misleading
“97% of climate scientists believe the earth is warming – are they full of it or people who believe people who sign that petition.”
Yep. Check out the source of that famous quote.
The 97% are 75 ‘scientists’ from a select group of 77.
So much for consensus.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/
FL, you said, “Oh and one other little fact – one of the people involved in that little petition also worked for the cigarette industry when they were trying to convince us that smoking was good for you. They even put out a petition signed by doctors saying smoking was not harmful in the 70’s. That’s their style and it’s very misleading”.
As I recall earlier on this blog you tried to argue that the main component of cow stomach gas is methane, which is wrong (CO2 60%, methane 40%). Does that mean that everything else you are saying is also questionable or “very misleading”?
“The 16 scientists the Roger Simon seem to think are climatologists are not.”
Where does Mr. Simon say that? Not in this article. In fact, he implies quite the reverse by putting “climate scientists” in scare quotes.
Not only are you a blowhard, Flaming Liberal. You’re illiterate.
You do not need to be a climate scientist to understand the lack of science in the work of the AGW scientists. Adjusting data for unknown UHI effects, adding and dropping measurement stations without statistical justification, attributing far greater accuracy to measurements than justified, ignoring proper error analysis, failure to retain original data – anyone with a B.S. degree can see any number of error by the likes of Hansen which would have earned them a D if not an F on an undergrad lab project.
If their scientific technique and statistical data handling was impeccable, yes, you would need climatology training to critique them, but as it is, anyone with minimal science training can see their errors.
I’ve got a homework assignment for you.
Google Dr. Ivar Giaever and report back here.
A few things to contemplate, Flamer:
1. C02 comprises somthing like 3% of the atmosphere. Manmade CO2 is a relatively small part of that, since the vast majority is created by natural processes (you LIKE natural processes, like breathing, right?). So the entire “we’re-all-going-to-die” Gorist hysteria is about something like .42% of the atmosphere. Considerably less than 1%. Do you think it’s just possible that the “AGW” effect is a bit exaggerated?
2. The same people who are telling us now that we’re all going to broil to death were telling us we’re all going to freeze to death 30-35 years ago. Same people. They cited CO2 as the culprit in the “global freezing” scenario, too, yet no one has ever explained how the alarmist movement shifted from freezing to broiling using the same villain.
3. Consider the really big factor affecting temperature on the Earth. Consider a factor that could completely change our weather tomorrow. That would be the sun, which could instantly freeze/incinerate us tomorrow. Isn’t it much more likely that solar activity is at the root of global climate rather than CO2, the gas “greens” love to hate (except not enough to off themselves to prevent their putting it into the atmosphere), especially considering what a small part of the atmosphere CO2 comprises?
3. Because someone receives funding from the government or activist groups rather than the oil industry, that does not necessarily make their “science” sacrosanct. Corruption is possible in either case.
4. When so-called “scientists” say “the science is settled,” that proves they’re not scientists but activists. You want to bet the future on what a pack of bought-and-paid-for activists say?
5. If you hate CO2 you must be a nuclear fan, right? Nuclear is the only realistic non-carbon energy alternative. So if you’re not a nuclear fan, why not? If the so-called scientists agitating against CO2 (i.e., modern society) aren’t full-bore nuclear backers, why not?
Wow where to start:
Co2 – for the last 400,000 years Co2 has been rising and falling in conjunction with sea levels and temperature. Co2 approaches 280 PPM and then falls off and then increases. Well Co2 seems to have broken through that wall in a big way as in 2009 it was measured at 383 PPM and in 2011 was measured at 394 PPM. Now you might think so what but smarter people than you and me say – that’s a problem. So we ask what problems can occur with Co2. Well for one we know Co2 is a heat trapping gas and we know that the temperature has been rising for the last 30 years when Co2 started to break the 280PPM ceiling. Today we see ice melting at faster rates and the mass of ice lessen each year – we also think that this might affect the fish and the salinity near these melting glaciers and the temperature of the sea. We have also noticed that the tundra is starting to thaw is certain places and methane is being released into the atmosphere (in case you don’t know in large quantities that not a good thing). The tundra has a lot of methane.
I’m assuming by you saying the same people you mean scientists – well a funny thing happened as we started to receive more satellite data and measurements and more and more understanding of our planet that we now realize they were wrong. But then a hundred or so years ago doctors put leaches to bleed people of their bad blood. We should not trust doctors now?
Now about that Sun = of course the sun affects the weather and temperature and a whole host of things on this planet. But being as informed as you are you must realize that this warming has zip, nada, zilch to do with the sun. You must know based on your vast knowledge that the sun has been in a cool period these last thirty years and that every 11 years the sun goes through a cycle of increased and decreased activity of sunspots. As a matter of fact these last hundred years or so the sunspot activity has been increasing. Here is a little article to help you understand a bit more about the sun and yes there are peer reviewed articles within this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
That article (rightly) claims that the sun has been less active over the past 30 years – a trend that cannot currently be forecast with any accuracy (kinda like our weather eh?)by the current brain-trust. What that article wrongly claims is that earth should begin to immediately cool – and that because it isn’t there must be some mitigating circumstance – AGW – increased C02 – man-made-disaster – you know – the Chicken Little/Boy-Cries-Wolfe routine. Do you (and they) really expect the earth would cool at exactly the same time as the sun went into a cooling cycle? Because that is the gist of that article. Maybe you read it? Have you ever heard of a heat sink? As in oceans as a heat sink? Earths heating and cooling cycles do not track exactly with the sun for obvious reasons – heat sinks (let me refresh your memory – oceans) – of which that article conveniently glosses over. Not one mention of heat sink as a drag on effect. – maybe you dispute that but it is fact.The Pacific Ocean is currently in a cooling trend. I’ll let you peruse the individual links. If that continues global warming will be a happy alternative as compared to the obvious end of cooling of even a few degrees.
Give me warming over cooling any day. Drive the piss out of your SUV today so I can golf next winter – PLEASE.
Funny I live on a golf course and have been waiting for snow so I can go sledding with my granddaughter. The only time I had to use my snowblower was in October as we had a freak storm in MA.
I’m assuming you are talking about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation regarding the Pacific cooling. Well funny about those things – scientist were concerned that over the last few decades they have not seen any appreciable increase or decrease in the first 700 meters. So they went down deeper to 1500 meters and walla the found the ocean is warming. While the PDO helps regulate the oceans by transferring heat to the atmosphere and back in and of itself it has not affected global warming.
Here is an article about the oceans warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Content-And-The-Importance-Of-The-Deep-Ocean.html
And here is an article about the PDO and naturally if I have misinterpreted your Pacific is cooling then please point to a article about that.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-advanced.htm
Why is it you use the same proven shill of a website for argument? It has been proved dishonest. I won’t go into the details since I’m sure you’ve already read them – or as it seems – more than likely – ignored them. Seems time spent on you is wasted and I don’t have enough left to spend on someone who obviously can’t see the forest for the trees – or the fact that he/she is only helping The Goracle manufacture wealth by any means necessary. You certainly aren’t helping the ecology.
K T – who has proven what site dishonest? Where is this? Because some mouth breathers here said it was dishonest means it’s dishonest. That site is probably one of the best site for arguing against the dishonest cherry picking fossil funded science is terrible deniers.
The funny thing about science is many famous scientists have made great reputations refuting established dogma – where’s your great scientists who have refuted this? Those 16 charlatans?
Where to start indeed? How about with the fact that the climate represents an extraordinarily complex system that can’t be fully understood and can’t be “modeled” with the puny computer tools we have today? This is why most meteorologists — who know a whole lot more about weather and its effect over time (climate) than you do — don’t subscribe to warmism. They know how complex the system is, and they’re routinely embarrassed by their own bad predictions more than a day or so out.
When it comes to greenhouse gases, isn’t water vapor (the stuff of clouds) far more potent than CO2? Yet we never hear of a movement to ban water vapor. Could that be because water vapor has nothing to do with economic growth and making $?
And if you really believe the warmist gospel, shouldn’t you be out marching and shaking your little fist on behalf of nuclear power? Shouldn’t you be leading a “YES in my back yard to nukes” group of fellow Volvo drivers? If not, why not?
Flamer’s nothing more than another smug, sanctimonious state supremacist. Not worth the time or the effort to engage.
Wow Ward that starlan site was an amazing site. Do you sell tin foil hats there?
So of course, the recent findings of the East Anglia Center are pap. The story at the DailyMail tofay, “Europe freezes solid: Ice coats London and snow falls in Rome for the first time in 26 YEARS as -33F temperatures kill 150″ is pap. The fact that the Earth has experienced no increased warming in quite some time is pap.
Good day to you. Let us know when you’ve developed a brainstem.
“mouth breathers”, Flaming? Name calling is typical of one who is losing an argument.
I have one word for this rebutt, Phantom- BRILLIANT!! and also the Earth is dynamic and ever changing!! The oceanic volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2 exceed anything man produces!! Our landscape and climate will slowly change and evolve, and I hope there won’t be a lib around every corner wanting to control us for every little thing that happens naturally!!
[Quote] 6. Dave Surls seys: “What Do You Get When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?” Abrasions?[/quote]
Heh! I immediately thought ‘Anthropogenic Local Warming.’
And if you rub them together fast enough, ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Local Warming.’
Here is an article about warming since 1998. It uses science and peer reviewed papers and has plenty of sources. This site also might give you an education
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
No one trusts SS, nor should they, you realize that right? They are one of the most dishonest websites out there.
The best perpective with respect to Flamer is to consider his brain a Tim Burton-designed pinata, that when whacked with sufficient force – or presented with factual matters – disgorges a shower of dead insects and dried leaves.
Skeptical seance? Those folks are bigger parodies than you, flamer.
“It uses science…”
No, it doesn’t. And, you wouldn’t know what science was, if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.
At the very least, this demonstrates that no matter what Mankind is doing to the atmosphere, there’s lots of other stuff going on at at the same time. If you make your climate predictions based on a single factor, you’ll be wrong. If you predict that an observed trend will continue indefinitely, you’ll be wrong. My question is, are we really clever enough to predict accurately the behavior of something as complex as the climate?
“rubbing to warmist together” …sounds like a perverted sex act.
Hilarious piece. Gave me a warm-and-fuzzy feeling all over.
Hudson Bay is a mighty powerful winter machine and acts as if with a mind of its own.
Thank goodness we elected President Obama. If we had a Republican we would still have global warming and Florida would be under water by now.
And I’d own waterfront property on Puget Sound right now (dammit)!
And I’d be living in Otisburg!
“Otisburg? Otisburg?”
here’s an interesting video i watched during my insomina last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=autoplay&list=PLC30CF2A62B0004E5&lf=player_embedded&playnext=1
here is their website
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
Reminds me when I was a kid in high school in the mid 1970s. We had bitterly cold winters in New York City, so cold that the Hudson River almost totally froze over, something that’s almost impossible to do. I remember that there were big articles in Newsweek Magazine stating that we were headed for a new Ice Age and that we could all be doomed if it happened. Well, I guess they were right back then. Only took the scientists over 30 years to agree on it! Well, at least most of them.
I was in law school, the three worst winters in memory.
EVERY libtard article was about the coming Ice Age.
When these spectacularists are wrong, they are spectacularly wrong. If they didn’t own the propaganda machine, you could simply start laughing whenever they opened their pie holes.
But…they have ALL the “academia” and “Hollywood” bluffoons to spin their yarns, so there is some method to their madness and some organizational structure to their sabotage.
Sort of like EST or Scientology…a hoax with hierarchy. When hippies double down on a hoax or go “all in”…facts, evidence and truth are hardly going to be much of an obstacle. The Climate Cult is simply a member of the inbred family of “redistributionists”. These inbred play the sitar rather than the banjo.
What you are describing happened during the early 1900s with the “science”, or theory’ of eugenics, the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. This was later totally embraced by the Nazis. The following is an excerpt from an essay by Michael Crichton.
“Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.”
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous”….Michael Crichton
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
The biggest lie put forth by the global warming crowd and bought by the great unwashed masses was that if you hand over trillions and your rights, we can control the weather. To date, no one has called them on this lie and asked for the plan and the effect (Measurable) that this would have. More importantly, what would happen to the recipients of this money if things do not happen as expected and on time. Jail, long term, and impoverishment of their families would seem to be the best punishment for being wrong.
This conflict, both in the scientific community and the political arena, has the real potential to destroy the United States of America. It is getting worse. If you read the recent science articles of both sides, the warmists and deniers, you quickly note the tone has gone exclusively to ad hominum logic. Gone are the days of debating non linear regression analyses, or data filters. The other Professor Emeritus is now a crook, either a pawn of Exxon, or the UN IPPC. Our government employees seem to favor sanctions against the opposition. Their bad guys, ultimately, are US energy corporations. There seems to be no real interest in reining in the three billion people in Asia who are ferociously attempting to climb out of starvation conditions by their ever increasing use of carbon combustion. Their impact has and will continue to dwarf the effects of our population which is ten percent of their size. They will not stop, their sole alternative is abject poverty.
Here is what the politicians dance around. There is no viable alternative. All green energies cost far more than Americans can afford, they are useless to people who make $1 per day. The US is pouring the wealth of our kid’s future on technologies which are as hopeful as betting on a dead race horse. The bright green future of full employment is a big fat lie. Nations have tried; it does not work.
At this stage of American history, it is indisputable that our scientists have disgraced themselves. Both sides can not be correct.
After forty years engineering energy, I conclude that if man made climate change from carbon combustion is a real and present danger to humanity, then we are doomed. The coming struggle must then be, “who is we?” Our seven billion global population will collapse to some size, perhaps an order of magnitude smaller, say 700 million, resulting in 6 billion + deaths. Compare this to the death toll of WWII, 65 million. For a numbers guy, this is our ball park, although I do not know if we are at bat, or in deep left field. Looking forward, from where we are, America has not licensed a new nuclear power plants in 36 years, not built a large coal fired power plant in forty + years, our grid is worn out, and the experts who engineered this life sustaining infrastructure are dead. We are out of time, out of work, lacking experience, and broke.
The climate change controversy is closer to religious hatred than it is to technical assessment. The central concept is the end of the world.
God bless America.
You are so correct sir. I too, am an energy engineer. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that the emission of CO2 is burning up the planet. The solution is not wind and solar, but nuclear generation. It’s been said that a boat is a hole in the water that you throw money into. Well, the same is true for wind and solar in that they are holes in the atmosphere that your money is thrown into. The simple fact is that we can not generate anywhere near enough energy without nuclear generation.
Couple the energy illiteracy in this nation with a failing school system not producing the engineers that are needed to build and maintain our infrastructure and we have a problem of immense proportions…
Good luck to all. You’re going to need it.
OP
I agree, and I think modern technology can make nuclear energy safe. No, it won’t protect us from earthquakes and tidal waves and terrorists. But those things can be planned for and the risks mitigated. (Start by not putting nuclear powerplants next to major fault lines?) Trouble is, since the 60s environmentalists and their political clients have surrounded nuclear power with an aura of superstitious fear. In this atmosphere, in any discussion about alternative energy, nuclear is reflexively taken off the table. Sorry, can’t do it, too dangerous.
The Navy has fifty years of experience running small nuclear reactors with an extremely low rate of catastrophic failure. Have any U.S. Navy personnel been killed or injured by radiation in reactor accidents? Have any homeports or ports of call been rendered uninhabitable by reactor leaks or explosions? So what’s to prevent us from using shipborne reactor technology and operational methods to run small, safe nuclear powerplants? Why don’t we take a lesson from the Navy instead of from Three Mile Island?
Completely agree.
Most people in this country, environmentalists included, are unaware that we have many safe paths to nuclear power. We don’t HAVE to build reactors that can have run-away chain reactions or that produce dangerous waste we have to deal with. We can build reactors where it’s impossible to have a chain-reaction and that don’t produce waste.
The level of conventional wisdom concerning nuclear power is still stuck in the 1970′s. I don’t expect the average citizen to be fully versed in these areas, but they are being short-changed in a major way by the silence of the luddite crowd, the short-sighted agenda driven media included, that want the human race to pay penance for it’s first-world life-style first and foremost.
Anybody who thinks wind power can make an affordable dent in supplying the world with energy, or that replacing your light bulbs with CFL’s will save the earth is a technological moron and shouldn’t be listened to. It’s really pathetic.
First three paragraphs: copious uptwinkles.
But I think you’re wrong about a) how bad the condition of the existing system is, and b) how hard it would be to retread and retool all of the engineering talent that’s currently going to waste on green energy and other green pursuits. For all the bitching that goes on about how short of engineers we are, if you look at the stupid things they’re spending their time on, we have no shortage, only a surplus of stupid make work. Do we really need degreed and licensed engineers designing bike lanes and bike paths?
The problem isn’t a lack of talent or a lack of skill. It’s stupidity in the ruling class. The shortage of brainpower is in Washington. Specifically in the Whitehouse and Congress. That’s where we need more intelligence. Give us good leadership, and we’ll be fine. But I don’t see an increase in leadership IQ on the horizon. I see nothing but pure stupid, especially in the Whitehouse, as far as the eye can see.
You touch on an extremely topic,important for another colloquy and I hope you are correct, with a important caveat. We do not lack skill or talent; we lack a deeply experienced robust profession, which has not been allowed to practice for decades. If the Chicago Bulls had not touched a basketball in forty years, could they play as world champions? No profession, idle for generations, can be expected to contend with extremely complex interactive technologies found in a nuke, or large coal fired power plant.
After the impasse of climate change is resolved, the US will find that the talent needed to rebuild our grid will be scarce and the relearning curve lengthy. Bike lane engineers create problems such as the Japanese nuke, which put its diesel generators is a swimming pool.
You are absolutely correct that Washington D.C. does not even see the lethal problem. We are led by suicidally incompetent people.
I completely agree that there’s a wicked learning curve ahead, because we’ve lost all of the experience from the past generation. The answer to that isn’t pushing more skulls of mush through engineering school.
What worried me much more is the loss of institutional knowledge in the rest of the economy, particularly in manufacturing. We’re quickly losing the competitive advantage that we’ve had for decades due to industries drying up and blowing away, and the people who used to work in those industries become consultants for the startups in Asia, until they’re not needed any more.
There was a recent story in the news about Obama arguing with the wife of an unemployed semiconductor engineer; the jerk actually had the chutzpah to try to tell her that there were plenty of jobs for semiconductor engineers. What the moron doesn’t realize is that while a lot of upstream engineering still goes on in the US, the foundries are all making a b-line for Asia. If this guy was a line engineer at a silicon foundry, he’s hosed. He might get a contract position in China for a while, but in the long run, his field is over in the US.
That concerns me a lot more than the loss of energy expertise. We can chose to have a robust energy industry again, but the manufacturing that goes offshore is gone forever.
Totally concur. snork for President! OsoPardo for dog catcher!
It is the same job in Washington D. C. You guys work out the furniture.
I was a nuclear power operator in the Navy a couple of decades ago. After 3 Mile Island, America put the nuclear option on the shelf, while I went to school to get my BSEE. If America decides to put nuclear power back on the table, I could easily postpone retirement and go work for a power plant. It might be a nice change of pace, since we all want nuclear plants to be quiet and boring while they just crank out the juice for the TV to run on. I think you’ll easily find operators and engineers for future nuke plants, if we ever get the guts to actually build ‘em.
“The Population Bomb” and such tripe gave them one.
While Barack Obama’s creepy science czar John Holdren was in bed with Ehrlich and a proponent of Obama’s ideal society even in the 70′s, when Barack was just a young kid sitting at Frank Marshall Davis’ knee in Hawaii.
The earth religionists will never go away
“Ehrlich has also been in the news recently about a 1977 book he co-authored with President Obama’s science czar John Holdren titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” The book called for a ‘Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources.’”
reducing population has always been the objective of those that would play God.
George Bernard Shaw was one of these self-proclaimed higher beings who was all about micromanaging the hoi polloi, aka all those beings lesser than himself.
A factoid I was never acquainted with when assigned his plays to read in college.
AKA the John Holdren of Mitt Romney fame when the latter was occupied with ‘saving’ Massachusetts from carbon dioxide. Has Romney disavowed his previous beliefs in AGW?
I believe it is impossible to find a position that Romney has not taken.
Wow! 16 scientists, including one from MIT. Now there’s a consensus if I ever saw one. Of course, all the thousands of other tenured scientists, including those from MIT who believe otherwise, are just too scared to say differently — Hah! Nice try at smearing the opposition.
Follow the money. Or actually get a science degree. when you have no skin in the game it makes it a lot easier to speak your mind.
Yeah, follow the money to Big Oil and all the others trying to discredit the climatologists.
Why not follow the money from US Government grants while you’re at it. Or do you not care to look at that scam?
You point the finger at scientists who take big oil/coal money as being tainted. What makes you think getting tax dollars automatically makes for a squeaky clean process?
“Yeah, follow the money to Big Oil and all the others trying to discredit the climatologists.”
You can’t. There is no money flowing from “Big Oil” to skeptics.
The money’s flowing from “Big Oil” to the environmentalists. Just today we learned that the Sierra Club took $25,000,000 in 4 years from natural gas companies to attack coal power plants.
Patriots is a True Believer.
Not interested in departing from the required, lockstep doctrinal belief system.
Not interested in educating himself
Not interested, actually, in listening to the blather of the equivalent of the flat-earthers. But, as, RS has said, Don’t trust pundits, including him.
The video I linked you to is a French geophysicist who describes himself as “too old to be bought”.
But you’re not interested, of course, because real information might cause a disturbance in your grey matter.
I understand. It’s already very crowded up there
The amazing thing about your position is that you refuse to listen to contrary evidence, and yet consider those who disagree with you ignorant anti-intellectuals.
Rob, cut him some slack. The science is already settled so anything offered that may contradict the “settled science” just CAN’T be intelligent.
Trouble is, there is not much in the way of “contrary evidence”. There is a lot of hot air, coming from self styled “skeptics”, but they usually have to invent the evidence. Or shift the goal posts.
The reason the “skeptics” are obviously wrong for one reason. They come up with argument after argument, and when each one is discredited, they just come up with a new one. If they had a leg to stand on, they would just come up with one argument which actually worked. You know, like the warmist, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” argument.
Anyway, don’t deafen yourself with the reverberations of your self congratulations.
Academics can lose their jobs, or lose all their funding, be disgraced and sidelined, for not following the party line. If you haven’t worked in academia I doubt you can understand how it works. I know a few conservative academics who are terrified of being outed as conservative, let alone as global-warming skeptics. This is why scientists who are skeptics are likely to be retired, like Freeman Dyson.
“Wow! 16 scientists, including one from MIT. Now there’s a consensus if I ever saw one. Of course, all the thousands of other tenured scientists, including those from MIT who believe otherwise, are just too scared to say differently — Hah! Nice try at smearing the opposition.”
EXRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!—- The controversial and contrarian theory offered by Copernicus which alleges that the Earth revolves around the Sun is supported by evidence proposed by one lone crackpot scientist named Galileo using an “instrument” which the smart set considers a mere toy.
One brilliant commentator observed wryly, “Wow! One scientist. Now there is a consensus if I ever saw one. Of course, all the other learned university graduates in Europe and even the Pope and his assembled Cardinals believe otherwise, are just too scared to say differently!”
Multidecadal oceanic oscillations create multi-decade warming and cooling trends. We’ve reached the peak of such a trend, now that the relevant oscillations are all turning to their cooling phase, we’ll be seeing a cooling trend in North America and Europe over the next twenty years. The sun has switched from an exceptionally active maxima to an exceptional inactive minima, if the historical correlation holds, this cooling cycle will be harsher than the previous one, that ended in the 1970s. But the last such minimum occurred during the Little Ice Age, so I don’t expect to see frost fairs on the Themes again.
Warmists are really (really!) PO’ed that low sunspot activity/a quiescent sun might last for another two decades or so.
Ack, it’s horrible, we can’t hide the decline, what will happen to all that agenda driven grant money ?
Environmentalists have a self righteous war against fossil fuels. They have used the big lie to indoctrinate the media and governments that CO2 is a harmful pollutant. Co2 comprises .03% of the atmosphere. there is 30 times as much Argon in the atmosphere as Co2. Co2 is essential to photosynthesis. In photosynthesis Co2 is absorbed by plants and a chemical process where sunlight in contact with chlorophyl converts the CO2 and water into carbohydrates. The byproduct of this chemical process is free Oxygen. This is our only source of free Oxygen, that is Oxygen that is not in water or oxidized materials in the earth.This is the Oxygen we breathe and is necessary to all land living things. Increases in CO2 increase plant growth.Environmentalists in their nefarious agenda have indoctrinated the ignorant masses to view CO2 as a dangerous harmful pollutant which can only be stopped by stopping the use of fossil fuels.
C02 + warmth = plant paradise
Whats not to like about that equation?
“Environmentalists have a self righteous war against
fossil fuelshumanity.”Fixed that for ya.
Too many people confuse carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide. That might have had something to do with the widespread belief in AGW up until a couple of years ago.
AGW has always been a scam. AGW is merely a vehicle that socialists hoped to use to force an unelected global socialist government to have vast powers over our everyday lives. What we eat, what we wear, how we travel, what we buy, everything. It is about Power and Control and Redistribution of Wealth. In short the AGW-environmental-green-sustainable deal is all the same, it’s a Marxist movement. It’s been and is a vehicle to sneak socialism in the back door.
But for the elitists, like Al Gore and George Soros, it’s also been very much about the money. This is why they are fighting tooth and nail and propagandizing to keep up the alarmism on AGW. Check out the Climate Exchange website. (OOPS, that went belly up.) It tells the rest of the story. The elites have a stock exchange scam set up where they will buy and sell carbon credits, but there will never be any reduction of CO2 because the net production of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion won’t decrease. Never mind that CO2 is infinitesimal as a “green house gas”. CO2, carbon footprint, green house gas, etc., are just propaganda tools to alarm the hoi polloi into accepting socialism as the solution.
Propaganda is a huge factor in the AGW scam. The “scientists”, politicians, news media and business community have all used it to drive their agenda which is the biggest scam in the history of the world. They never thought they would get caught. But they did. And now they are working to maintain the lie but can’t because of the internet.
Consider what one of the most notorious propagandists in history said of using lies to control people:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
Because of the internet we are at the point where the state can no longer shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie. The state, which is now the liberal democratic party, and it’s propaganda arm, the Mainstream Media now must be held accountable for the fraud that they have attempted to foist upon us.
Fun to watch Gore’s leftard AGW dupes squirm. No neo-fascist free lunch for them!
I’m surprised that someone hasn’t claimed we have been provided with further evidence of climate change because two Canadian groundhogs didn’t see their shadows, thus predicting an early spring. Its about the level of proof that seems to work for the likes of Flaming Liberal and Patriot.
Hmmm…a quick summary of earth’s history:
Millions of years ago, big dinosaurs ate big plants in a tropical paradise. They vanished after a few million years when a great coldness hit. Then we had glaciers all over the planet. These glaciers and cold environs are still warming? Imagine that – it looks more like global homeostasis to me.
Yes, and France’s Mediterranean coastal beaches have had snow this past week and temps in large parts of Europe were lower than -20C (-4F)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/19/us-weather-idUSTRE80I1K220120119
Seattle and the Pacific Northwest are digging out (or at least trying to) from under the heaviest snowfall, plus ice storms, on record for the area.
According to a friend of mine who used to live there, the amount of precipitation they received as snow in one lump in the last fortnight is equal to their normal precipitation for an entire winter season. Except that they usually receive it as rain, not snow.
To me, the extreme cold and winter conditions in coastal areas, which are usually warmer than inland areas, strongly indicates that overall conditions are getting cooler, not warmer. (Has anyone checked the actual temperatures of the Gulf Stream and Japan Current recently?)
Here in Ohio, we have had much less snow than usual this winter, due to low humidity. We have, however, also set a record for the number of days of below-freezing temperatures. Yes, the climatologists at OSU are confused, as their computer models (based on the AGW model) aren’t matching what the weather is actually doing.
Needless to say, East Anglia is conspicuously silent on things like this. So is Al Gore.
clear ether
eon
In my examination, as an amateur scientist, of the “known” controlling factors of climate, i.e. sunspots, a pattern has arisen. Prior to addressing that it must be noted that the temperature records for the last century are highly suspect due to the urbanization around the stations. That said, few argue against the sunspot records. The number of sunspots indicate the temperature. The fewer the sunspots, the lower the temperature. The most easily observed cycle is the 11 1/2 year cycle but there appears to be another cycle that entails many more years (100-200?). Like I said, I am an amateur. However, the period of the Maunder and Dalton minimums were extremely difficult for the people of earth, the latter of the aforementioned giving us 60 years of cooler weather and one year without a summer (yes I know the Mt Tambora eruption was instrumental it that). That aside the 11 1/2 sunspot cycle has broken and it remarkably resembles the cycle that immediately proceeding the Dalton Minimum. We could be in for a rough ride if I am right folks.
As an aside, if I could see the cycle break, who says Al could not have. And if he did and if he actually could have gotten folks to reduce their CO2 output and the weather got cooler, who would have ended up such a rich hero? Just saying.
Whereas here in Mass, we are having one of our warmest winters ever, although our summer wasn’t bad while the middle of the country sizzled. You add it all up and you get….who the hell knows?
(1) Carbon dioxide is essential to life, since it is the food of green plants.
(2) I believe that the Earth is in a 20,000 year cycle of warming and cooling, dependent on the changing orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The Earth is now 10,000 years from the last Ice Age and is now heading into the next one. See Imbrie, The Ice Ages.
(3) Check the credentials of self-designated “environmentalists.” I taught some in “Environmental Studies” who knew and studied no science – biology, geology, etc. They only learned to politic.
The first thing anyone did when they started a flying field in the early days of aviation was to put up a weather station. In the 100 years since a lot has changed, those flying fields are miles and miles of heat-absorbing tarmac, those field are now all the centre of their own little towns. The one thing that has not changed is the the weather stations are still there, most of the weather stations in the world are there. With the parking lots and runways they are the biggest expanses of black tarmac in any city, conveniently near the place where more aviation fuel is burned then anywhere else. The days they put the weather stations in the deserts, forests, plains and oceans, which is 95% of our planet is the day they give a true picture of the worlds weather.
There are YouTube videos for those who ACTUALLY want to educate themselves, but here it is in a nutshell:
Cosmic rays cause clouds. Clouds cool the earth. Solar flares block cosmic rays so solar flares cause the earth to warm.
*looks at monitor and whispers “biggie smalls”
The first thing I thought about “rubbing two climatologists together” was another fatally retarded environmentalist offspring generation.
This whole scheme is a humongous joke.
Is it politically incorrect to laugh at these fools? I’ll laugh amongst friends if it is.
After the laughter dies down, we know it is us against them.
@FlamingLiberal: First let me compliment you on your name. It shows who you are.
Next, you answered your own rhetoric on C02 when you stated: Co2 – for the last 400,000 years Co2 has been rising and falling in conjunction with sea levels and temperature.
Now you explain to me how the sea rises and falls and warms and cools is due to human activity. The only reason I could possible think of that is due to science is it is all due to the activity of fat people going into and back out of the ocean.
There is your proof of why the seas rise and fall and also the answer as to why they heat and cool.
Until you liberal lackeys have research that you have not cooked to rip off the American working people, don’t spread your bullshit theories that are parroted from the U.N.’s Agenda 21 rhetoric. It is proven that these people cooked the books and lied to everyone.
So take your great Whoreacle and his books and put them in the basement to gather dust. GOD is in charge of the climate and NOTHING humans have done has changed that one iota.
“@FlamingLiberal: First let me compliment you on your name. It shows who you are.”
Maybe, but Crushed Ambien would be much better. I find it nearly impossible to get past the first sentence of his tedious drivel.
Al Gore needs thermal underwear about as much as Callista Flockhart needs diet pills. It wouldn’t hurt him to lose 10 stone. And leave it up to a flaming idiot to wait for snow to go sledding on a golf course that’s probably private property. There’s a three-way fail right there.
I was one of the smart Bay Staters – I emigrated to Florida.
For all you Global Warmists out there who believe the numerous websites advertising “The Top 10 or 20 or 30 Things You Can Do to Stop Global Warming”….I have one question. You have obviously swallowed the premise that man can do something about warming, so, conversely, we must be able to do something about cooling. QED. So, if, in fact, there is Global Cooling, what do you Warmists suggest humans should do to successfully stop the cooling?
Well, here’s my suggestion: take your favorite Warming Control List and for every item…..do the exact OPPOSITE. And you know, I can hardly wait….subsidies for big-block-V8 SUVs….Oh Boy! Setting thermostats UP, and our air-conditioners DOWN! Penalties and fines for anyone with solar panels, etc., etc.
It’s only logical. If it works one way, it has to work the other way.
What do you get when you rub 2 climatologists together? A Flaming Liberal. lol
“For all you Global Warmists out there who believe…”
None of the “AGW is destroying the planet” types believe it. If they did, they’d modify their own lifestyles, and start living like the Amish.
But they do want to modify your lifestyle and make you live like the Amish.
Global warmers are a bit like the priests of the inquisition in the middle ages: any opposition to *them* is opposition to God, or to “science”, and thus a heresy which the power of the state must wipe out.
You cite the Daily Mail as a source. Have any idea that its a total joke in the UK- like their National Enquirer? Then you cite the WSJ op ed for which the WSJ was roundly criticized because it was written by a bunch of non-scientists all of whom are shills for some anti-carbon agenda. And it made no sense. One of the signers, a former astronaut, got laughed out of NM for his goofy views.
You folks are clearly very desperate.
how close to the edge do you have to be before you know your in danger
What Do You Get When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?
Uh..I know! A Gibson air-guitar?