Say it ain't snow: Media suggest snowstorms cast doubt on global warming
Conservative media outlets have used recent winter storms in Washington, DC, as an excuse to forward attacks against former Vice President Al Gore and climate science. In fact, winter snow on the east coast of the United States does not disprove the scientific consensus that global warming is real.
WSJ, Hill forward GOP attacks on Gore, climate science
WSJ: Inhofe's daughter built igloo "bearing signs saying 'Al Gore's New Home' and 'Honk if you [heart] Global Warming.' " From a February 11 Wall Street Journal article:
The daughter and grandchildren of Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, the Senate's most outspoken climate-change skeptic, built an igloo a snowball's throw from the Capitol, bearing signs saying "Al Gore's New Home" and "Honk if you [heart] Global Warming."
Mr. Inhofe's daughter, Molly Rapert, said the signs were an afterthought and she regretted that anyone would think it was "an assault on some serious issue." Mr. Gore's office didn't respond to calls for comment.
Others also made hay over the contrast between the snow and the global-warming issue. The Virginia GOP ran ads against Reps. Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher, two conservative Democrats who support legislation to make industries pay for their emissions. "Tell them how much global warming you get this weekend.... Maybe they'll come help you shovel," the ads said.
[...]
The Center for American Progress, an Obama-friendly think tank led by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, canceled its discussion on "The Global Implications of Climate Migration," due to the blizzard.
Hill: DeMint "used the D.C. snowstorm to make a political jab, saying that it provides evidence for global warming skeptics." A February 9 article in The Hill headlined "Climate-change legislation buried under record snowfall in capital" stated:
Record snowfall has buried Washington -- and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year.
Cars are stranded in banks of snow along the streets of the federal capital, and in the corridors of Congress, climate legislation also has been put on ice.
Voters are mostly concerned with jobs and the economy. Global warming is at the bottom of their list. And now, on top of that, the paralyzing snowfalls have made the prospect of winning support for a climate bill this year even less likely.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on Tuesday used the D.C. snowstorm to make a political jab, saying that it provides evidence for global warming skeptics.
"It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries "uncle," the conservative Senator tweeted on Twitter.
[...]
For critics, it was an opportunity to poke fun at the issue's most prominent advocate.
"Where's Al Gore when we need him?" quipped Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who burst out laughing when asked about the prospect of passing cap-and-trade legislation Tuesday while the city was still digging out.
Right-wing media run with climate-science attacks
Fox News buries Gore under avalanche of global warming misinformation. Fox News' website The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Stuart Varney, and Eric Bolling all used the DC snow storm to attack Gore or the science supporting global warming. Indeed, on the February 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, Bolling showed an image of Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, being buried in snow.
New York Post suggests DeMint is right that snow "must be a sign from God" about existence of global warming. From a February 11 New York Post editorial:
If, like everyone else from New England to Virginia, you spent the last 24 hours watching the global warming fall from the sky, you may agree that Sen. Jim DeMint could be on to something.
The South Carolina Republican took to the Twitter-sphere to declare that the region's second major blizzard in less than a week must be a sign from God.
That is, he said, "It's going to keep snowing . . . until Al Gore cries 'Uncle!' "
Fat chance.
Limbaugh, Wash. Times join in blizzard of global warming misinformation. Rush Limbaugh called the east coast blizzard the "nail in the coffin to the whole global warming thing" and asked: "Where's Al Gore?" Additionally, In a February 8 editorial headlined, "Snowmageddon is nigh," The Washington Times asserted that reports of more snow blanketing D.C., "must send chills up the spines of global warming adherents, for whom this winter has been marked by discontent." The editorial later added: "Those who value freedom should thank Mother Nature for her sense of humor, undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time. So although we're quite tired of shoveling, we say, 'Bring on the blizzard.' "
Right-wing bloggers pile on. A post by Publius -- the pseudonym of the Andrew Breitbart-published website BigGovernment.com's "Editorial Panel" -- stated: "Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to create a new federal agency tasked with climate change. Later that day, the National Weather Service announced that DC was due to receive another 10-20 inches of snow today. (On top of the 2 1/2 feet of snow over the weekend.) Now THAT is some climate change." In addition, referring to the east coast blizzard as one of the "cold hard facts on the ground," Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft offered up to $10,000 for people who can get anti-science signs on TV." Furthermore, in a February 8 post on RedState.com, Erick Erickson wrote:
There are thirty inches of snow in Washington, DC. Here in Macon, Georgia, an area global warming scientists have long predicted would become a desert, we are 24 inches into a rain surplus in the past 365 calendar days.
You know what this all means right? We need a new federal agency to "study and report on the changing climate."
Local weather phenomena do not disprove scientific consensus that global warming is real
Cold weather in winter does not disprove global warming. In a March 2, 2008, article, The New York Times reported that climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the climate debate. The article quoted Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA saying: "It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change."
2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. In January, major meteorological organizations throughout the world -- including NASA -- released reports showing that the past decade, 2000-2009, was the warmest on record. The reports undermine the right-wing media's numerous claims that recent snow and cold weather show climate change does not exist or has slowed over the past 10 years.
IPCC: "There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." In its most recent "Synthesis Report," the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gases) concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). [italics in original]
The authors of the IPCC report stated that the phrase "very high confidence" translates to an "at least 9 out of 10" chance of being correct, and "very likely" translates to greater than 90 percent probability.
It snowed in DC, but it's hot in Rio. Further illustrating the absurdity of the argument that the DC snow storm disproves global warming, while it was snowing on the east coast of the United States, Rio de Janeiro is reportedly suffering through a "historic" heat wave. According to the Agence France Press, "[t]he worst heatwave to hit Rio de Janeiro in 50 years turned the city into a pre-Carnival furnace Wednesday, and killed 32 elderly people further south, officials said. According to the Inmet national weather service, recorded temperatures in Rio were well above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees) -- and felt more like above 50 degrees." Additionally, according to numerous news outlets, Vancouver, British Columbia, the location of the 2010 Winter Olympics has been hit by unseasonably warm weather, causing a massive effort to move snow to freestyle skiing events sites. From The New York Times:
On Tuesday, organizers gave the news media their first look at Cypress Mountain, the site of the snowboarding and freestyle skiing events, with hopes of allaying concerns about a lack of snow and unseasonably warm weather endangering the competitions. But officials kept the snowboarding halfpipe off limits, citing safety concerns. The mountain looked as if it were under military siege, not an Olympic site days from competition.
[...]
The Olympic plans at Cypress were undercut by the warmest January on record, which kept snowmaking to a minimum. According to Environment Canada, the average temperature this year was 7.2 degrees Celsius (45 Fahrenheit), when it normally is 3.3 C (38). From Dec. 1 to Jan. 31, the area received 79 percent of its usual precipitation, but most of it was rain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
Ergo, global warming is a hoax.
If you keep repeating it loudly enough and often enough . . .
. . . it will still be untrue.
Dude, you're trying to negotiate with God (or Nature) to behave in your manner of preference. It just don't work that way.
Sorry, wingnuts.
<i>Facts are stubborn things</i>
~
Here's some more charts, wingnut.
~
Here's the "tell".....
"cite your sources, loony left"
Uh, what's the matter? Don't know how to look it up yourself? Oh, but you already know the sources, don't ya? All set to send this thread down a rat-hole. Fox needs to hire better interns.
I wonder if this will work....
Thanks so much! It's always appreciated when fools like you dig your own graves.
Dully I thought you had abandoned this cause, you know, with SLUR going all loopy on us. But here you are. Loud and clear and rabid and vacuous as ever. Thank you for taking the time to expand upon the discussion. Your penetrating contributions as always have enlightened us all.
And the beauty of science is that if it is wrong it eventually corrects itself. No permanent god-given eternal messages (and talking about sources, try sourcing that one!).
Today in Ha Noi the temp was 65, yeterday it was 92- kinda proves global cooling. Maybe tomorrrow I will have Fox News type proof of sumthin else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html
FACT: The average Shift in climate occurs about every 100,000 years. (Not Millions which would apply to more extreme and permanent changes.)
FACT: Global temperature changes are small in tenth of degrees. You may not notice this but the earth certainly does an react to it. A 1 degree change in global temperature can change a minor storm into a major storm. The process can also be artificially accelerated IE greenhouse gasses.
(I believe any artificial change in temp can be reversed. This is based on what I believe and is not necessarily fact.)
FACT: January 2010 was the Warmest January on record. It is up .72 degrees since satellite date was recorded. That may seem small. But its not on a global scale.
I can go on and on but something tells me I would be wasting my time. My suggestion to you is get the facts for yourself and stop listening to political potheads.
One More thing, your analogy about the sun is comical because there are parts of the world that don't see sunlight for months. Tell them that sun will come up tomorrow and they will probably laugh at you. Perhaps a better analogy next time.
I guess that would depend on what you call a "shift." Here is the temperature reconstruction data plotted from NOAA's central Greenland ice core for the last 10k years. I personally would call a fluctuation in temperature of over 20 degrees a "shift." There are less dramatic shifts, but shifts nonetheless, on much shorter timescales.
FACT: Global temperature changes are small in tenth of degrees. You may not notice this but the earth certainly does an react to it. A 1 degree change in global temperature can change a minor storm into a major storm. The process can also be artificially accelerated IE greenhouse gasses.
The theory linking higher temperatures with storm intensity, frequency, and damage has been debunked.
FACT: January 2010 was the Warmest January on record. It is up .72 degrees since satellite date was recorded. That may seem small. But its not on a global scale.
That is correct, though the warmth globally was mostly driven by warmer-than-usual ocean temperatures, (it should be noted that "on record" relates to just 32 years of satellite data and the ocean warming this winter is primarily due to--you guessed it--natural variation). More importantly than that though, are you not doing the same kind of cherry-picking MMfA and the AGW crowd are railing against in this article by picking a single month out of the record and drawing conclusions from it? This past December saw the 2nd highest snow cover "on record" in the Northern Hemisphere. And?
I can go on if you want to present more "facts" to give me "some understanding."
No, it was originally referred to as "global warming" because that is a convenient and abbreviated name for the phenomenom of anthropogenic climate change which alludes to the end result of the climate disruption brought on by our continued use of fossil fuels (amongst other things) and continued lack of responsibility in dealing with the pollutants an ever growing world population of humans spews into the finite atmosphere of our planet.
No, the term "climate change" is becoming more widely used because the simple term "global warming" confuses many less intelligent and perceptive people who falsely believe that every snow storm is proof that "global warming" is a myth, much as the flat-earthers believed that every ship lost at sea was proof that the earth was indeed flat.
Hope that helps.
I also don't agree with the ignoramus stance that some bad weather is proof that there isn't a global climate change trend.
I like how media matters quotes "climate science" and at the same time quotes the IPCC. Bye-bye credibility.
It may surprise some, but the IPCC is not, as it is commonly understood, a scientific body. It says this itself: to quote from its website:
"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
It's a natural process, not caused by humans! This research is from The Armagh Observatory: http://www.arm.ac.uk/~mdp/workexperience/Site/work%20experience%20students_files/Solar-cycles-Emma.pdf
By the way, I read the report you linked to. It does not have ANY proof that solar activity causes global warming. What it does have is a correlation between solar activity and global warming. Correlation is not the same as causality. Did you honestly believe that a four page, student report would be considered serious evidence?
That was a really shallow attempt to deny anthropogenic global warming.
Your information comes from the IPCC. Mine comes from scientific evidence based on observation, which you claim is not valid?
The IPCC panel collects research about a single topic: human induced climate change. Given that the panel is designed to look into only this topic, its conclusions might tend to be already written into its premises: that harmful human induced climate change is a reality.
This is, let us say, not the best basis from the point of view of scientific objectivity. Perhaps a symptom of this "objectivity problem" is noticeable in how the IPCC repeats (on its website) that it is "objective," without showing why or how, even though by its own admission it does not do scientific work. Obviously, it cannot claim objectivity by or through its own criteria, yet it does so.
You go ahead and believe them and the governement. I've said my piece.
May have to change the name soon.
Try and read the whole thing next time.
"Ice loss from Alaskan glaciers since 1962 is evidently smaller than previously thought. However, thinning (sometimes over 10 m/year, as in the Columbia glacier) and glacial retreat remain considerable. Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid 1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise."
Try again, please.
That's not an argument, it's a non-sequitir.
And I wouldn't expect any rational human to add to the arguments I presented.
The word I was looking for was "insignificant", the same one used by the poster I was responding to. That's why I used it.
It wouldn't have made any sense if I had used a different word. But I appreciate your trying to help.
Your inanity in regards to AGW is always welcome so the last thing I want is for you and the rest of the cult to disappear, but knowing what a paragon of character you are, I thought I would point out to you that MMfA frowns on such activity:
Users agree that they will not create alternative identities or other means to rejoin the forums if they are banned.
And you should know by now I wasn't trying to help you. I was correcting the use of "insignificant" by you and unknown1 in regards to the A in AGW (CO2 really) and replacing it with the word used in the peer-reviewed study I linked to:
The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.
Cheers!
And I'll come clean- (shhhh *** yes, you're right, I got banned, but somehow managed to change my screen nick on existing posts through magic. The reason for the banning was that the mods happened on an exchange between you and me, and they suspected I was using steroids, or at least illegally competing in the lightweight class to showboat**)
But don't tell anybody, frootloop.
There's something else funny here. You seem to be awfully well acquainted with the whole banning thing and are quick to make claims about another person's identity. I also wonder why that is.
You were so quick to throw out the maniacal claim that I am also unknown1 based solely off of the "evidence" of his mistaking your reply as being directed at him (considering everyone you disagree with is a troll it is an easy mistake to make; plus, your reply was nested within the responses to his message).
Well Dully, I did a little investigating and found out a bit about your interesting history here on MMfA. I have other business to attend to shortly so I can't launch into my findings just yet, but I'll be sure to share them with you just as soon as I have the opportunity. You won't be disappointed.
Sure, Dell dolly - that's the most obvious , logical and probable explanation. But we're dealing with a Climate Change Denial Cultist here, so we should go with the fantastic.
I'm going to go with the theory that I changed my name here, not just for the hell of it, but to raise taxes and gain complete control of Linky's life.
I'll bet he can find a blog or two to back this up.
But the facts and the science keep kicking your ignorant behinds.
~
Galatardo isn't interested in anything you post.
This troll just wants to waste everyone's time.
This troll has a history of bizarre rants, and multi-page postings - all cherry picked.
It also seems to have a herd of crickets.....
Please ignore both trolls and their troll posts.
You are the troll, I originally posted a coherent argument. You can agree or disagree with my views, but you are the one trying to incite emotion.
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Spouting talking points meant for the rubes gains you no credibility here.
You're a character straight out of Idiocracy, and your handle is an insult to Leonardo and Galileo.
~
As for your attempts at pigeonholing me, that has also been tried before to no avail. I am an environmentalist, a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian, and do not prescribe to any religion (another man-made fallacy IMO). That wouldn't make me too popular among the "wingnuts" now would it? Unless, that is, they have added legalization of prostitution, marijuana, and polygamy to their platform.
I am also a scientist and do not take kindly to political science being propped up as legitimate evidence of AGW. The AGW movement has damaged the credibility of science in general and the credibility of the environmental movement as a whole (thanks for hijacking it though). It will take years to undo the damage done by activist scientists. It is a travesty!
We ignore Galileonardo.
He's a troll. His posts are troll posts. His hero is the discredited Stephen McIntyre.
Please don't feed the troll.
"Galtardo" and its new buddy "unknowing" like to dish it out, but can't take it.
Once tagged, I just ignore them. They're losers who like to waste everyone's time.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
Now THIS is an internet troll:
However, I have been wathcing the History Channels "How the earth was Made" and when it discusses billions of years of the earth heating and cooling, I have a hard time looking at a 150 years or a .00000000000000015 percent snapshot and concluding that a half a degree change is something to be concerned about. Instead of name calling here, why don't people respect each other's opinion?
The people who have become accustomed to certain climates in certain regions of the world really, really care. The billions who live within a few feet of sea level care a lot. They can't just back up and move everyone else inland a few hundred feet every couple of decades.
Are you Denial Cult zombies just trying to be funny now, or do you really believe this stuff?
Now I'm supposed to be worried about it getting too hot?
The government can barely predict the weather two days in advance.
Maybe you need to find a way to get off your government meds.
And climate is different than weather, but we've become accustomed to fools like you not understanding the difference!
Link to Global Cooling
Back then it was Carl Sagan being funded by the government to spew the opposite of what is being spewed now. I have first hand knowledge.
This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community that was not on the government payroll.
The amount of money thrown at global cooling was a small fraction of what is being thrown at global warming. It was the same scam at a much smaller level.
Carl Sagan was the spokesman for the government.
Maybe for you if it's not on the internet it must not be true. Well it is on the internet now because I put it here.
btw, I was around in the 70s. I wasn't old enough to be doing a lot of drugs for most of the decade, so my memories may not include all of the paranoia and government scare tactics that yours do.
As I said, a small fraction of money went into the global cooling scare. As a result, it was not as pronounced.
You could easily have missed it while you were taking rat poison thinking it was acid.
And why would I be stopping Carl Sagan while I was getting some of the government scare money?
You insane imbecile.
You said "I happen to remember the government trying to scare me into thinking we were headed for imminent global cooling aka ice age."
But the government NEVER, EVER tried to scare anyone about global cooling. The GOVERNMENT never said anything about it at all back during the Newsweek magazine scare era, and there were only a few fools at the time who thought they could look at the data they had and predict a cooling trend. Even more climatologists thought that there'd be a warming trend coming up.
Your link totally debunks everything you said.
And Carl Sagan? He suggested that massive oil fires in Kuwait could lead to temporary global cooling. That's not climate change - that's extended weather change due to temporary features. But he wasn't even MENTIONED in the link YOU provided, and that was about 20 years ago, not back 40 years ago. And he mentioned that a full-bore nuclear war could lead to a nuclear winter and worldwide agricultural crop failures. That last thing could STILL happen.
If it wasn't a bad word to use, I'd call you a retard. So, instead, I'll call you a moron.
And do you realize how you come off to a casual observer? I doubt you do or else you wouldn't act like an unhinged anti-science Inquisitor (and that name suits you well considering your behavior).
It is so easy to do this to do you that I can't resist debunk your rant (and you call me a troll?). I usually temper myself with you because you are laughable and sad more than anything, but you are overdue a good unbridled whooping.
But the government NEVER, EVER tried to scare anyone about global cooling. The GOVERNMENT never said anything about it at all back during the Newsweek magazine scare era, and there were only a few fools at the time who thought they could look at the data they had and predict a cooling trend.
Never ever...in true DelLenin form you just throw it out there and hope it sticks. Nothing to back it up (yet another AGW trend). Aside from the fact that that Wikipedia article jose2 linked to reeks of William Connolley (and did you notice that Paul Ehrlich raises his heinous head?), the article proves that the GOVERNMENT did say something, so you are the G-D liar.
Who did Ehrlich-groupie Stephen Schneider work for when he wrote his 1971 paper? NASA "moron." What is the National Science Board "liar"? Would they be GOVERNMENT? And the National Academy of Sciences? Created by my favorite Republican Abraham Lincoln "dum-dum." The Newsweek article cited the NAS and NOAA "you insane imbecile."
And Carl Sagan. Despite the empty slander you and Kernel offer, jose2 was right (you were not hallucinating jose). Carl Sagan did talk about the possibility of anthropogenic cooling in Cosmos Episode 4 originally aired in 1980 on PBS (it is on the internet after all).
So Kernel, would that qualify as a government spokesman? Considering the ominous music and dramatic footage (I see where Gore got his inspiration) I would say that "government scare tactics" is apropos.
Back to you Dully. That was 30 years ago (the tail end of the cooling-scare era) and the Newsweek article was 35 years ago. Seems jose2 has a better grip on history than you do.
Better luck next time. You might want to actually try to back up your screeds with something, anything. Otherwise you just look like an unthinking, cultish...well, if it wasn't a bad word to use, I'd call you a retard. So, instead, I'll call you a moron.
Everyone was supposed to forget about the scary Nuclear Winter.
Link to Nuclear Winter
A review of its historical treatment within this ontext reveals that proponents of the nuclear winter theory relied on a very tenuous volcano/climate relationship to lend credence to their model predictions of post-war climatic catastrophe.
Tell you what, when you through out oil, gas, and coal sponsered and paid for information. I'll throw those two and any one of the others you want.
Saw a post a raw story that condensed the complaints nicely yesterday. Most are on predictions in specific areas. The overal argument on our climates future by climatologists is still the best, and most legitimate one.
For all your links, one of which crashed my computer, "Much smoke and noise, signifying nothing." Except some varity of social pathology.
Your throwing out WWF and Greenpeace as unworthy without much support for this call.
Well, the support is out there if you look for it. The IPCC is a scientific body. "It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change....Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information."
The whole glacier snafu was derived from a WWF report, which itself was derived from a New Scientist article based on a telephone interview with Indian scientists, one of whom has since admitted that it was "grey literature." He added, "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." That is activism, pure and simple.
I am an activist as well. Nothing wrong with activism. There is something terribly wrong with activism being portrayed as robust science though. The IPCC's AR4 cites far too many pro-AGW activist sources and, despite their claim that "[d]iffering viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports," I am yet to see even one example of an unsubstantiated skeptical claim in AR4 derived from any NGO or newspaper clipping. It is an absolute one-way street.
Tell you what, when you through out oil, gas, and coal sponsered and paid for information. I'll throw those two and any one of the others you want.
I have pointed out that "Big Oil" funds both sides before, but that is a minor point. The panoramic view of the picture shows that funding for pro-AGW voices far outweighs any funding going to skeptics by several orders of magnitude. Richard Branson alone committed $3 billion to the AGW fight. Add to that the trillions in funding from carbon punishment, both ongoing and proposed, and you get a pretty clear idea of where the real money is at. Show me anything remotely comparable for funding of skeptic scientists.
For all your links, one of which crashed my computer, "Much smoke and noise, signifying nothing."
"Nothing to see here." If I had a nickel for every time...anyway, there was plenty of significance within those links. First, my reply was in direct response to this statement:
Did you honestly believe that a four page, student report would be considered serious evidence? That was a really shallow attempt to deny anthropogenic global warming.
This was so rich in irony that I couldn't leave it be. As is seen in my first near dozen links, the IPCC relied not only on student reports, but also NGO propaganda, magazine and newspaper articles, and incorrect interpretations of unpublished science. So I guess I'll ask. Did you honestly believe that a 1,000-page report littered with activist science would be considered serious evidence?
I can't repeat this often enough. It was up to science to prove AGW theory. Science has instead falsified it. CO2 is not the climate driver it is modeled to be. Period. Despite what this guy has to say about it. Your "smoke and noise" is my ever-growing mountain of evidence.
So "bye-bye" goes the A in AGW. And good riddance. Now we can get down to working on the real environmental issues of the day. And you may want to demand a return to the scientific method amongst activist scientists.
Don't see where I said anything close to your Quote(?) on a student report.
What's your point exactly? When I googled "global warming funding" I got 56,000 links, and 319,000 for "climate change funding." Just at the very first link I found links to this and this and this and this and this and this...the gap in the amount of money going toward AGW alarmism vs. AGW skepticism could scarcely be wider.
As for your comment about the student report, I did not say you said it. I was simply showing you the relevance of the links (which you scoffed at as "signifying nothing") to the post I was replying to where benjr was mocking the "student paper" source provided by unknown1. Get it now?
Activism on your side good. Activism on GW bad.
Moving past the hydrocarbon energy economy represents innovation, new jobs, and a chance of a sustainable future.
What you and your like minded friends want, as on so much that is important, is paralysis. Doubt and fear of change. You've had some sucess pushing this. The damage and death this will accomplish will probably never be traced back to you and yours.
And that imposition of "climate debt" is made worse knowing that those precious funds will be in part going back toward CO2 mitigation instead of toward real environmental issues like the aforementioned habitat destruction.
Even more troubling is knowing that some of the measures being taken toward mitigation actually damage the environment directly, such as, again, huge solar arrays, and ethanol production that has inadvertently led to higher food prices (increasing malnourishment and starvation--can you say "gorilla bush meat'?) and destruction of the rainforest.
Private industry is already funding research into alternative energy at a much larger scale than the government and that is a good thing. The transition to clean energy will happen, but it should be done in a sane manner that balances B1 Sustainable Development with A1 Golden Economic Era.
Going headlong into B1 will be a murderous disaster, but since the "damage and death this will accomplish will probably never be traced back to you and yours" I guess you don't have to worry about it.
Business reaps profits from hydrocarbons. Society pays the cost of it.
Yes some businesses are getting into alternative energy. Some in a big way. Some are actually supporting CO2 mitigation. Guess they see some good in it.
Many businesses have been created from public funded research. The lastest I know of which could follow this trail involves alcohol fueled fuelcells.
Define A1. B1 would be of equivilent to runaway global warming in negative effects to the biosphere? Sure it would.
Such things as developing our geothermal resources, which are considerable, and cynobacteria fueled bioreactors get short shift. Guess the projected profits arn't big enough.
Go watch this and be educated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
Oh, wait, that's not it at all. Another straw man vanquished.
I wonder where one would put a thermostat to monitor global climate, if not on Earth.
On the plus side, I like the bit about responding with an "Amen". Makes it more clear that the Denial Cult is a faith-based group.
Did you really give yourself a thumbs up for that ?
Outta bullets, fellers ?
How about this;
Puppies are Cute.
Can I get some thumbs down on that ?
That's why if you visit an older but still active thread with posts from RightON, for example, you might see 3 thumbs up and 3 thumbs down on Wednesday morning. By the evening, it'll be 5 down, and magically there will be 5 uprates too, despite the fact that the serial uprates won't have equally distributed them elsewhere. They try to hit the trolls who are important I guess. But watch this - you'll see a definite pattern - and the only possible reason for it is a coordinated effort to not have some of his posts get too downrated.
Also amusing is how much more pronounced this thumb thing is on any Climate Change-related thread. The Denial Cult is faith-based, and depends on constant reinforcement, and anger at anybody mentioning truth and science.
You actually give a you-know-what about thumbs? "Wah! Why are you giving me a thumbs down? Wah!" Talk about depending on constant reinforcement.
Now that I know you actually give so much thought to thumbs down, as I did with Dully I'm breaking with the tradition of not rating pro-AGW inanity and giving you a rare galileonardo thumb down. Cheers!
Translated by Gallenadecapitado into Wingnutese:
Is everything the exact opposite of reality in your cult ? You seem to have completely failed to understand my comments, so I'll give you a thumbs up for consistency, Linky.
And you gave me a thumbs down for asking you to complete a thought, or for noticing that you gave yourself a thumbs up for your thought fragment ?
Nice, six thumbs down total for trying to get a Denial Cult zombie to complete a thought.
It's obviously just personal attacks from trolls who don't have anything to say.
The Denial Cult is faith-based, and depends on constant reinforcement, and anger at anybody mentioning truth and science.
Sounds like a bit of whining to me, so "Wah!"
I think you are seeing the same trend running against AGW that I am seeing and it has you scared witless. Hence the ever more fanatical your behavior becomes (and you were already at the extreme). Your AGW fantasy world is crumbling down around you.
It is apparently infuriating to you since your investment in the weak theory is so high. The increase in the number of thumbs pointing south in these AGW threads over the last few months is so obviously threatening to you that you manufacture all kinds of delusional constructs to help you maintain your version of reality.
I might have to break with my tradition of not rating comments and give you a few thumbs down for good measure. Maybe I'll even "team up" with a few within my denier posse to continue our "coordinated effort" to "uprate comments." Typing your drivel further solidifies to me just how absurd you are.
BTW - I can't seem to find a full bio for this Emma Reilly persona and I'm not sure I want to get my scientific info from a Summer Student of a random Observatory in Great Britain.
There is something called equilibrium which causes CO2 to balance out and the world continues to support life. Weather prediction can barely get the next couple days correct let alone the next couple years or decades.
Get real and say you're trying to find new ways to tax. That's about all the government and their stooges on the payroll can do.
For those too lazy to click the link:
Happy Lincoln's Birthday!
Thanks to the Limbaugh Scientific Academy, we have millions of Americans believing the tripe that volcanic eruptions pump out more c02 than humans. That's the trouble with these Goering inspired propagandists. People listen to them and believe them unconditionally, without any effort to verify facts or at least check into other sources of information. At work the other day, one of my customers was laughing about the snow in the east, as if it was proof of the demise of the AGW argument. I almost told her that climate and weather were two different things, but I realized that the self assured ditto head smirk plastered on her face would be too large an obstacle to overcome. Thanks to Limbaugh and those jerkoffs at Faux news, our country is quickly becoming one of us versus them, with absolutely no hope for any kind of common ground. It's frightening.
No. Much better to get it from a scientist on the payroll of fossil fuel industries.
There are too many contradictory reasons to deny global warming. "You changed its name"; "It's not happening"; "It is happening but we didn't cause it." Bla bla bla.
Who cares? The simple fact is, if you can understand what it is, you have a responsibility to stop it. Period.
What would you say to someone who said "But officer, I wasn't driving the car that hit that girl. I merely saw her. Oh sure, I could have jumped into the street and pushed her out of the way. But she's not my daughter."
Climate is not weather. Momentum is not velocity. If that car is moving towards the girl with constant momentum, she's dead if you don't do something, whether or not the car slows down. What are you going to do?
They basically want to destroy the Constitution and the American way of life.
When the Constitution was written, there were no combustible engines in the United States and virtually no factories. Our "way of life" meant that you were a farmer, indentured servant, lawyer, doctor, or merchant. No SUVs, no airplanes, no trains.
I wish you would use your real name- my guess is that you know that what you are posting here is too humiliatingly stupid to take credit for.
If you want anger you just have to scroll up in this thread to this pathetic rant. Dully even wished for my death once. And here I tallied the angry rhetoric toward skeptics (mostly toward me) from just one thread.
You either have your blinders on or haven't read enough of these threads, because most of the naked anger in this joint comes from the AGW cultists.
IMO you unfortunately have bought into the alarmist rhetoric that is AGW, or at least your life-or-death analogy points in that direction. Do yourself a favor and expand your exposure to the actual science.
Two more generations brainwashed and lost. Unless that girl is home schooled, it pretty likely at some point that she's going to grow up and realize what $#!+head her grandfather was.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that family gathering. Probably wouldn't be the ony one either.
Another alternative would be to stop paying taxes and simply grow the national debt. It is already impossible to pay, what difference would it make?
Link to debt is impossible to pay off
You see, the truth is that the U.S. government now owes more dollars than actually exist.
Is this economics for people who think paying the national debt is comparable to digging coins out of the sofa cushions to pay the pizza guy ? You guys continue to amuse and amaze.
Now I find it very funny that people say... hey look it snowed a lot so that proves there's no global warming. One thing I noticed is that they don't mention record temperatures as the proof of non global warming. Think of it this way. it's record precipitation. Precipitation is based on evaporation of water into clouds and then it comes down... We still have winter, so we get snow.
I also believe there are weather trends beyond seasons. The earth has gone through warming and cooling periods. We haven't been studying them long enough to truly know for sure why they happen. Maybe it's the earth's wobble? who knows... scientists maybe.
The idea is that we have a warming trend that has been tied to our industrial growth. I think that does make sense. I mean we see smog in LA from human causes. We know smoking isn't good for us. Why does the idea that putting chemicals in our atmosphere could create bad results. I think humans will be fine in all this. We are resourceful. Sure some species will die out faster than normal. Millions may die from famine. But all in all, humans will keep going.
And after the ice caps melt, the current systems probably will change and cause different weather patterns and we'll probably have another ice age. The earth will even itself out. A lot of life will die, but some will survive just as it has for millions of years.
This simply is not true despite the best efforts of AGW propagandists to indoctrinate you into believing it. As I already showed in this thread here with this source, increases in CO2 do not drive temperatures up in the way that the models portray. That is the science speaking. The "robust" evidence that claims otherwise has always been weak and weakens further each year.
I think you missed this part:
The painstaking analysis led to the conclusion that there is a 95 percent possibility that the 40 ppm estimation is too high.
Our analysis considered significantly more data than previous approaches," Frank said. "By looking at all possible relationships between available temperature CO2 data, we are able to show that past feedbacks of 40 ppm [per degree Celsius] or greater were unlikely."
That's good news, but doesn't erase the fact that emissions have an amplifying effect on a warming climate, and remains a cause for concern.
By showing that the feedback in the past was positive," Frank said, "[that] gives us a strong indication that the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems will amplify anthropogenic warming."
In other words, while not as bad as once feared, the study shows that the relationship between emissions and temperature has a "positive coefficient" and that Earth's bio systems won't be able absorb all of mankind's carbon emissions.
--
so what you are saying is things like smog don't harm us? And we should just keep on doing stuff because humans should be allowed to do what they want. Do you really think that some of the chemicals and activities that man has been doing in the last century is natural and the nature will respond just fine to it? Would you want to live next to a manufacturing plant? a pig farm? a coal burning plant?
the article covers the amount of CO2. but there are other factors and things man puts in the air other than CO2.
Like I said, the Earth will correct itself. just life will most likely be affected in a negative way.
And by now that kind of Teaparty scum is demanding a literacy test to check if American (traditionally is meant African-American) civilians are worthy to vote.
Well, the discussion about the snow on the east coast in relation to climate change makes clear that questions about that issue, if included in such a literacy test will exclude all conservative skeptics from voting rights. It has to be basic knowledge that climate change goes together with more extreme weather events.
Btw, the weather around Vancouver was extremely soft and wet at the start of the Winter Olympics as noted in the quote at the end of the article. 4.1 C (7 F) above normal, that's pretty warming, right? Also in my country, the Netherlands, the temperature in January 2010 was record high, but we got a lot of snow in February, much more than normal.
Another remark I will make is that it seems to be, that the more south you are living, the more radicalized and irresponsible the average minds and thoughts seem to be revolved in those warmer climates, also according to the counted traffic accidents. How come?
Now we're supposed to be scared about global warming?
How much tax payer money is going to be wasted on the prevailing fantasy?
Science is imperfect. It is that imperfection that drives scientist to continue their research to eliminate or correct for the imperfections or unknowns.
Scientist in this field are not perfect beings such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or all the other "Great" minds on the Fox News network. If only we could all be as perfect.
Her all-thumbs approach motivates the Right and delegitimizes the Left's credibility. Incompetence is a weapon against everone!!!
After the eruption of five major volcanoes over the past decade, it looks like any chance of Global Warming has been dwarfed by Nuclear Winter. Record cold is sweeping across the earth causing millions of deaths from prolonged exposure.
The estimated $4.5 trillion of lost production in the economy trying to stop Global Warming has been deemed a total failure. The silver lining according to one official is that we have identified hundreds of ways to make the earth warmer.
Funding is urgently needed to confirm whether or not carbon dioxide actually contributes to global warmth as previously thought before a $2 trillion plan is put into place to drastically increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. There is fear that increased CO2 may contribute to global cooling from something called the refrigerant effect.
Source
Source