Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[Masterofreality]

Yep, here's my annual rant about the ridiculous pap that is the certainty of man-made global warming,errrrrrrrrr "climate change".

in an article in USA Today this morning, it was finally stated that there has been a "flattening" in the rise of global temperatures over the past 15 years. But now, all of a sudden, the global warming alarmists are going back 100 years to justify their man-made warming theory. The actual statement is: "The "hiatus" in global warming has left average surface temperatures 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the last century". What?

First of all, a century goes back to 1913. How do we know how accurate readings were worldwide back then? Secondly, some brainiac scientist, who obviously has skin in the warming game is claiming that the reason why temps haven't risen is because the Pacific Ocean waters are cooler, but that when they "inevitably" warm, the earth will scorch. Ok, then. So I guess that when it comes to air warming it's all man's fault, but when the oceans cool that is all nature and not man, but that man will eventually screw up the cooler oceans too? I remember hearing that the deterioration in the ozone layer was causing more sun rays to penetrate, therreby warming the waters, causing ocean ice to melt and the entire earth to warm. Now, the Pacific Ocean waters are cooler? Which the hell is it?

All I know is that here we are almost to Labor Day and there has barely been a smidgen of tropical storm or hurricane activity despite the doom and gloom claims of the "warming club" that there would be a more than active hurricane season. Well, it's almost Labor Day and it ain't happening. This will be at least the third year in a row where the alarmists have been dead wrong as to hurricanes and tropical storms, so why the hell should they be believed?

In any event, even if there is one iota of truth that man can actually influence nature in this way, like one of our great Urban Philosophers once said..."Get outta MY face with that crazy stuff!" . If man is some influence, don't talk to us Westerners. Go talk to those in the circle around China/Mongolia/India/Pakistan/Micronesia/Korea/Japan. More people live inside the circle than the entire world outside of that circle in the rest of the world. They burn coal, they have awful pollution, and they don't give a crap about their environment or public health in most of those areas. If anyone is dumping stuff in the sky, it's them.

So, to you so-called climatological experts...shut the hell up to us and go speak Chinese.....with your face mask on.

As for me, I'll enjoy another year where palm trees are not sprouting on the Lake Erie shore, and the snow falls when it should.

[XU 87]

You're so naïve. Don't you know that it's no longer "global warming"? It's now called "climate change". So if the temperature goes down, it's due to fossil fuels. If temperature goes up, fossil fuels.

[BandAid]

in my pants

[American X]

You're so naïve. Don't you know that it's no longer "global warming"? It's now called "climate change".

Ignoramus. We are experiencing Climate Chaos.

[DC Muskie]

All I know is that here we are almost to Labor Day and there has barely been a smidgen of tropical storm or hurricane activity despite the doom and gloom claims of the "warming club" that there would be a more than active hurricane season. Well, it's almost Labor Day and it ain't happening. This will be at least the third year in a row where the alarmists have been dead wrong as to hurricanes and tropical storms, so why the hell should they be believed?

I really don't care about climate change, but the bolded part is pretty much wrong.

2011 Hurricane Irene
2012 Hurricane Sandy

Did you simply forget the last two years MOR, or did you think Sandy wasn't a big deal?

I've lived in DC for 15 years. I've experienced three hurricanes in that time, two in the last three years. Now I don't know what that means, but man, it sure does suck.

[Kahns Krazy]

I was at Riverbend Wednesday night and it was hotter than balls. I was soaked through with sweat. My shins were sweating. I didn't even know shins had sweat glands.

So the answer to your question might be "Riverbend".

[blueblob06]

I'm a big fan of nearly all your posts MOR. But you've lost me here. Are you saying that because there haven't been major tropical storms this year, global warming can not be real?
The timespan of one hurricane season over the course of the entire time Earth has been here is unbelievably miniscule. It's like judging Jeff Robinson's career off one blink one of his eyes made at one point during his 4 years at Xavier.

And talking about it will still be snowing, etc...I don't think even the strongest supporters of global warming are saying it's going to stop snow from falling. It's a very minor change in our climate.

[Masterofreality]

I really don't care about climate change, but the bolded part is pretty much wrong.

2011 Hurricane Irene
2012 Hurricane Sandy

Did you simply forget the last two years MOR, or did you think Sandy wasn't a big deal?

I've lived in DC for 15 years. I've experienced three hurricanes in that time, two in the last three years. Now I don't know what that means, but man, it sure does suck.

But those types of storms are not unprecedented. Storms like that happened before, way before any talk of "climate change" or "warming".

Just because a one off storm happens, doesn't mean it is a trend. What I said was correct. There were predictions of a certain amount of storms and those projections have been way too high. Hurricane Camille happened in 1969, and it was horriffic on the Gulf Coast. No one was talking about "warming" then. If anything there was a prediction by the alarmists that we were entering a new "Ice Age". I guess whatever sticks, huh?

[DC Muskie]

But those types of storms are not unprecedented. Storms like that happened before, way before any talk of "climate change" or "warming".

Just because a one off storm happens, doesn't mean it is a trend. What I said was correct. There were predictions of a certain amount of storms and those projections have been way too high. Hurricane Camille happened in 1969, and it was horriffic on the Gulf Coast. No one was talking about "warming" then. If anything there was a prediction by the alarmists that we were entering a new "Ice Age". I guess whatever sticks, huh?

I'm merely pointing out your theory that there has now been three years with alarmist being wrong about hurricanes is factually incorrect. You even admit it when describing "one off storm."

I don't care about trends. All I'm saying the second costliest hurricane happened last year. And the same area was hit the year before.

You can't be correct on both sides of the argument MOR.

[GoMuskies]

Global warming is like cancer: if you ignore it, it just goes away.

[WCWIII]

Here's the "best" set of temperature data that I know about ... Summarized here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature).

The conclusion of the research (sponsored in part by the Koch foundation) is that there appears to be a human component in the warming trend of the last 50 yrs above a general warming trend over the last 250 yrs.

It's true that warming trends much larger have been part of the natural earth's history but the recent data do allow for some conclusions to be made. Also, year to year variations can be much larger than any such trends.

Now policy decisions are another matter - hopefully they are guided by science and not hype and hysteria.

[GoMuskies]

(sponsored in part by the Koch foundation)

This means that the research is high quality. We don't screw around with bad science.

[DC Muskie]

Global warming is like cancer: if you ignore it, it just goes away.

Which is pretty much my stance.

[Emp]

:facepalm: Just once a year? Promise?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Good lord, I could really care less what scientists say. It just makes sense for humankind to stop crapping on the only planet we were given. We should limit green house gasses, stop littering, conserve energy, etc. If these things don't make sense to you then you are already lost.

[RealDeal]

But those types of storms are not unprecedented. Storms like that happened before, way before any talk of "climate change" or "warming".

Just because a one off storm happens, doesn't mean it is a trend. What I said was correct. There were predictions of a certain amount of storms and those projections have been way too high. Hurricane Camille happened in 1969, and it was horriffic on the Gulf Coast. No one was talking about "warming" then. If anything there was a prediction by the alarmists that we were entering a new "Ice Age". I guess whatever sticks, huh?

Actually the cost of the hurricanes is unprecedented. And the cost is due to hurricanes hitting areas that typically aren't hit (or hit with a storm of that strength) and are therefore unprepared. Is this man made, I don't know, but the damage is there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes

[CSS85]

This means that the research is high quality. We don't screw around with bad science.

There was a good article in The Week covering this exact subject. The unavoidable fact is that the "model" that has been used for supporting the man made "greenhouse" via CO2 emissions theory is simply wrong. It has not accurately predicted the outcome of the variables supposedly at work, and may not include important variables that do have some influence.

The undisputed facts are:

1. That the decade of the 2000s showed a "plateau" of the previous warming "trends" of the 1980s and 1990s which even global warming advocates acknowledge.
2. In this same decade, the world pumped 110 billion tons of CO2 into the air, which is calculated as 25% of the entire amount from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now. In other words, far more than ever before.
3. The model that says the more CO2 in the air, the warmer the world gets, does not allow a "plateau" when more CO2 is pumped into the air at a faster rate than in the past. Therefore it is wrong.

The article did mention some alternate "explanations" offered by global warming supporters, such as that the oceans are absorbing the "missing heat". Of course the oceans did not just appear in the last 10 years, and they are still made of whatever they were made of before, so if the models did not account for the oceans and their interaction with the supposed warming elements, they are still wrong, and the true lack of understanding of all the earth's forces and interaction is on public display.

Another proposed explanation for up to 30% of the "missing heat" is that there are "sunlight blocking particles" being released into the air by coal-burning China and a few random volcanoes. If true, they are so myopic that they don't see the obvious "solution" to global warming - the elimination of pollution controls in the rest of the world! All we need to do then, is to go back to the days before the EPA and allow the factories to spew out as much stuff as they did from 1900 to 1970 or so. Of course China has been burning coal for decades and has been growing for decades, which should have short circuited warming much earlier. Volcanoes seem to be a part of nature, which cannot be accounted for in man made situations. Otherwise you would have to allow that the previous colder temperatures could have been the result of higher volcanic activity centuries ago, a fact which is documented both scientifically and in popular culture such as the European "year without a summer" in 1816. Maybe the "real" temperature is what we are seeing now, and the previous colder temps were the "un-natural" ones.

If real scientists cannot stop politicians from taking advantage of medieval human paranoia that every storm, earthquake, or meteor that occurs is the result of global warming or human sin ( nowadays pretty much the same thing), we will miss the truth whatever it is, and feed the ignorance and greed of the masses until it's too late to take whatever necessary action is actually required.

[ChicagoX]

Good lord, I could really care less what scientists say. It just makes sense for humankind to stop crapping on the only planet we were given. We should limit green house gasses, stop littering, conserve energy, etc. If these things don't make sense to you then you are already lost.

This.

People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?

[CSS85]

This.

People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?

Yes, If the call to action was what you describe here, I think virtually everyone would agree and participate. BUT, this is not the call to action that the global warming crowd is making. They want carbon taxes, and penalties for producing carbon, and sham government supported initiatives like Solyndra, etc etc. all focused on CO2, which now does not look like it is actually a problem, scientifically. This results in diverting money and time and goodwill away from taking the steps necessary to achieve the desirable objectives you've listed.

I agree with what you have stated here and the biggest thing standing in the way of taking the actions you've outlined, is the political sham of a blatantly false "science" thrust upon us which is aligned with politicians and special interest groups - NOT achieving the actual objectives. They destroy the credibility necessary to get mainstream people to believe, and more importantly act.

[Masterofreality]

I'm merely pointing out your theory that there has now been three years with alarmist being wrong about hurricanes is factually incorrect. You even admit it when describing "one off storm."

I don't care about trends. All I'm saying the second costliest hurricane happened last year. And the same area was hit the year before.

You can't be correct on both sides of the argument MOR.

The fact that I cited is true when it comes to the number of named storms in the Atlantic. The number has been below the predictions.

I'm not arguing both sides. A hurricane happens to hit the Northeast where prices are high as a kite. If the same "one off" hurricane happened to veer another way, there is no discussion. Do you not understand the concept of a one off....like a "one hundred year flood that happens every 100 years, "global warming" or not? BTW. Sandy was only a Category 3, not a 5. She just happened to come ashore at the wrong place. Camille was a Category 5....in 1969. It did 1/60th of the financial damage that Sandy did. Ever hear of inflation?

Point being is that Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes can and have happened in any era- "warming" or not and still the evidence that man is causing any change is questionable.

Anyway, go talk to China and leave us the hell alone.

[Kahns Krazy]

Yes, If the call to action was what you describe here, I think virtually everyone would agree and participate. BUT, this is not the call to action that the global warming crowd is making. They want carbon taxes, and penalties for producing carbon, and sham government supported initiatives like Solyndra, etc etc. all focused on CO2, which now does not look like it is actually a problem, scientifically. This results in diverting money and time and goodwill away from taking the steps necessary to achieve the desirable objectives you've listed.

I agree with what you have stated here and the biggest thing standing in the way of taking the actions you've outlined, is the political sham of a blatantly false "science" thrust upon us which is aligned with politicians and special interest groups - NOT achieving the actual objectives. They destroy the credibility necessary to get mainstream people to believe, and more importantly act.

Yeah. What he said.

[Masterofreality]

There was a good article in The Week covering this exact subject. The unavoidable fact is that the "model" that has been used for supporting the man made "greenhouse" via CO2 emissions theory is simply wrong. It has not accurately predicted the outcome of the variables supposedly at work, and may not include important variables that do have some influence.

The undisputed facts are:

1. That the decade of the 2000s showed a "plateau" of the previous warming "trends" of the 1980s and 1990s which even global warming advocates acknowledge.
2. In this same decade, the world pumped 110 billion tons of CO2 into the air, which is calculated as 25% of the entire amount from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now. In other words, far more than ever before.
3. The model that says the more CO2 in the air, the warmer the world gets, does not allow a "plateau" when more CO2 is pumped into the air at a faster rate than in the past. Therefore it is wrong.

The article did mention some alternate "explanations" offered by global warming supporters, such as that the oceans are absorbing the "missing heat". Of course the oceans did not just appear in the last 10 years, and they are still made of whatever they were made of before, so if the models did not account for the oceans and their interaction with the supposed warming elements, they are still wrong, and the true lack of understanding of all the earth's forces and interaction is on public display.

Another proposed explanation for up to 30% of the "missing heat" is that there are "sunlight blocking particles" being released into the air by coal-burning China and a few random volcanoes. If true, they are so myopic that they don't see the obvious "solution" to global warming - the elimination of pollution controls in the rest of the world! All we need to do then, is to go back to the days before the EPA and allow the factories to spew out as much stuff as they did from 1900 to 1970 or so. Of course China has been burning coal for decades and has been growing for decades, which should have short circuited warming much earlier. Volcanoes seem to be a part of nature, which cannot be accounted for in man made situations. Otherwise you would have to allow that the previous colder temperatures could have been the result of higher volcanic activity centuries ago, a fact which is documented both scientifically and in popular culture such as the European "year without a summer" in 1816. Maybe the "real" temperature is what we are seeing now, and the previous colder temps were the "un-natural" ones.

If real scientists cannot stop politicians from taking advantage of medieval human paranoia that every storm, earthquake, or meteor that occurs is the result of global warming or human sin ( nowadays pretty much the same thing), we will miss the truth whatever it is, and feed the ignorance and greed of the masses until it's too late to take whatever necessary action is actually required.

Uh, this. Reps!

[Snipe]

This.

People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?

Wow are you full of yourself.

We spend billions on global warming. Meanwhile millions of children go blind because of malnutrition. Clean water and a viable food supply is a luxury for most of the world's poor population, yet white liberals want to spend billions on "global warming". Really, fuck the poor! I love it. And while you bend them over you congratulate yourself on how "aware" you are.

The models didn't predict the flat line in global warming. The earth was supposed to be warmer compared to all the models that they sold us. It is cooler now than in 1998. We haven't had any warming for 15 years.

What is the opportunity cost of this?

The economic concept of opportunity cost is that the real cost of something is something else that you could have had instead. Say, instead of spending billions to combat the non-existent warming, we could have spent those billions educating poor black children. Why do you hate black children? I think we can all agree educating black children would be a great thing.

When global warming doesn't happen, (and it hasn't been happening in the past 15 year (check your models)), somebody has some splaining to do. Except nobody will every have to apologize or explain anything, because liberals like you are morally right, even if the facts say that you are wrong.

Spending billions on global warming is the worst allocation of resources that I could ever imagine given the overall poverty of the majority of this planet.

[XU 87]

Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?

The status quo (fossil fuels) is acceptable because these are the best and most efficient ways of producing energy. If the "options were just ripe for development", they'd be developed and people and companies would making millions producing alternative energy. That's the way the capitalistic system works. We used to have horse and buggies but something better was developed called the automobile which replaced them.

The bottom line is that alternative energy is 'not ripe for development" at this point and can no way serve our current energy needs. Someday they will. But not right now. But yet as a country we refuse to use our natural resources (see Alaska) and instead hold onto this blind dream that we're just a step away from developing alternative energy.

[ChicagoX]

Wow are you full of yourself.

Pot, meet kettle. The rest of your response was the expected extreme far, right-wing dross that you love to regurgitate on this board. I trust the vast majority of climate scientists who know far more about this topic than both of us.


Why do you hate black children?

This would be comedic if it weren't coming from the biggest racist and bigot on this entire board.

[paulxu]

How about a different approach to alternative energy sources. What you might call the long view.

Whatever fossil fuels are, for sure we are consuming them a lot faster than the earth can produce them. There is a limited supply of them.
Eventually they will run out, and certainly a global population of 6 billion+ is accelerating that time frame.
What is it? 100 years? 200 years?
Whatever it is, it's coming.

So, it does behoove the planet to explore (now) alternative, renewable energy sources for future generations.
Solar power installation cost is coming down; hopefully you live in a state where you can sell extra power back to the grid (I don't).
The fossil fuel driven power suppliers aren't in favor of solar because you might become self-sufficient. But someday we'll get there.

[SpectorJersey]

Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

[DC Muskie]

The fact that I cited is true when it comes to the number of named storms in the Atlantic. The number has been below the predictions.

I'm not arguing both sides. A hurricane happens to hit the Northeast where prices are high as a kite. If the same "one off" hurricane happened to veer another way, there is no discussion. Do you not understand the concept of a one off....like a "one hundred year flood that happens every 100 years, "global warming" or not? BTW. Sandy was only a Category 3, not a 5. She just happened to come ashore at the wrong place. Camille was a Category 5....in 1969. It did 1/60th of the financial damage that Sandy did. Ever hear of inflation?

Point being is that Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes can and have happened in any era- "warming" or not and still the evidence that man is causing any change is questionable.

Anyway, go talk to China and leave us the hell alone.

I have no idea what you are arguing now. None of this makes sense. Inflation? Categories of hurricanes? If hurricanes don't hit land, who gives a shit?

I was pointing out that two big hurricanes have happened the last two years. Last year Sandy hit 24 states.

Look I don't care whatever your boner is with climate change. I think the entire argument from both sides is pretty silly, and your posts pretty much cement that opinion.

[Masterofreality]

Just remember that the entire planet was going to explode over Y2K also- as per the alarmists.

How about instead of worrying about the false temperature models, we worry about the spew of raw sewage into our lakes and rivers? However, the same government that wants us to go "green" and preaches about "carbon footprint" and "global warming" has no problem wasting the tax money we send them on bloated employment contracts with their union buddies, throwing money at Solar energy entities (where most of that money winds up with Chinese solar panel manufacturers), ridiculous subsidies for cars (Chevy Volt) that no one wants, and "shovel ready" projects like adding sidewalks on 6 lane throfares that no one walks on/replacing street lights with quaint looking faux gaslights (Memorial Drive- Atlanta, Ga) that make the trade unions happy. They should be spending it on fixing public sewers. Sewers don't affect "climate change" but it does affect the environment in a real sense.

[GoMuskies]

How about a different approach to alternative energy sources. What you might call the long view.

Whatever fossil fuels are, for sure we are consuming them a lot faster than the earth can produce them. There is a limited supply of them.
Eventually they will run out, and certainly a global population of 6 billion+ is accelerating that time frame.
What is it? 100 years? 200 years?
Whatever it is, it's coming.

So, it does behoove the planet to explore (now) alternative, renewable energy sources for future generations.
Solar power installation cost is coming down; hopefully you live in a state where you can sell extra power back to the grid (I don't).
The fossil fuel driven power suppliers aren't in favor of solar because you might become self-sufficient. But someday we'll get there.

The fossil fuel power suppliers are all looking at, and working on projects related to, renewables as well. They just need to become economically viable on a stand-alone basis (or together with government subsidies) before they will be widely adopted.

In the meantime, we continue to try to find new sources of, and ways to more effectively exploit, the fossil fuels that are still in the ground.

[Masterofreality]

I have no idea what you are arguing now. None of this makes sense. Inflation? Categories of hurricanes? If hurricanes don't hit land, who gives a shit?

I was pointing out that two big hurricanes have happened the last two years. Last year Sandy hit 24 states.

Look I don't care whatever your boner is with climate change. I think the entire argument from both sides is pretty silly, and your posts pretty much cement that opinion.

I guess that makes two of us. I don't understand what the hell you are arguing, DC.

I made it clear what my point was. Number of named storms below projections. It's not two sides, but you've attempted to make it so by bringing in the "most expensive storms" as if single occurrances cover an entire season. You cite one-offs. One offs that can happen in every year. It's apples and oranges.

Find someone else to argue with.

[muskienick]

The following is for the benefit of both sides of the issue:
The Climate of a region is determined by the average of all its weather factors over a thirty-year period of time.

People pointing to weeks of temperatures consistently in the 90's as proof of global warming are just as wrong as others who point to equally long periods of cool summer weather or a string of winter days with lows below zero as proof that global warming is a myth.

Climate changed many times before mankind was a significant factor of any kind on this planet. But that doesn't mean that mankind cannot have a significant effect on it now that there are over 7 Billion of us here. The human presence on Earth may not be the determining, or most important, factor of climate change. But to completely disregard mankind's effect on the earth's air, water, and other natural resources would be as incorrect as omitting poor play by special teams as a contributing factor of why football clubs have losing records in the NFL.

[DC Muskie]

I guess that makes two of us. I don't understand what the hell you are arguing, DC.

I made it clear what my point was. Number of named storms below projections. It's not two sides, but you've attempted to make it so by bringing in the "most expensive storms" as if single occurrances cover an entire season. You cite one-offs. One offs that can happen in every year. It's apples and oranges.

Find someone else to argue with.

I'm not arguing. If you are confused about what I wrote, it's probably because you didn't realize what you wrote. Re read your first post where you said this:

All I know is that here we are almost to Labor Day and there has barely been a smidgen of tropical storm or hurricane activity despite the doom and gloom claims of the "warming club" that there would be a more than active hurricane season.

So no hurricane activity in 2013.

Two sentences later you write this:

This will be at least the third year in a row where the alarmists have been dead wrong as to hurricanes and tropical storms, so why the hell should they be believed?

I merely pointed that that there was two big hurricanes in the last two years. One in fact did the second most damage in the history of country. That's a just a fact.

So like I said I'm not arguing anything. I'm not going in some other direction to tell you that climate change is real or whatever, because I don't care. I was merely pointing out that despite your claim of three years of inactivity of hurricanes, there were in fact two straight years of major hurricanes including one that went up the entire east coast.

If you want to "argue" the other side and say that there weren't two major hurricanes in the past two years, then go ahead. If you want to argue that hurricanes happen, so who cares, then go ahead, I don't care.

Just don't tell me there wasn't major hurricane activity, because there was. Unlike 2006, and 2009 when there wasn't.

[paulxu]

Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

Well, that certainly explains all the credits to the oil/gas industries over the years that Dems have tried to stop.

[X-band '01]

Just remember that the entire planet was going to explode over Y2K also- as per the alarmists.

How about instead of worrying about the false temperature models, we worry about the spew of raw sewage into our lakes and rivers?

You haven't seen Asian Carp start to peer into your neck of Lake Erie, have you?

[Emp]

When that heat and phosphorus-driven bloom in Lake Erie reaches MOR's driveway, it will be the socialists fault.

[spazzrico]

Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

Yeah, it's just a made up thing for the Democrats to get theirs........and of course every National Academy of Science (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and the good ol' USA. Oh and something like 18 other National Science organizations. Oh and 97% of climate scientists. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus).........But yeah, it's the Democrats.

I'm all about questioning, and that is what science is supposed to be about. But the difference between what actual real trained scientists are questioning these days and what Senator Imhofe is questioning these days is pretty much night and day. One is based in reality (climatologists) the other is fantasy (Imhofe et al).

[Strange Brew]

Yeah, it's just a made up thing for the Democrats to get theirs........and of course every National Academy of Science (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and the good ol' USA. Oh and something like 18 other National Science organizations. Oh and 97% of climate scientists. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus).........But yeah, it's the Democrats.

I'm all about questioning, and that is what science is supposed to be about. But the difference between what actual real trained scientists are questioning these days and what Senator Imhofe is questioning these days is pretty much night and day. One is based in reality (climatologists) the other is fantasy (Imhofe et al).

your own data shows no warming since the late 90's (further only one of statements by "scientists" on the page was made within the last three years) but the models proposed (hypothesis) by climate "scientists" predicted a great amount of warming over the past 15 years with the amount of CO2 released over the same time frame. Thus, anyone who has a basic understanding of the scientific method would conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect and the warming of the 80s/90s may have been a result of something other than carbon. It's time for the "scientists" to adjust their theories and prove them correct using measurable data rather than shouting down "deniers" who can easily see that the models from the early/mid 2,000's are wrong.

[muskienick]

Your tagline, Strange Brew, tells the whole tale: ""In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." - Leon Trotsky (1937)"

You simply refuse to grasp the science of climate and global warming. Instead, you seem to prefer the rantings of Rush and Glenn Beck. As stated earlier, mankind is almost certainly not the sole cause of any global warming indicated by the 30-year trend in the local climates of areas across the globe. But to completely downplay the harmful effects of over 7 billion energy-craving people on earth these days is like saying a person died of heart failure after being hit by a freight train.

[Masterofreality]

When that heat and phosphorus-driven bloom in Lake Erie reaches MOR's driveway, it will be the socialists fault.

No, it will be from garbage being dumped in the Great Lakes from the decrepit sewers from bankrupt Detroit.

Edit, so maybe you're right, Emp....since Detroit has basically been governed by socialists for quite a while.

"Power to the correct People!"

"
The story within the story is the serious infrastructure deficiencies afflicting Detroit's sewer system, a decrepit network of subterranean lines buried beneath the city in the early 1800s, some of the lines made of wood, brick and stone.

The city intentionally dumps sewage into the Detroit and Rouge Rivers.

The federal government is well aware of it, permits some of it and generates revenue via fines paid by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department whenever discharges exceed the permitted allotment, a common occurrence."

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2012/10/license_to_spill_feds_permit_d.html#incart_river_d efault

YEAHHHH. Rather than "HockeyTown" Detroit should call itself "HAAAAAAAACkeyTown" for all the gagging smells that emit from it.

[nuts4xu]

I'm merely pointing out your theory that there has now been three years with alarmist being wrong about hurricanes is factually incorrect. You even admit it when describing "one off storm."

I don't care about trends. All I'm saying the second costliest hurricane happened last year. And the same area was hit the year before.

You can't be correct on both sides of the argument MOR.

Alarmists were predicting record numbers of hurricanes and storms, yet we have the normal amount (if not less) of hurricanes the past few years.

In the top 15 busiest years for "named" tropical storms, 10 of them have occurred since 2000. I think (and do not know for a fact) this is more due to the advances in technology and man's ability to find and name storms rather than increase in the actual numbers.

However, the seasons with the "most hurricanes" and most "major" hurricanes have barely included the last decade.

2010 and 2012 witnessed 2 of the worst years for hurricanes, yet we have barely had one yet this year.

[DC Muskie]

That's what's so ridiculous about the argument. One side says "here come the hurricanes" then the other side says, "not enough hurricanes" like environmental problems should be or can be measured by storms during certain months.

Like I said before, we've had two hurricanes in DC in the past two years. In December 2009 we had a bitch of a blizzard, and then again a few months later in 2010.

We've also had two earthquakes, one in 2010 (I think) an then a big one (for us 5.8) in 2011.

That's major environmental occurrences every year since 2009. I'm glad nothing has happened this year, but that doesn't mean we don't have some issues to contend with, but it also doesn't mean we have to freak out either.

[Strange Brew]

Your tagline, Strange Brew, tells the whole tale: ""In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." - Leon Trotsky (1937)"

You simply refuse to grasp the science of climate and global warming. Instead, you seem to prefer the rantings of Rush and Glenn Beck. As stated earlier, mankind is almost certainly not the sole cause of any global warming indicated by the 30-year trend in the local climates of areas across the globe. But to completely downplay the harmful effects of over 7 billion energy-craving people on earth these days is like saying a person died of heart failure after being hit by a freight train.

What exactly does my tagline tell you? Not sure how that's relevant.

So we agree that carbon dioxide, produced by man, is not the main or a significant driver of warming or climate change? Good, thank you. Humans surely do have an affect on the planet however the rantings of mad scientists about CO2 doomsday scenarios are laughable in the face of the empirical data of the last 15 years. Like I said, the scientists need new models that more accurately reflect the data to remain credible.

[spazzrico]

1. GOES - These are weather monitoring satellites and have been orbiting since 1974. We don't have any new means of finding nameable storms. Those suckers have been findable for awhile.

2. Every hurricane season is WEATHER not CLIMATE. So if we have a particularly bad hurricane year or a good year, it says NOTHING about climate changes...Now if it keeps happening one way or the other over the long haul then you start talking about climatic shifts. It is exactly the same as if we have an especially cold winter, it is not a case for global cooling or the reverse for warming.

[spazzrico]

What exactly does my tagline tell you? Not sure how that's relevant.

So we agree that carbon dioxide, produced by man, is not the main or a significant driver of warming or climate change? Good, thank you. Humans surely do have an affect on the planet however the rantings of mad scientists about CO2 doomsday scenarios are laughable in the face of the empirical data of the last 15 years. Like I said, the scientists need new models that more accurately reflect the data to remain credible.

You are not grasping the fact that the data of the last 15 years is not enough to use in isolation. What that does is completely throw out the trendline which you need over a VERY LONG TIME in order to even discuss climate. The last 15 years is barely enough.
The .gif here (http://skepticalscience.com/temperatures-continue-up-the-escalator.html)explains this very well. Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that the last decade was basically the hottest on record because there was a particularly hot year in the late 90's from which the cherry has been picked. You claim that these scientists are bad and don't know how to use the scientific method, and worse you put their titles in scare quotes to denote their lack of scientific understanding. Yet you out yourself in your ignorance on how these models work every time you post in this thread, because you keep going back to the only CO2 as a driver. Scientists have pointed to many other things and have to work very complex systems into the models (CO2, Methane, Sun Cycles, Water Vapor, Ocean temperature absorption). Are they perfect? Of course not, but the science gets better every year and they are pretty good.

The only point of climate change denial right now is to create legitimacy for not caring or doing something about it. It's politics not science.

[waggy]

So scientists need more money to study this correct?................

[RealDeal]

Ah, money. Wonder who has the money to fund their side of this argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

[waggy]

That doesn't change the fact that people need to eat, and being needed or useful or necessary is good way of feeding it. All the way down to the girl on the streetcorner.

[RealDeal]

Freaking hilarious.

[muskiefan82]

Ah, money. Wonder who has the money to fund their side of this argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

Volkswagen over Toyota? Did NOT see that coming.

[waggy]

Freaking hilarious.


Yup. Dey all a bunch a ho's. Individually and collectively.

[nuts4xu]

It was 104 degrees here in Dallas today...I think it was due to global warming.

Effing Global warming gave me a sunburn on the golf course today!!

[Strange Brew]

You are not grasping the fact that the data of the last 15 years is not enough to use in isolation. What that does is completely throw out the trendline which you need over a VERY LONG TIME in order to even discuss climate. The last 15 years is barely enough.
The .gif here (http://skepticalscience.com/temperatures-continue-up-the-escalator.html)explains this very well. Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that the last decade was basically the hottest on record because there was a particularly hot year in the late 90's from which the cherry has been picked. You claim that these scientists are bad and don't know how to use the scientific method, and worse you put their titles in scare quotes to denote their lack of scientific understanding. Yet you out yourself in your ignorance on how these models work every time you post in this thread, because you keep going back to the only CO2 as a driver. Scientists have pointed to many other things and have to work very complex systems into the models (CO2, Methane, Sun Cycles, Water Vapor, Ocean temperature absorption). Are they perfect? Of course not, but the science gets better every year and they are pretty good.

The only point of climate change denial right now is to create legitimacy for not caring or doing something about it. It's politics not science.

Agree with you with all causes stated above EXCEPT CO2. Which coincidentally or "inconveniently" is squawked by warmist "scientist" (not scary but mocking quotes) as the main driver of this ever flattening warming trend. The Sun, methane, H2O vapor and other factors are far more likely to affect the climate on Earth BUT they do not shut down coal plants and make paper writers and model makers money, nor do they allow charlatans like Al Gore to own multiple mansions and fly in private jets.

[Masterofreality]

Agree with you with all causes stated above EXCEPT CO2. Which coincidentally or "inconveniently" is squawked by warmist "scientist" (not scary but mocking quotes) as the main driver of this ever flattening warming trend. The Sun, methane, H2O vapor and other factors are far more likely to affect the climate on Earth BUT they do not shut down coal plants and make paper writers and model makers money, nor do they allow charlatans like Al Gore to own multiple mansions and fly in private jets.

By the way. Al Gore sold his cable TV network Current TV to Al Jazeera...the Quatar based network fully funded by, HORRORS, oil interests.

Yep, oil is bad, until it enriches YOU. Right Al? #Hypocrite

[spazzrico]

Yet the mocking quotes suggest you have some level of cognition and training on climate science above and beyond all the actual climatologists out there and that their whole careers have been based on some sort of lie cooked up by the left.

So are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

[Masterofreality]

Yet the mocking quotes suggest you have some level of cognition and training on climate science above and beyond all the actual climatologists out there and that their whole careers have been based on some sort of lie cooked up by the left.

So are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Well, we all exhale it so let's just eliminate all mankind and all air breathing animals from the planet. That would solve all problems.

[spazzrico]

Yeah, because that's what this is about MOR. :rolleyes:

[DC Muskie]

Well, we all exhale it so let's just eliminate all mankind and all air breathing animals from the planet. That would solve all problems.

Never, ever, ever, paraphrase Michelle Bauchman.

[Masterofreality]

Never, ever, ever, paraphrase Michelle Bauchman.

Good point.

[waggy]

Will wonders never cease? As was accepted by most people, the earth was heating up, with summer predicted year-long by the middle of the 21 Century. The exact opposite has been learned - in fact, the Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year, at an increase of 60 percent!

The BBC had reported six years ago that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. However - in the days before the annual autumn re-freeze due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe stretches all the way from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.

Furthermore, the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts have been left ice-bound. A cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

A group of scientists now believe that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. If so, this would send all previous predictions of imminent catastrophic warming sailing into the dustbin.


http://www.catholic.org/green/story.php?id=52333

[SemajParlor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyGqMAZYrA

[RealDeal]

Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

The comments on the above catholic.org story are hilarious.

[RealDeal]

Yup. Dey all a bunch a ho's. Individually and collectively.

As M Brenneman would say, that's a big old duh. Everyone is for sale, politicians, media, whoever. The "money buys anything" argument cuts against those with the most money. Again, duh.

[X-band '01]

As far as hurricanes go, this is about as long as we've gone without a storm making it up to hooker, err, hurricane strength. That will end tonight once Humberto makes it up to hurricane status.

So far, the tropics just haven't been suited for many tropical cyclones (certainly not the garden variety Cape Verde hurricanes). But until November comes by, I wouldn't party just yet. Sandy was a reminder of that last year that even late October isn't too late for such a storm to hit the Caribbean and US.

[waggy]

As M Brenneman would say, that's a big old duh. Everyone is for sale, politicians, media, whoever. The "money buys anything" argument cuts against those with the most money. Again, duh.


So you agree that the scientific outcry might not be legitimate.

[RealDeal]

So you agree that the scientific outcry might not be legitimate.

I agree that it's best to trace information and funding, so please do so. Tell me how much money and motivation each side has in this argument, please. I listed the big oil assets, lets see the other side's funding. It's just common sense.

[waggy]

You're the expert. Just because oil companies have money means squat to me. And who makes it about "sides" anyway? That right there might be the biggest problem and speaks volumes. I don't trust any of it from either "side".

[DC Muskie]

You're the expert. Just because oil companies have money means squat to me. And who makes it about "sides" anyway? That right there might be the biggest problem and speaks volumes. I don't trust any of it from either "side".

Exactly.

[RealDeal]

You're the expert. Just because oil companies have money .

Then why did you bring money into the equation?

You forgot the motivation part. It's called propaganda. BP is doing a great job cleaning up the gulf, I saw it on a commercial they pay to run every 15 min. Except they are making shitloads of people sick in the name of money: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/04/22/what-bp-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-spill.html

[waggy]

And it's been established that scientists have motivation too? I mean, Duh, right?

I'm not defending BP in any way shape or form - that is just garbage, and yet not surprising. On the other hand your post just comes off as deflection.

Do you own a car RD? Rhetorical.

[RealDeal]

[QUOTE=waggy;404538]And it's been established that scientists have motivation too? I mean, Duh, right?

So who is motivated to pay scientists to in your mind falsify their reports? Who are these companies? And what is their funding source compared to big oil? Stop trying to change the subject.

[waggy]

[QUOTE=waggy;404538]And it's been established that scientists have motivation too? I mean, Duh, right?

So who is motivated to pay scientists to in your mind falsify their reports? Who are these companies? And what is their funding source compared to big oil? Stop trying to change the subject.


Scientists largely get paid via the US taxpayer, correct?

[RealDeal]

[QUOTE=RealDeal;404542]


Scientists largely get paid via the US taxpayer, correct?

Which scientists? Who?

[waggy]

All of them.

[RealDeal]

All of them.

Nope, private companies employ thousands of scientists. So no general statements, who are you talking about?

[waggy]

I'm talking about the scientists who can't tell us with 100% certaintly if it'll rain this afternoon, or exactly where wind comes from, but can tell us that global warming is man made, while being funded with taxpayer money and do so because as a community they are crying wolf. Common hoes I tell ya. DUH. I don't know them personally, so sorry I can't name them for you.

[RealDeal]

I'm talking about the scientists who can't tell us with 100% certaintly if it'll rain this afternoon, or exactly where wind comes from, but can tell us that global warming is man made, while being funded with taxpayer money and do so because as a community they are crying wolf. Common hoes I tell ya. DUH. I don't know them personally, so sorry I can't name them for you.

Ah, and you retreat from specifics to your generalities which you can't support at all. Not surprising.

[waggy]

So if you don't agree, then why did you?



As M Brenneman would say, that's a big old duh. Everyone is for sale, politicians, media, whoever. The "money buys anything" argument cuts against those with the most money. Again, duh.


And I retreat from nothing. You can get back to me, when daily weather can be predicted accurately.

[RealDeal]

So if you don't agree, then why did you?





And I retreat from nothing. You can get back to me, when daily weather can be predicted accurately.

You can get back to me when you can support your position, and stop running from specifics on money and motivation.

[waggy]

The amount of money has little to no bearing on the motivation. Both entities need to eat.


I can assure you I'm not making a dime from the big bad oil companies. I bet Obama is though.

[RealDeal]

You can get back to me when you can support your position, and stop running from specifics on money and motivation.

Again.

[spazzrico]

You can get back to me, when daily weather can be predicted accurately.

Weather and Climate are different things things studied by different scientists........Weather=meterologists; Climate=Climatologists.

[X-band '01]

Nope, private companies employ thousands of scientists. So no general statements, who are you talking about?


I've worked in the private sector. They expect results.

Word.

[spazzrico]

The comments on the above catholic.org story are hilarious.

Seriously, that article was horrendous.....and this comment pretty much sums up my critique:


"I was horrified to read this article! How can you just repeat lies from the Daily Mail (of all papers!) like this? Is this how the members of my church behave?

1. Last years ice was an extreme record low (remember it being in the news), so it's fairly unsurprising that there would be a recovery this year. It's still well below the average (this year barely reaches above the trend line).

2. The numbers and images you have are taken directly from the Mail/Telegraph article and are flat out wrong. They might be from September, but it's hard to tell: they might just be made up.

3. The BBC did not predict anything, as the BBC are not scientists, they're a broadcast organisation. They report what scientists have said. The actual quote was "...maybe not by 2013, but almost certainly before 2040." Your rewording is nothing short of a lie.

Frankly, I'm ashamed. This is the kind of article that will be linked to by other websites as an illustration of the gullibility and foolishness of Catholics. You're bringing the church into disrepute. I sincerely hope you *check the numbers for yourself* and publish a retraction before this gets noticed further.'

[Tardy Turtle]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ULMDV4HUi60/TGCgJjk-RvI/AAAAAAAABgs/-G3D64qGN34/s400/Untitled.jpg

[Snipe]

From 2009:

Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come
by Joanne Nova (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html)


The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

That is a lot of money, and that is just from the United States government.


"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

-- Dwight Eisenhower speech, 1961


Even the oil companies feed the warmists more than the skeptics:


Money for Sceptics: Greenpeace has searched for funding for sceptics and found $23 million paid by Exxon over 10 years (which has stopped). Perhaps Greenpeace missed funding from other fossil fuel companies, but you can be sure that they searched. I wrote the Climate Money paper in July last year, and since then no one has claimed a larger figure. Big-Oil may well prefer it if emissions are not traded, but it's not make-or-break for them. If all fossil fuels are in effect "taxed", consumers will pay the tax anyhow, and past price rises in crude oil suggest consumers will not consume much less fuel, so profits won't actually fall that much.

But in the end, everyone spends more on carbon friendly initiatives than on sceptics-- even Exxon: (how about $100 million for Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project, and $600 million for Biofuels research). Some will complain that Exxon is massive and their green commitment was a tiny part of their profits, but the point is, what they spent on sceptics was even less.

People can point to Exxon and "big oil", but even they are funding warmists at an alarming rate. That is where the money is.

Report: Al Gore's net worth at $200 million (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583118/report-al-gores-net-worth-at-$200-million/)


More than a decade after losing his 2000 presidential bid, former Vice President Al Gore's fortunes have seemingly turned: Gore's net worth may now exceed $200 million, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News

If Mitt Romney is worth over $200 million, that just proves what an evil rich White man he is. As far as Algore goes, the media doesn't seem all that interested in how quickly he attained massive amounts of wealth so soon after leaving office.

[Snipe]

The money trail (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33114.html)


Money for the Finance Houses: What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion. This is turnover, not specifically profits, but each year the money market turnover eclipses the science funding over 20 years. Money Talks. Every major finance house stands to profit as brokers of a paper trade. It doesn't matter whether you buy or sell, the bankers take a slice both ways. The bigger the market, the more money they make shifting paper.

and then this:


THE LARGEST TRADEABLE "COMMODITY" IN THE WORLD?

Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: "I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market." "The largest commodity market in the world." He ought to know.

It promises to be larger than the markets for coal, oil, gold, wheat, copper or uranium. Just soak in that thought for a moment. Larger than oil.

Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, agrees and predicts trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year." That's 10 thousand billion dollars.

I have a theory that greed is not confined to people in the oil and gas industry.

[Masterofreality]

And, how about this:

"By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
(Published in print: Wednesday, September 11,

After a couple of years of wild, deadly and costly weather, the United States is mostly getting a lucky break this year. So far.

Summer is almost over, and as of yesterday morning, not a single hurricane had formed this year. Tornado activity in 2013 is also down around record-low levels, while heat waves are fewer and milder than last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“It’s been great,” said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “I hope that we ride this pattern out through this year and following years.”

There have been eight tropical storms in the Atlantic. Not one has reached the 74 mph wind threshold to become a hurricane, though Tropical Storm Humberto off the coast of Africa is likely to become one soon.


If Humberto stays a tropical storm through 8 a.m. today, it will be the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since satellites started watching the seas in 1967, according to the National Hurricane Center.

This year, overall storm activity in the Atlantic – an index that combines number and strength – is about a fifth of the average. That’s despite warmer-than-normal seas, which usually fuel storms.

It has also been a record of nearly eight years since a major hurricane – one with winds of 110 mph – blew ashore in the U.S. That was Hurricane Wilma, which hit Florida in October 2005."

So, even in the screaming of the gloom and doomers, tornado activity is also down to record low levels.

HA!

[LadyMuskie]

Seems a sad day to me, when we're happy there are fewer tornadoes and hurricanes not because it means less loss of life, fewer dollars lost in destruction of property, not to mention the mental toll on the victims of these natural disasters, but because it fuels our politically motivated feelings on one subject or another.

[Snipe]

I am all for reducing the human cost of natural disasters. You could easily turn that statement the other way, as enviros often move in to politicize every human tragedy. Sandy wasn't even a Hurricane, and New York had studies that were years old that detailed what a storm surge would do and the costs involved, and also how they could invest to prevent it. Well they didn't. They spent that money somewhere else, and then they look to blame someone else.

When tornados hit people were claiming global warming as an "obvious" culprit, while people were still searching for the missing. Warmists jump on tragedy all the time. You see the recent article about how the unrest in Syria is due to global warming? I am not kidding. There was once a webpage out there that listed everything that has been blamed in the media for global warming. It was a hilarious list. There is no shark a Warmist won't jump.

[Snipe]

A complete list of things caused by global warming (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

Check it out, and links for all of them.

[Kahns Krazy]

Seems a sad day to me, when we're happy there are fewer tornadoes and hurricanes not because it means less loss of life, fewer dollars lost in destruction of property, not to mention the mental toll on the victims of these natural disasters, but because it fuels our politically motivated feelings on one subject or another.

Duh. After Bush made that hurricane that wiped out all the poor people in New Orleans, there's nothing much left to celerbate for us when it comes to storms.

[Snipe]

I had almost forgotten about George Bushitler and his Evil Weather Machine.

[paulxu]

How could you possibly forget this. After all, he had extensive experience in...Arabian horses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lssbAwu-OtE

[spazzrico]

And, how about this:

"By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
(Published in print: Wednesday, September 11,

After a couple of years of wild, deadly and costly weather, the United States is mostly getting a lucky break this year. So far.

Summer is almost over, and as of yesterday morning, not a single hurricane had formed this year. Tornado activity in 2013 is also down around record-low levels, while heat waves are fewer and milder than last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“It’s been great,” said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “I hope that we ride this pattern out through this year and following years.”

There have been eight tropical storms in the Atlantic. Not one has reached the 74 mph wind threshold to become a hurricane, though Tropical Storm Humberto off the coast of Africa is likely to become one soon.


If Humberto stays a tropical storm through 8 a.m. today, it will be the latest date for the first hurricane of the season since satellites started watching the seas in 1967, according to the National Hurricane Center.

This year, overall storm activity in the Atlantic – an index that combines number and strength – is about a fifth of the average. That’s despite warmer-than-normal seas, which usually fuel storms.

It has also been a record of nearly eight years since a major hurricane – one with winds of 110 mph – blew ashore in the U.S. That was Hurricane Wilma, which hit Florida in October 2005."

So, even in the screaming of the gloom and doomers, tornado activity is also down to record low levels.

HA!

THIS IS WEATHER NOT CLIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both sides need to stop posting articles about this year's weather as proof of anything. End of Story.

[nuts4xu]

THIS IS WEATHER NOT CLIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both sides need to stop posting articles about this year's weather as proof of anything. End of Story.

Hey spazz, you some sort of meteorologist or something?

Just curious.

[Masterofreality]

I am all for reducing the human cost of natural disasters. You could easily turn that statement the other way, as enviros often move in to politicize every human tragedy. Sandy wasn't even a Hurricane, and New York had studies that were years old that detailed what a storm surge would do and the costs involved, and also how they could invest to prevent it. Well they didn't. They spent that money somewhere else, and then they look to blame someone else.

When tornados hit people were claiming global warming as an "obvious" culprit, while people were still searching for the missing. Warmists jump on tragedy all the time. You see the recent article about how the unrest in Syria is due to global warming? I am not kidding. There was once a webpage out there that listed everything that has been blamed in the media for global warming. It was a hilarious list. There is no shark a Warmist won't jump.


Duh. After Bush made that hurricane that wiped out all the poor people in New Orleans, there's nothing much left to celerbate for us when it comes to storms.


THIS IS WEATHER NOT CLIMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both sides need to stop posting articles about this year's weather as proof of anything. End of Story.

See the two quotes above, Spazz.

[spazzrico]

Hey spazz, you some sort of meteorologist or something?

Just curious.

I'm a human, rather than physical geographer, but I teach basic physical geography to introductory courses. My department during graduate school was actually filled with people studying climatology and meteorology so I absorbed a good bit of it; but would never consider myself a professional in that area. I do get frustrated when the most basic stuff about climate change (like the difference between weather and climate that I'm harping about) get used incorrectly or to prove something that it can't prove. From my perspective there is a good bit of rhetoric flying around about all these scientists making huge bucks off what so many here are calling a hoax. While there may be some (and they are probably in private industry), the ones I know in academia have a decent standard of living, but by no means are rich. They are just working stiffs like everyone else, and they dedicate their lives to studying what they see to be a major challenge that the world faces.

[nuts4xu]

I'm a human...

This is good to know, I hate when the aliens troll these boards posing as dayton fans.

[X-band '01]

Article fresh from the palm tree at MOR's palatial lakeside estate:

Washington Post Article - Latest Report from Climate Scientists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ipcc-says-humans-cause-global-warming/2013/09/27/aae32880-275d-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html)

And I'm sure that if I go to the Weather Channel's website, I'll probably see:

Most COMPELLING evidence of cLiMaTe ChAnGe EVER - LOL

[X-band '01]

I was close:

IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE (http://www.weather.com/)

[Masterofreality]

I was close:

IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE (http://www.weather.com/)

HaHaHahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah, Then have the UN go to China and shut their asses down so there will be no more coal burning from them. While they're at it, they can go to Russia and shut down all the Baltic Countries too.

The UN won't though. Too easy to blame 'Murrica.

[Masterofreality]

OOooooooooK, Let's recap the dire predictions for 2013.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted 13 to 20 named storms to develop this season, with 11 of them reaching hurricane strength (winds of at least 74 mph).*It did NOT live up to expectations....not even close.

"We tied for the 4th quietest hurricane season in the last 70 years," said Daniel Noah, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Ruskin, FL.

There were 11 named storms, but only two of them developed into hurricanes.

Let's add to that the record low temperature recorded in the Antarctic recently, and now this- the cooler than the so-called "experts" predicted summer has resulted in an almost 50% increase in Arctic Sea ice now. That is "climate" stuff, folks, not just "weather" as some apologists like to cite.

Soooo, one of the things that the environmental alarmists talk about is that the sea has been absorbing much of the "extra heat" that the earth has been generating- which allegedly the reason that "global warming" hasn't progressed as predicted. Well, if that is the case, then how could sea ice increase by 50% with all of that "extra heat"?

Somehow, these facts get underreportd. I think I'm getting worried about another Ice Age. :headscratch:

[muskienick]

OOooooooooK, Let's recap the dire predictions for 2013.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted 13 to 20 named storms to develop this season, with 11 of them reaching hurricane strength (winds of at least 74 mph).*It did NOT live up to expectations....not even close.

"We tied for the 4th quietest hurricane season in the last 70 years," said Daniel Noah, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Ruskin, FL.

There were 11 named storms, but only two of them developed into hurricanes.

Let's add to that the record low temperature recorded in the Antarctic recently, and now this- the cooler than the so-called "experts" predicted summer has resulted in an almost 50% increase in Arctic Sea ice now. That is "climate" stuff, folks, not just "weather" as some apologists like to cite.

Soooo, one of the things that the environmental alarmists talk about is that the sea has been absorbing much of the "extra heat" that the earth has been generating- which allegedly the reason that "global warming" hasn't progressed as predicted. Well, if that is the case, then how could sea ice increase by 50% with all of that "extra heat"?

Somehow, these facts get underreportd. I think I'm getting worried about another Ice Age. :headscratch:

A single year (or any part of a year) does not indicate a change in the science of global warming. The highs are slated to be as much as 10-15 degrees above normal for the next couple of days but you will not hear the climate scientists crowing "See, I told ya so!!!"

CLIMATE is described as the average of all weather factors for an area over 30 consecutive years of measuring those factors.

When people start talking about 30-year trends, I'll start listening!

[waggy]

Are you kidding MOR? This is just evidence that the left was correct but is fixing the problem.

Fixing the Russians is next on the agenda.

[JTG]

A. Global Warming is just more environmentalist bullshit. I shoved 8 inches of global warming from my driveway last week.
B. Stopping America from burning coal is no big deal for the environment, when you consider the amount burned by China and Russia. Just because we stop, doesn't mean China or Russia will.
C. I work with people who drill for oil and gas, and people who harvest trees. They are constantly being hassled by the "Green Crowd" who live in DC and NYC, and don't realize that we have enough oil, gas, and trees to last til hell freezes, which by the way is more likely than their Global Warming Crapola.

[SpectorJersey]

The goal of the left is to have govt control everything. Global warming is just a play for the left to control the environment.

[BBC 08]

Holy shit. I think I just got dumber by reading the last 4 posts.

[paulxu]

Screw our grandkids. If we use up all the oil in the ground, they can find their own.
It only takes a few million years to make some more.

[SpectorJersey]

Screw our grandkids. If we use up all the oil in the ground, they can find their own.
It only takes a few million years to make some more.

Sounds like similar reasoning that George W Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Barry have for running up the debt on the US.

We will not run out of oil or other sources of energy. Innovation around new sources in energy along with increased technology in drilling and reserves will keep things moving.

In 2007 Al Gore, the Global Warming hero, used 20 times that national average on electric and gas energy for his mansion in Tenn.

[vee4xu]

One thing for sure the partisanship is very evident in this thread, which creates a very high temperature environment that has nothing to do with global warming. Reading science on both sides of the issue, weighing the information and then deciding is the best way to understand this issue, or any other complicated issue. But, I will be the first to say that repeating someone else's talking points is certainly much less time consuming and easier.

[xubball1993]

If it makes anyone feel any better, air quality in the US has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. The EPA requires the monitoring of six major air pollutants associated with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. This is how much (according to the EPA) each has dropped from 1990-2010:
Lead: 83%
Nitrogen Dioxide: 45%
Carbon Monoxide: 73%
Sulfur Dioxide: 76%
Ozone: 17%
Particulate Matter: 38%
Having said that, US is still a close second to China in energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

[Strange Brew]

Screw our grandkids. If we use up all the oil in the ground, they can find their own.
It only takes a few million years to make some more.

Actually it can be made relatively quickly from algae. Don't worry your kids, grandkids and great grandkids will have plenty of carbon based forms of energy.

Algae to oil: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/20/algae-oil-1-hour/

[Strange Brew]

Holy shit. I think I just got dumber by reading the last 4 posts.

you sure that's possible. :)

[Kahns Krazy]

It is very warm out tonight. I think Al Gore is right, he did invent the internet.

[principal]

A single year (or any part of a year) does not indicate a change in the science of global warming. The highs are slated to be as much as 10-15 degrees above normal for the next couple of days but you will not hear the climate scientists crowing "See, I told ya so!!!"


Edit: misunderstood your post, sorry. Deleted mine.

[Strange Brew]

n the science of global warming.


Please explain how it follows any semblance of the scientific method. Empirical evidence is proving the CO2=warming theory inaccurate. Please find another religion.

[JTG]

Holy shit. I think I just got dumber by reading the last 4 posts.

You may not be too bright to begin with if you believe the last four posts made you dumber

[GoMuskies]

Global warming is awesome in Louisville today.

[BBC 08]

You may not be too bright to begin with if you believe the last four posts made you dumber

You're right. I'm a dumbass. I believe in what science and facts tell me. When will I learn!!!

[muskiefan82]

There is a team heating up on Victory Parkway. Perhaps that is the issue.

[vee4xu]

In attempting to educate myself on this topic, I was directed to the Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study is at www.ipcc.ch. Been a solid starting point for me to learn more about this topic. Just thought I'd share it here.

[muskienick]

Please explain how it follows any semblance of the scientific method. Empirical evidence is proving the CO2=warming theory inaccurate. Please find another religion.

Global warming (and cooling) has occurred numerous times in the earth's history without the help of human intervention. The current cycle has caused the vast majority of climatologists to wonder why this cycle appears to be accelerating a bit more rapidly than those of the past (based on the available evidence). Sooooooooo...
1. Scientists perceive a question (as indicated in the last sentence) that they want to resolve
2. They make extensive observations of factors relating to the somewhat seemingly accelerated global warming of this current cycle
3. They hypothesize that there is a global warming cycle in operation and that it may have been somewhat accelerated (although certainly not caused only by) human intervention.
4. They set up experiments, create the means for careful observation, collect massive amounts of data, record and organize that data, make themselves aware of other related studies throughout the world, and exchange information with their fellow climatologists by publishing their results.
5. From that and far more than I mention here, they draw certain conclusions from all the available data that they have learned and extrapolate what the long-term effects might be without minimizing the effect, what factors could be implemented to mitigate those human factors, and what positive effects could result from their implementation.

That's what I have learned throughout my readings on the subject. Perhaps you have a better understanding of it than I. After retiring following a 31-year career as a science teacher, I now only keep track of the progress of climatologists through reading related literature in journals, internet sites on the subject, etc. You may have a better background than I and study the subject more thoroughly than I do.

Please share with us (in a similar nutshell) how you perceive the situation.

[boozehound]

One thing for sure the partisanship is very evident in this thread, which creates a very high temperature environment that has nothing to do with global warming. Reading science on both sides of the issue, weighing the information and then deciding is the best way to understand this issue, or any other complicated issue. But, I will be the first to say that repeating someone else's talking points is certainly much less time consuming and easier.

I couldn't agree with you more.

This is also exactly why I fear for the future of this Country. Our political system is completely devoid of leadership of any kind. Leaders find (or create) common ground and get people working toward a common goal. Our political 'leaders' are more interested in playing divisive political games delivered through carefully researched and constructed talking points than they are at having any kind of honest debate.

Look at this thread. We are all (presumably) educated individuals who share a common bond - our love for Xavier University, and more specifically, the men's basketball program. Half of the people posting in this thread are calling the other half idiots because they disagree on what is really a pretty nebulous topic with very little indisputable evidence.

I don't think there's enough evidence to say humans are accelerating global 'climate change' or whatever that is, but I also don't think there is hard evidence that we aren't. People can have differing opinions on this topic without being idiots. Unfortunately our political system (and the media) has trained us that anybody who disagrees with our perspective on any issue is wrong, and often, stupid.

I think we can all agree that taking reasonable steps to reduce emissions is a good thing. Take a look as Shanghai, China if you disagree. We don't need to go overboard, but we don't want to walk around wearing masks because the smog is so thick. I don't need to be a scientist to know that breathing that stuff in all day every day is probably not good for you.

[paulxu]

Nick, please un-retire. We need more science teachers. We need more "knowledge based" sceptics, and less political charlatans.

(From Sagan's last interview).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyFw8UF85A&feature=player_embedded

[Masterofreality]

Here's my overriding issue.

I read numerous newspapers, almost on a daily basis, to get differing viewpoints. I cannot stand it, to Booze's point, when the writer...and editor who publishes the story...take the absolute position that the planet is in jeapordy over a climate that is absolutely changing, and that man is the absolute cause. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The New York Times and USA Today are the biggest purveyors of this garbage.

It is not definite, and the proponents of the theory keep changing their timeframes to suit their argument. All I know is that it is December 23 in Cleveland, Ohio. It is 34 degrees with snow flurries....as it should be. None of the plants in my yard are living longer in the season, the leaves still fall when they should and no palm trees are sprouting on my front yard. The temperature in Churchill Manitoba today is 31 BELOW ZERO real temperature. Don't give me crap about "potentially" 75 years from now. It's all based on shaky modeling done by people who have a vested financial interest in continuing to be given grants to spew it.

Enough with every current weather event being a result of "climate change" as if Hurricane Camille in 1969, which was way worse than Katrina, was not.

Remember The Y2K disaster!!!!!!!!!!

[Strange Brew]

Global warming (and cooling) has occurred numerous times in the earth's history without the help of human intervention. The current cycle has caused the vast majority of climatologists to wonder why this cycle appears to be accelerating a bit more rapidly than those of the past (based on the available evidence). Sooooooooo...
1. Scientists perceive a question (as indicated in the last sentence) that they want to resolve
2. They make extensive observations of factors relating to the somewhat seemingly accelerated global warming of this current cycle
3. They hypothesize that there is a global warming cycle in operation and that it may have been somewhat accelerated (although certainly not caused only by) human intervention.
4. They set up experiments, create the means for careful observation, collect massive amounts of data, record and organize that data, make themselves aware of other related studies throughout the world, and exchange information with their fellow climatologists by publishing their results.
5. From that and far more than I mention here, they draw certain conclusions from all the available data that they have learned and extrapolate what the long-term effects might be without minimizing the effect, what factors could be implemented to mitigate those human factors, and what positive effects could result from their implementation.

That's what I have learned throughout my readings on the subject. Perhaps you have a better understanding of it than I. After retiring following a 31-year career as a science teacher, I now only keep track of the progress of climatologists through reading related literature in journals, internet sites on the subject, etc. You may have a better background than I and study the subject more thoroughly than I do.

Please share with us (in a similar nutshell) how you perceive the situation.

I agree that steps 1-3 were followed however at 4 is where they went wrong. Observation was not done, instead conclusions were based on computer models predicting accelerated warming using flawed or in some cases faked data. Now that there has been no warming over the last 15 years and the computer models have been proven false, the scientist should have admitted a flawed hypothesis and started over. They haven't, they've become more shrill and attacked their critics.

I agree with Booze and MOR in that we should have a reasonable debate over cutting emissions that cause actual pollution (SO2 for example). However, it is difficult to have one when the warmist call everyone that disagrees with their failed theory anti-science.

[muskienick]

Here's my overriding issue.

I read numerous newspapers, almost on a daily basis, to get differing viewpoints. I cannot stand it, to Booze's point, when the writer...and editor who publishes the story...take the absolute position that the planet is in jeapordy over a climate that is absolutely changing, and that man is the absolute cause. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The New York Times and USA Today are the biggest purveyors of this garbage.

It is not definite, and the proponents of the theory keep changing their timeframes to suit their argument. All I know is that it is December 23 in Cleveland, Ohio. It is 34 degrees with snow flurries....as it should be. None of the plants in my yard are living longer in the season, the leaves still fall when they should and no palm trees are sprouting on my front yard. The temperature in Churchill Manitoba today is 31 BELOW ZERO real temperature. Don't give me crap about "potentially" 75 years from now. It's all based on shaky modeling done by people who have a vested financial interest in continuing to be given grants to spew it.

Enough with every current weather event being a result of "climate change" as if Hurricane Camille in 1969, which was way worse than Katrina, was not.

Remember The Y2K disaster!!!!!!!!!!

MOR,

You speak of writers and editors and report (without citing any links or specific "cuts and pastes) their outlandish statement that man is the "absolute cause" of climate change. I won't even dispute your claims about that because I choose to believe that you are an honest person.

HOWEVER --- I will challenge you to find a report, article, or statement made by any reputable climatologist who stated that mankind is the "absolute cause" of the current cycle of climate change.

I would further encourage you to show where any reputable climatologist claims that "every current weather event" is the "result of climate change." Any climatologist who would make such a statement --- there aren't any! --- would be admitting that he didn't even understand the meaning of the word, 'climate'!

Please don't transfer the ignorance of writers and editors to the studies by actual scientific experts in the field of climatology. And please don't cite specific weather conditions of a specific geographical location on a specific day or time to disparage the work of career climatologists. Feel free to rant at weather forecasters when they get their prognostications wrong or laud them when they are right.

Perhaps what you might try in order to get a better understanding of the REAL work being done in the field is to search out the articles on the subject in scientific journals that are dedicated to accurate reporting of what scientists are doing and what they are finding. Take the rantings of biased media writers and their editors with a rather large grain of salt!

[X-man]

My view on this is that there seems to be a geater likelihood that the earth's climate is warming than that it is not. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but I do trust the overwhelming sentiment in the profession that warming seems to be occurring and that it is correlated with the increasing levels of GHG in the atmosphere. I also have been impressed with the reporting done by the IPCC on this subject, and believe that the probabilistic nature of the conclusions drawn in that document is consistent with the vast majority of climate scientists.

That said, my policy take on the issue comes down to this: look at the costs of taking action and being wrong vs. not taking action and being wrong. It seems to me that the policy costs of being wrong are much higher if in fact the earth is warming than they are if the earth is not. If true, it makes sense to deal the carbon emission problem NOW, even if we are not sure that it is a primary cause of (the alleged) global warming that we appear to be observing. It is simply too risky to wait.

[bjf123]

Over the history of this planet, it's been much warmer and much colder. If the scientists say it's warming now, I'll take their word for it. My issue is how much of an impact humans are having. Wasn't most of Ohio under ice at one time? It certainly wasn't warmer then, but things did get warmer and the glaciers receded. There weren't a lot of people around back then to cause it.

Weren't the climatologists saying we were headed for a new ice age back in the 70s? Whatever happened to that?

The ocean levels have also been much higher and much lower over the course of history. How can we really know if the levels today are the norm?

Mother Nature is much more powerful and resilient than we think. One super volcano erupting can change all of this very quickly. It's happened before and will probably happen again. I recently read an article describing the amount of particulate matter pumped into the atmosphere by me of the geologically recent eruptions and how it dwarfs the amount mankind has put out over the last 500 years. The planet survived that and will continue to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[muskienick]

I agree that steps 1-3 were followed however at 4 is where they went wrong. Observation was not done, instead conclusions were based on computer models predicting accelerated warming using flawed or in some cases faked data. Now that there has been no warming over the last 15 years and the computer models have been proven false, the scientist should have admitted a flawed hypothesis and started over. They haven't, they've become more shrill and attacked their critics.

I agree with Booze and MOR in that we should have a reasonable debate over cutting emissions that cause actual pollution (SO2 for example). However, it is difficult to have one when the warmist call everyone that disagrees with their failed theory anti-science.
You do not give climatologists enough credit, SB. They know the scientific method better than most of the rest of us. Step four was done painstakingly. You admit that they have used computer models to make certain projections and to draw certain conclusions. Computer models can't be purchased at Staples in the same aisle as John Madden's latest football software. They must be developed in such a way as to accept various types of weather data that must be entered as collected and the model "intertplay" them to determine prior unknown relationships and estimate potential effects on the climates of those specific areas.They have accumulated huge amounts of data to make those models by spending months at a time at a myriad of places around the globe including the polar regions every year for many decades. In addition they have painstakingly measured the varying depths of ocean water and the expanse of the ice caps over equally long periods of time at numerous places on Earth from pole to pole.

I can understand how media writers and editors could possibly benefit from reporting extremist stories to sell more papers and attract more viewers and, in the process, receive more attractive levels of Advertising income. But I fail to see the huge benefits, either way, for climatologists to benefit by "creating" bogus science for monetary gain. If anything, it would seem to be a good way to be totally discredited by competing members of their own scientific community who would use actual and verifiable data to disprove their spoofs.

[Masterofreality]

MOR,

You speak of writers and editors and report (without citing any links or specific "cuts and pastes) their outlandish statement that man is the "absolute cause" of climate change. I won't even dispute your claims about that because I choose to believe that you are an honest person.

HOWEVER --- I will challenge you to find a report, article, or statement made by any reputable climatologist who stated that mankind is the "absolute cause" of the current cycle of climate change.


You are stating that the climate is changing. I say, not necessarily outside the normal variations of the world- man made or not.

Read USA Today and once a week there is an alarmist article, if not about sea ice, about polar bears, about sea levels rising, about the strength of storms, etc, etc etc, blahhhhhh!

[vee4xu]

I think all on either side of the climate change issue will stipulate that the USA Today does not represent scientific research in any form or fashion and hence may take liberties in extrapolating real science and climatological experiments into hyperbole.

[muskienick]

You are stating that the climate is changing. I say, not necessarily outside the normal variations of the world- man made or not.

Read USA Today and once a week there is an alarmist article, if not about sea ice, about polar bears, about sea levels rising, about the strength of storms, etc, etc etc, blahhhhhh!

USA Today is not the journal that I would turn to for substantive scientific information about the workings of an internal combustion engine much less about global climate change.

If you are denying the fact that the Earth's Climate is changing regardless of mankind's effect on it (or the lack thereof), then I must remove myself from this discussion with you. This is the point of no return!

I have never once claimed that scientists have said that mankind is the only cause (or even a minor factor) in the change in climate that they have been reporting over the last few decades. Do you at least admit that the climate has changed during the past history of the Earth both by warming and cooling to significant degrees (Ice Ages and Thawing Ages)? I didn't think anyone else would dispute that fact, especially given the more recent evidence of the effects of the advancing glaciers as far south as the Ohio River Valley as recently as 15,000 years ago (Glacial ridges, among other things). The two main factors that cause a change in the Earth's climate are the tilt of the Earth's axis (inclination - varying by more than 2 degrees over time) and the "wobble effect" of the earth on its axis (precession). When combined in their extremes, they produce one age (Ice Age) or the other (Global Warming).

Science has hypothesized that the speed of this most recent warming climate trend seems to be a bit accelerated as compared to past events of the same nature (based on comparative ice core samples, and other data). Because of that hypothesis, they have been collecting extensive volumes of data over the last 4-5 decades to determine if that is true and, if so, what effect mankind might have on that acceleration. With those few statements, I close out our discourse.

[waggy]

This is the point of no return? Right now?

[Masterofreality]

News agencies mold public opinion...on both sides.

When a number of news agencies have an agenda, and push it, many believe it.

Folks can talk all they want about this or that news source being credible, but the fact is that whatever they report, some segment of the population buy into it. Nick, you can talk all you want about the credibility of USA Today, but it reports stuff and some people believe it.

Once again all I know is that it is zero degrees in Chicago, it's 29 degrees in Cleveland, it's December and it's cold. Just as it should be.

[X-man]

(Science has hypothesized that the speed of this most recent warming climate trend seems to be a bit accelerated as compared to past events of the same nature (based on comparative ice core samples, and other data). Because of that hypothesis, they have been collecting extensive volumes of data over the last 4-5 decades to determine if that is true and, if so, what effect mankind might have on that acceleration. With those few statements, I close out our discourse.

I am pretty sure that the ice core data, which goes back over 600,000 years shows only that the GHG concentrations now are higher than they have ever been over the ice core period. And while there is pretty strong evidence linking GHG concentrations to climate change, I would hesitate to conclude that the ice core data show that warming is accelerating. That said, if I were a betting man I would conclude that global warming is happening and that it is being caused in part by the carbon emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

And BTW...Merry Christmas to all, and see you at the WF game on Saturday!

[muskienick]

I am pretty sure that the ice core data, which goes back over 600,000 years shows only that the GHG concentrations now are higher than they have ever been over the ice core period. And while there is pretty strong evidence linking GHG concentrations to climate change, I would hesitate to conclude that the ice core data show that warming is accelerating. That said, if I were a betting man I would conclude that global warming is happening and that it is being caused in part by the carbon emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

And BTW...Merry Christmas to all, and see you at the WF game on Saturday!

I agree, X-man. That's why I included the phrase "...and other data" at the end of that sentence.

[X-man]

Sorry, Nick. I didn't mean to misquote you.

[Kahns Krazy]

It's cold again today. Global warming is over.

[Masterofreality]

It's cold again today. Global warming is over.

It's Christmas Eve, it's 20 degrees and it's snowing in Cleveland. White Christmas assured.

The planet is in harmony, just like always. Merry Christmas.

[muskiefan82]

It's Christmas Eve, it's 20 degrees and it's snowing in Cleveland. White Christmas assured.

The planet is in harmony, just like always. Merry Christmas.

In Cleveland, it's Snowglobal warming.

[Muskie in dayton]

It’s often said that human-induced climate change is a scientific argument, not a political argument. That is completely incorrect - but we keep asking the wrong question.

First, here is why it is not a scientific debate. The earth is too complex of a system with way too many variables to scientifically predict. Plus the time period of data we have is way too small relative to the age of the earth. To make an analogy, it is one pixel on the television. We can’t see the whole picture of what we are watching, much less know how the show will turn out. The fact is there never will be in our lifetimes, a definitive answer. So the only thing we know for sure about human-induced climate change, is that we really don’t know anything for sure. Those who claim to know the answer are either fools, or megalomaniacs.

So the question is not “is human-induced climate change real?” The question is, “what is the right policy in light of this uncertainty about human-induced climate change?” If we have a political debate on that, we would be more productive, and sound a lot more intelligent.

[vee4xu]

If we have a political debate on that, we would be more productive, and sound a lot more intelligent.

Politics more productive and intelligent than science? That's rich.

[Muskie in dayton]

If we have a political debate on that, we would be more productive, and sound a lot more intelligent.Politics more productive and intelligent than science? That's rich.Huh?? That's not what I said. You totally missed the point.

[vee4xu]

That's why I used a question mark. Though I am still not sure how to interpret it, my apologies for misconstruing your point.

[Muskie in dayton]

The point is arguing the science is fruitless. If people could just accept the uncertainty, we could have meaningful policy discussion.

[XU-PA]

having read some of this thread, it's tough to see whether it's a serious discussion or not, but I guess that goes with the territory here.

Anway, the question is, where is the warming.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/17/warm-november-global-climate-report/4052839/

The telling quotes in this one are buried a bit.
"November marked the 345th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average."

and
" 2013 is now on pace for the warmest non-El Niño year on record"

It is very interesting how this is all played politically. Spent 8 of the last 10 years living in Maine, current Governor there is kind of a, well, idiot in many people eyes, others will say he's just a shoot from the hip guy who speaks his mind.
Anyway, he noted that with all the warming of the ocean, that massive ice melting around the pole is opening up quicker shipping routes from the northeast to China, and he considers that a very good thing. This from the head of a state that has a vast majority of people living within a few minutes of the rising coastal waters, AND the state that saw it's winter shrimp season cancelled, the shrimpers sitting idle because the shrimp population has been devastated by warmer ocean water in the Gulf of Maine.

So, if we're actually on the not serious side, us folks in Florida certainly enjoy the global warming this December, and those of us who own property several feet above sea level and a few miles from the coast are anticipating our turn at owning beach front property.

[SemajParlor]

The goal of the left is to have govt control everything. Global warming is just a play for the left to control the environment.

Oh.

[Masterofreality]

Every hurricane season is WEATHER not CLIMATE. So if we have a particularly bad hurricane year or a good year, it says NOTHING about climate changes...Now if it keeps happening one way or the other over the long haul then you start talking about climatic shifts. It is exactly the same as if we have an especially cold winter, it is not a case for global cooling or the reverse for warming.

Oh yes, the old "it's not climate it's weather" argument.

Yet, here it is in The Washington Post today from no less a debater than the UN's Kofi Annan. QUOTE:

"Recent months have also brought examples- from typhoons in the Philipines to the Polar Vortex in North America and widespread floods in Europe- of the increase in extreme weather events are the inevitable outcome of climate change". Hmmm. Nah, no attempt at linkage there.

And then this from Annan: QUOTE:

"Climate justice also demands that those richer countries that have done the most to cause the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere- and reaped the benefits- help poorer nations adapt to the climate change already underway."

So, there it is in one tidy little Washington Post article. Weather IS apparently the same as Climate and alleged "Climate Change" is a very convenient attempt (as opposed to an "Inconvenient Truth") to find another way to redistribute wealth. Hey Kofi, why don't you just publish this in the Beijing Times? They seem to be putting out more "greenhouse gasses" right now than anyone else on the planet. How about they redistribute some of their wealth? I thought that was their philosophy anyway?

Meanwhile, it's 8 degrees and snowing in Cleveland...in January...and will be below zero this week. Where the hell is the warming?

[paulxu]

Meanwhile, it's 8 degrees and snowing in Cleveland...in January...and will be below zero this week. Where the hell is the warming?

You need to take up this question with NASA I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/nasa-global-warming-graphic-six-decades_n_4666447.html

[XU 87]

I wonder if Time Magazine will have another cover story that we may be experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age, similar to a similar story they ran in the late 70's.

[BBC 08]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

[Masterofreality]

I wonder if Time Magazine will have another cover story that we may be experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age, similar to a similar story they ran in the late 70's.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

Well, then...

Let's just put these two together......

[vee4xu]

It's moved north. The temp in Anchorage, Alaska will be in the mid-40's today. Polar ice caps will be melting, no?

[ChicagoX]

I have a hard time understanding how one can come to conclusions on global climate change based on a couple cold snaps affecting less than half of North America. For all the people in the Midwest and East suffering from cold snaps caused by unusual jet stream patterns, the Southwest and West are experiencing extreme drought and temperatures that are warmer than normal for this time of year.

[X-band '01]

Go figure. I was in San Diego a couple of years ago in March when it was cool and rainy and it was sunny and 80 here in the Midwest for a couple of weeks.

As to MOR's rant, good luck getting the Chinese government to even acknowledge how much greenhouse gases they're responsible for.

[muskienick]

You need to take up this question with NASA I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/nasa-global-warming-graphic-six-decades_n_4666447.html

Paul,

I suspect that someone on this board will likely surmise that there is a huge conspiracy between NASA and the HVAC and Sump Pump cartels to explain NASA's reporting relative to the global warming trend.

NASA reported this past week that 2013 was the seventh-warmest year on record. NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) reported the Earth's average temperature for 2013 was 58.12 degrees (F), the 4th warmest since 1880.

Both agencies reported that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century with the hottest being 2010.

Be that as it may, it still takes more evidence than a mere 13 years to indicate a shift in global climate change. But if some folks think an 8-degree day in January in Cleveland is enough evidence to dispel the possibility of global warming, more power to them.

[xu82]

I'm not sure if this is WEATHER or CLIMATE, but it seems like it's been cold here for a friggin' lifetime! I should have stayed in Florida...

[OH.X.MI]

Meanwhile, it's 8 degrees and snowing in Cleveland...in January...and will be below zero this week. Where the hell is the warming?


Just because you have food on your table in Cleveland does not mean there isn't starvation in Africa.

[Mel Cooley XU'81]

Seems like a good time simply to plump my signature.

[Michigan Muskie]

If this is warmer than normal, I don't want to see normal.

Verkhoyanskaya Ten Day Forecast (http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/Verkhoyanskaya+RSSA1963:1:RS)

[Masterofreality]

If this is warmer than normal, I don't want to see normal.

Verkhoyanskaya Ten Day Forecast (http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/Verkhoyanskaya+RSSA1963:1:RS)

That -22 is a true warming trend.

[vee4xu]

I think sometimes people use global warming and climate change interchangeably. They are different terms and conditions.

Definitions

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

[LadyMuskie]

Turns out, the cold may have to do with a decline in activity on the sun. The BBC talks about it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806)

I once watched a program on The History Channel about mini ice ages. They think it's likely that the horrific conditions at Valley Forge during the Revolution were similar to what we're experiencing now.

So, does this prove or disprove climate change? Does it matter? Scientists, who are experts in their fields, have measured the average temperature of the earth and found that it is increasing. (The United States isn't the only country on earth, and while the northern hemisphere is experiencing this extreme cold, the souther hemisphere has been experiencing record highs. Additionally, arguing against these experts is like going to a specialist to find out what's wrong with you, and then leaving the doctor's office saying "Naw. That's not it. I know better.") To my way of thinking two things matter (a) those who scream and bitch that climate change is all lies would freak out if some outsider with no educational background or experience came in and told them that they were doing their jobs wrong and everything they spout is lies and (b) regardless of what is causing the overall increase in temperature, if we can do ANYTHING to keep it from climbing, we should. This is the only planet we have. I know it's hard to digest something that can't be seen or even felt from day to day, but the changes being requested are better for humans in a variety of ways. Why not make them and improve our quality of life in many ways? What are so many people so scared of when it comes to the climate? Denial is just easier, I guess.

[xu82]

Turns out, the cold may have to do with a decline in activity on the sun. The BBC talks about it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806)

I once watched a program on The History Channel about mini ice ages. They think it's likely that the horrific conditions at Valley Forge during the Revolution were similar to what we're experiencing now.

So, does this prove or disprove climate change? Does it matter? Scientists, who are experts in their fields, have measured the average temperature of the earth and found that it is increasing. (The United States isn't the only country on earth, and while the northern hemisphere is experiencing this extreme cold, the souther hemisphere has been experiencing record highs. Additionally, arguing against these experts is like going to a specialist to find out what's wrong with you, and then leaving the doctor's office saying "Naw. That's not it. I know better.") To my way of thinking two things matter (a) those who scream and bitch that climate change is all lies would freak out if some outsider with no educational background or experience came in and told them that they were doing their jobs wrong and everything they spout is lies and (b) regardless of what is causing the overall increase in temperature, if we can do ANYTHING to keep it from climbing, we should. This is the only planet we have. I know it's hard to digest something that can't be seen or even felt from day to day, but the changes being requested are better for humans in a variety of ways. Why not make them and improve our quality of life in many ways? What are so many people so scared of when it comes to the climate? Denial is just easier, I guess.

I wish it was that easy. I agree things should be cleaned up, but wishing for the world to all sing a happy Earth Day song in unison is ignoring reality. Countries need energy and will find the least expensive alternative available. Undeveloped countries are more worried about food than air quality and the state of the climate a century (or a decade) from now. I am NOT an expert, but I know it's more complicated than wanting everyone to do better so the world will be a better place. Sadly, financial gain and short term quality of life will rule over long term global interest. Short term quality of life for many means do we starve or do we not.

[LadyMuskie]

I wish it was that easy. I agree things should be cleaned up, but wishing for the world to all sing a happy Earth Day song in unison is ignoring reality. Countries need energy and will find the least expensive alternative available. Undeveloped countries are more worried about food than air quality and the state of the climate a century (or a decade) from now. I am NOT an expert, but I know it's more complicated than wanting everyone to do better so the world will be a better place. Sadly, financial gain and short term quality of life will rule over long term global interest. Short term quality of life for many means do we starve or do we not.

I was going to respond to this with a long diatribe, but then I realized that if you really think those of us who are advocating change to save the planet are nonsensically "wishing for the world to all sing a Happy Earth Day song in unison", there's no point for me to respond.

[muskienick]

I was going to respond to this with a long diatribe, but then I realized that if you really think those of us who are advocating change to save the planet are nonsensically "wishing for the world to all sing a Happy Earth Day song in unison", there's no point for me to respond.

I tried to give you some additional rep points, LadyMuskie, but the man wants me to spread it around a bit more before he'll let me do so.

[X-man]

I agree with LadyMuskie on this, as well. The characterization of people, who believe that climate change is probable enough and with global costs high enough to merit a serious exploration of remedies before those costs are incurred, as either liberal control freaks or wacky "Happy Earth Day song" singers is just plain stupid. Can't people have an honest disagreement about this (important) issue? And if so, can't people discuss these differences rationally?

[xu82]

Apparently I didn't make myself clear - my bad. I think it's incredibly important, and equally complicated. This is not an easy fix. I don't know how much is natural and how much is man-made, but just based on photos of some areas of China (or maybe LA?) you know that can't be good. I am not making fun of those wanting to address the issue, just overwhelmed by the complexity of determining exactly how to get any change. People/countries will do what's easiest and "best" for them. How do you get developing countries to "go green" when they are just trying to feed themselves? I am pro-planet, but I am also pointing out just what an uphill battle this is. All I was trying to comment on is how difficult it will be to get significant changes. We can try to make things better, but don't expect big improvements in the short term. If you read carefully I stated I think things need to be cleaned up, but apparently the "Earth Day" bit struck a nerve. Sorry, not trying to offend anyone and in fact I believe we actually agree! (And anyone who knows me would laugh hysterically at the thought of someone characterizing me as liberal)

[vee4xu]

The forecasted temp today in Nome, Alaska is 43 degrees. Also northern CA has been experiencing temps 10-15 degrees above normal and historic drought for the past several months. So, there's that.

[X-man]

Apparently I didn't make myself clear - my bad. I think it's incredibly important, and equally complicated. This is not an easy fix. I don't know how much is natural and how much is man-made, but just based on photos of some areas of China (or maybe LA?) you know that can't be good. I am not making fun of those wanting to address the issue, just overwhelmed by the complexity of determining exactly how to get any change. People/countries will do what's easiest and "best" for them. How do you get developing countries to "go green" when they are just trying to feed themselves? I am pro-planet, but I am also pointing out just what an uphill battle this is. All I was trying to comment on is how difficult it will be to get significant changes. We can try to make things better, but don't expect big improvements in the short term. If you read carefully I stated I think things need to be cleaned up, but apparently the "Earth Day" bit struck a nerve. Sorry, not trying to offend anyone and in fact I believe we actually agree! (And anyone who knows me would laugh hysterically at the thought of someone characterizing me as liberal)

If you are interested in finding out what the majority of climate change scientists believe (and the odds they estimate for being right or wrong on this issue), look at the latest IPCC release. And if the climate change issue is to be addressed through changes in the way we produce and use energy, the predominant costs of change must fall on developed rather than developing countries. This is something everyone interested in crafting such policy fully recognizes. Politically this is obviously exceedingly difficult to pull off, for all kinds of reasons. But that fact doesn't reduce the importance of trying to find a way to get it done.

[spazzrico]

The forecasted temp today in Nome, Alaska is 43 degrees. Also northern CA has been experiencing temps 10-15 degrees above normal and historic drought for the past several months. So, there's that.

That's just weather, the current conditions which can vary significantly from year to year, month to month, and so on. Climate is average conditions over a very long time. So anyone who claims one way or the other that the current weather conditions this year prove or disprove anything at all about climate change are flat out wrong.

[BandAid]

All I know is there's probably going to be a bunch of babies next fall

[vee4xu]

That's just weather, the current conditions which can vary significantly from year to year, month to month, and so on. Climate is average conditions over a very long time. So anyone who claims one way or the other that the current weather conditions this year prove or disprove anything at all about climate change are flat out wrong.

I realize that. It is me joining in the ridiculousness of those who view individual weather events as some kind of trend.

[spazzrico]

Ha. Yeah, tis one of the two times of year. Talking heads will be back out again in August.

[JTG]

Here's my problem with the whole global warming business. Most of the proponents of global warming want the US to take the lead. Our air is pretty clean now, while people in China have to wear gas masks in public to breathe. We can clean up all we want, but if other contries are pumping 100 times the crap into the atmosphere that we are, what have we accomplished. We put ourselves at an economic competetive disadvantage by implementing some of the clean air policies, while China with their filthy air is buying up US companies at an alarming rate.
Why not put most of this climate change stuff on hold until we get our economy fixed. Get people back to work, and get companies to spend money on expansion, to the point where businesses are economically viable so that they don't bail out and sell off to the Chinese.

[Strange Brew]

Here's my problem with the whole global warming business. Most of the proponents of global warming want the US to take the lead. Our air is pretty clean now, while people in China have to wear gas masks in public to breathe. We can clean up all we want, but if other contries are pumping 100 times the crap into the atmosphere that we are, what have we accomplished. We put ourselves at an economic competetive disadvantage by implementing some of the clean air policies, while China with their filthy air is buying up US companies at an alarming rate.
Why not put most of this climate change stuff on hold until we get our economy fixed. Get people back to work, and get companies to spend money on expansion, to the point where businesses are economically viable so that they don't bail out and sell off to the Chinese.

Agree and here are my problems with the theory:

The ridiculously absurd hockey stick graph propagated by Mann
The fact that Hansen (you do the research) has admitted to the a lack of warming since '97
The IPCC rep that stated China is a model for other countries to follow
The fact that Al Gore has become super rich off of a movie banned in British schools for inaccuracies
Lastly, I challenge any of you science deniers to answer these questions:
what is the mean temperature of the planet?
what is the coefficient for CO2 as x and its relationship to temperature?
what is CO2's relationship to human existence in the ecosystem?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Agree and here are my problems with the theory:

The ridiculously absurd hockey stick graph propagated by Mann
The fact that Hansen (you do the research) has admitted to the a lack of warming since '97
The IPCC rep that stated China is a model for other countries to follow
The fact that Al Gore has become super rich off of a movie banned in British schools for inaccuracies
Lastly, I challenge any of you science deniers to answer these questions:
what is the mean temperature of the planet?
what is the coefficient for CO2 as x and its relationship to temperature?
what is CO2's relationship to human existence in the ecosystem?

Your questions aside, I don't need a movie or a scientist to tell me this is our only planet and we all shouldn't take a collective dump on it just to make a buck. I am truly sorry you don't understand this simple issue.

[vee4xu]

There have been some credible, independent scientific studies addressing the existence and impact of climate change throughout this thread. Just curious, have scientists who doubt climate change that impacts the earth ever written any scientific studies supporting the notion? So far it seems to me that those who doubt the existence of climate change pretty much poo-poo scientific studies supporting its existence with conjecture. Yet, they demand proof from supporters of climate change's scientifically proven opinions. Is this just my imagination? I would love to be wrong and be able to read a credible scientific study supporting the hypothesis that there is no significant climate change currently occurring. It helps me balance my thinking.

[XUFan09]

There have been some credible, independent scientific studies addressing the existence and impact of climate change throughout this thread. Just curious, have scientists who doubt climate change that impacts the earth ever written any scientific studies supporting the notion? So far it seems to me that those who doubt the existence of climate change pretty much poo-poo scientific studies supporting its existence with conjecture. Yet, they demand proof from supporters of climate change's scientifically proven opinions. Is this just my imagination? I would love to be wrong and be able to read a credible scientific study supporting the hypothesis that there is no significant climate change currently occurring. It helps me balance my thinking.

I'm sure the scientists who are on the other side have published studies to support their case, but they are such a tiny minority of the scientific community that it's difficult to find those studies (especially when you have to wade through the conspiracy theories and other B.S. in pursuit of legitimate work).

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[XU 87]

That's just weather, the current conditions which can vary significantly from year to year, month to month, and so on. Climate is average conditions over a very long time. So anyone who claims one way or the other that the current weather conditions this year prove or disprove anything at all about climate change are flat out wrong.

It seems to me that the best evidence of global warming is whether or not the globe is actually getting warmer. If the globe is getting cooler, that would indicate that we are not experiencing warming.

[GoMuskies]

For a few days there I was pretty certain we were headed for another ice age.

[XU 87]

There have been some credible, independent scientific studies addressing the existence and impact of climate change throughout this thread. Just curious, have scientists who doubt climate change that impacts the earth ever written any scientific studies supporting the notion? So far it seems to me that those who doubt the existence of climate change pretty much poo-poo scientific studies supporting its existence with conjecture. Yet, they demand proof from supporters of climate change's scientifically proven opinions. Is this just my imagination? I would love to be wrong and be able to read a credible scientific study supporting the hypothesis that there is no significant climate change currently occurring. It helps me balance my thinking.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[XU 87]

For a few days there I was pretty certain we were headed for another ice age.

If you change your word "days" to "years", Time Magazine said the same thing in 1978.

[paulxu]

Yikes 87. You need a better source than that old one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

[XU 87]

Yikes 87. You need a better source than that old one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

And I would suggest that you have a better source than Huffington Post. So there.

Gotta go. I'm looking for an article from National Review that says global warming is a myth.

[OH.X.MI]

Gotta go. I'm looking for an article from National Review that says global warming is a myth.


Ahh yes National Review, the reputable source of journalism that compared Pete Seeger to Nazi filmmakers and fascist poets in their "obituary" of him today. I'm sure they will have some exceptionally informed reporting on global warming.

[XU 87]

Ahh yes National Review, the reputable source of journalism that compared Pete Seeger to Nazi filmmakers and fascist poets in their "obituary" of him today. I'm sure they will have some exceptionally informed reporting on global warming.

I was joking. Just like I don't find Huffington Post persuasive, I doubt Paul would find National Review persuasive.

[spazzrico]

It seems to me that the best evidence of global warming is whether or not the globe is actually getting warmer. If the globe is getting cooler, that would indicate that we are not experiencing warming.

Yes that's true. And we can tell by taking average conditions over time to give us global mean temperatures. And on that basis, the Earth is indeed getting warmer; the trend line is clear over the past century or so.

[spazzrico]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

This, by the way, is pretty spot on in showing how skeptics fundamentally misread climate change, and global temperatures. It shows you why people were worried about cooling temps in 1976 and why now the skeptics are out about "flat" temperatures since 1998. Well of course if you only can look at short time horizons, yeah, you are going to see these things. And of course if you cherry-pick a year like the unusually warm 1998, then you miss out on the actual trends over time that define what climate actually is.

[paulxu]

It seems to me that the best evidence of global warming is whether or not the globe is actually getting warmer. If the globe is getting cooler, that would indicate that we are not experiencing warming.

You know, when I look for information, most of the (I'm assuming) accurate record keeping on the globe only goes back to 1880, and those records indicate a gradual net rise in temperature.


In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I suppose other stuff are the ice core samples for what comprised the atmosphere over the course of centuries, and from those they notice a CO2 increase.

[muskienick]

You know, when I look for information, most of the (I'm assuming) accurate record keeping on the globe only goes back to 1880, and those records indicate a gradual net rise in temperature.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I suppose other stuff are the ice core samples for what comprised the atmosphere over the course of centuries, and from those they notice a CO2 increase.

Paul, Please quit confusing the issue with your damned FACTS when it is plainly clear that a number of folks posting to this thread much prefer interesting conjecture.
(Only the section of my above reply written in italics was meant to be facetious.)

[Strange Brew]

Your questions aside, I don't need a movie or a scientist to tell me this is our only planet and we all shouldn't take a collective dump on it just to make a buck. I am truly sorry you don't understand this simple issue.

AZXUGRAD, I'm sure you are a great person but your assumptions about me illustrate your own extremism.

I agree we shouldn't trash our planet for as you stated, it's the only one we have, which is why I:

use a reel mower to cut my yard (small yard, thought I'd save the gas and do my part to lower the price)
compost my dog's excrement and lawn waste to use as fertilizer
Do my best to conserve water (I live in a high desert)
My heat and cooking are powered by natural gas which burns cleaner than coal (and by cleaner I mean less sulfur not CO2)
I live within a mile of my office so that I burn less gasoline and frankly I love my 7 minute commute
I recycle 4 times as much waste than I throw out.

I'd be willing to wager that my eco footprint is much, much smaller than yours. It still doesn't change the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant and even if it were, carbon taxes won't fix it.

[X-man]

AZXUGRAD, I'm sure you are a great person but your assumptions about me illustrate your own extremism.

I agree we shouldn't trash our planet for as you stated, it's the only one we have, which is why I:

use a reel mower to cut my yard (small yard, thought I'd save the gas and do my part to lower the price)
compost my dog's excrement and lawn waste to use as fertilizer
Do my best to conserve water (I live in a high desert)
My heat and cooking are powered by natural gas which burns cleaner than coal (and by cleaner I mean less sulfur not CO2)
I live within a mile of my office so that I burn less gasoline and frankly I love my 7 minute commute
I recycle 4 times as much waste than I throw out.

I'd be willing to wager that my eco footprint is much, much smaller than yours. It still doesn't change the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant and even if it were, carbon taxes won't fix it.

I congratulate you on your eco-friendly behavior, but I am curious about the basis for your last comment. Are you saying that there is no substitute for burning carbon (you would appear to be living testimony that carbon usage can be moderated), or are you saying that carbon users are completely independent of the price they pay to use carbon? And what is the basis for this claim? Economists (I happen to be one) and policy makers have long believed, with plenty of evidence to support that belief, that price matters for all goods for which substitutes exist.

[Kahns Krazy]

Yes that's true. And we can tell by taking average conditions over time to give us global mean temperatures. And on that basis, the Earth is indeed getting warmer; the trend line is clear over the past century or so.

Doesn't evidence also suggest that the Earth went through cyclical warming and cooling periods for millions of years, long before the advent of power plants and internal combustion engines and aerosol deodorant?

[boozehound]

I have a hard time understanding how one can come to conclusions on global climate change based on a couple cold snaps affecting less than half of North America. For all the people in the Midwest and East suffering from cold snaps caused by unusual jet stream patterns, the Southwest and West are experiencing extreme drought and temperatures that are warmer than normal for this time of year.


Just because you have food on your table in Cleveland does not mean there isn't starvation in Africa.

I agree with both of these statements.

The world is a large place. We have both a Northern Hemisphere and a Southern Hemisphere. Drawing any type of of conclusions about the veracity of global climate change based on temperature trends for a very small portion of the country is simply ridiculous. If it is unseasonably warm in Southern Chile right now does that 'cancel out' the cold in the Midwest?

I'm not a big believer in 'global warming' theory for the most part. I'm not saying it is entirely untrue, but I don't think there is enough evidence to prove that the global climate changes we are seeing are not part of a normal cycle. The revelation that many global warming 'experts' were falsifying data has destroyed most/all of the credibiltiy associated with their research, in my mind.

Still, taking reasonable steps to reduce our carbon footprint isn't a bad thing, IMO. We can start with burning less fossil fuel and using more nuclear energy to power our homes and businesses.

[XU 87]

You know, when I look for information, most of the (I'm assuming) accurate record keeping on the globe only goes back to 1880, and those records indicate a gradual net rise in temperature.



https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I suppose other stuff are the ice core samples for what comprised the atmosphere over the course of centuries, and from those they notice a CO2 increase.

Your chart shows we had global cooling for about 60 years. I guess Time was right- we were on the verge of the second coming of the Ice Age.

And if we accept your chart as being accurate, is all this concern of global warming because last decade was .6 degree hotter than the 1930's?

I also attach my "own" research below.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

[spazzrico]

Doesn't evidence also suggest that the Earth went through cyclical warming and cooling periods for millions of years, long before the advent of power plants and internal combustion engines and aerosol deodorant?

Yes, but the speed of this change is unprecedented, or at least very unusually rapid and completely in concert with rising CO2 emissions associated with industrialization of the past 200 years.

[paulxu]

My guess would be that the concern is a result of the trend line.

[X-man]

That chart shows we had global cooling for about 60 years. I guess Time was right- we were on the verge of the second coming of the Ice Age.

And if we accept this chart as being accurate, is all this concern of global warming because last decade was .6 degree hotter than the 1930's?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

Odd chart given the fact that in the last decade, the earth has experienced several hottest years on record.

[Strange Brew]

I congratulate you on your eco-friendly behavior, but I am curious about the basis for your last comment. Are you saying that there is no substitute for burning carbon (you would appear to be living testimony that carbon usage can be moderated), or are you saying that carbon users are completely independent of the price they pay to use carbon? And what is the basis for this claim? Economists (I happen to be one) and policy makers have long believed, with plenty of evidence to support that belief, that price matters for all goods for which substitutes exist.

You missed the point. I was responding to the post that inferred that my lack of concern about a trace gas in the atmosphere, that all humans exhale, somehow indicated that I had a lack of concern for the environment. To your economic question about the effectiveness of a carbon tax on reducing pollution. Sure, obviously it will reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere but it is a fools errand in that it is inconsequential because CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring molecule that is essential to human and plant existence.

Edit: My mistake in my previous post was stating "even if it (CO2) were (bad grammar alert, should be is)".

[X-man]

You missed the point. I was responding to the post that inferred that my lack of concern about a trace gas in the atmosphere, that all humans exhale, somehow indicated that I had a lack of concern for the environment. To your economic question about the effectiveness of a carbon tax on reducing pollution. Sure, obviously it will reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere but it is a fools errand in that it is inconsequential because CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring molecule that is essential to human and plant existence.

Edit: My mistake in my previous post was stating "even if it (CO2) were (bad grammar alert, should be is)".

I guess so! I still don't understand what point I missed in your earlier post. Regarding your statement that CO2 is not a pollutant, I suppose you do recognize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG). As such, it has the potential of trapping the earth's radiated heat and therefore contributing to the climate change problem that so many environmental scientists are concerned about. There are other GHG's, of course, and some (like methane) are far more "efficient" than CO2 in trapping heat. But CO2 is the most abundant, and most closely connected to man's use of carbon based energy sources. I agree with you that it is (obviously) essential to life (at least plant life), but too much of a good thing can be dangerous. And ice core samples make it very clear that GHG concentrations are higher today than they have been in at least the last 600K years. Furthermore the growth in such concentrations can be tied directly to industrial growth and the growth of carbon-based energy use. If GHG concentrations are connected to climate change (an "if" that is debatable but is certainly possible), and if climate change creates the kinds of economic costs that many analysts (and more and more US corporations) believe will occur, it behooves all of us to consider ways to incentivize carbon use reduction as well as ways to do it fairly in the global community.

[XUFan09]

Did anyone even argue that CO2 is a pollutant?

[spazzrico]

In essence, yes. The EPA officially declared CO2 as a pollutant in 2009.

[Masterofreality]

In essence, yes. The EPA officially declared CO2 as a pollutant in 2009.

Great. Let's all stop exhaling.

[X-man]

Great. Let's all stop exhaling.

That is precisely the kind of "anti-science" comment that prevents any rational discussion of what is arguably one of the (potentially) most important issues of our time.

[XUFan09]

In essence, yes. The EPA officially declared CO2 as a pollutant in 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124001537515830975

"The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency."

[Masterofreality]

That is precisely the kind of "anti-science" comment that prevents any rational discussion of what is arguably one of the (potentially) most important issues of our time.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124001537515830975

"The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency."

A rational discussion based upon false assumptions. Yep.

[Muskie in dayton]

You missed the point. I was responding to the post that inferred that my lack of concern about a trace gas in the atmosphere, that all humans exhale, somehow indicated that I had a lack of concern for the environment. To your economic question about the effectiveness of a carbon tax on reducing pollution. Sure, obviously it will reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere but it is a fools errand in that it is inconsequential because CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring molecule that is essential to human and plant existence.

Edit: My mistake in my previous post was stating "even if it (CO2) were (bad grammar alert, should be is)".

That is correct, just like..... chromium. Just because it's naturally occurring and beneficial at naturally occurring levels doesn't mean it's not harmful when anthropogenically concentrated.

[spazzrico]

Right, it doesn't harm us directly, only indirectly as noted. But in labelling it a pollutant the EPA can legally regulate it.

[X-man]

A rational discussion based upon false assumptions. Yep.

What, pray tell, are those "false assumptions"?

[Masterofreality]

In essence, yes. The EPA officially declared CO2 as a pollutant in 2009.


What, pray tell, are those "false assumptions"?

The statement above re CO2. False.

One of many, including using whatever the hell "modeling" that fits the man-made warming argument. Those models seem to be malleable.

[X-man]

The statement above re CO2. False.

One of many, including using whatever the hell "modeling" that fits the man-made warming argument. Those models seem to be malleable.

Explain, please. What do you mean by "many", and what is your evidence supporting the charge of "malleable"? The CO2 issue is, of course, completely a non-issue.

[Masterofreality]

Malleable. Please read the below. Charles Krauthammer writes the perfect summary of my position in the Washington Post. And please read the entire piece, not just my clip below.

" If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

[X-man]

Malleable. Please read the below. Charles Krauthammer writes the perfect summary of my position in the Washington Post. And please read the entire piece, not just my clip below.

" If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

The only predictions that are changing are the ones that say climate change is occurring faster than earlier predictions.

[vee4xu]

Wondering if any of this will create a Texas Hooker? Google it.

[Masterofreality]

The only predictions that are changing are the ones that say climate change is occurring faster than earlier predictions.

RIIIIIIIIIGHT. That's why there has been a 15 year lull in temp increases. From the column:

" Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?"

[X-man]

RIIIIIIIIIGHT. That's why there has been a 15 year lull in temp increases. From the column:

" Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?"

Curious statement given the fact that ten of the warmest recorded years in earth's history have been in the last fifteen years.

[XU 87]

Curious statement given the fact that ten of the warmest recorded years in earth's history have been in the last fifteen years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

These people disagree with you.

[xu82]

On a somewhat less serious and confrontational note, it was down right spring-like around here this weekend - glorious even - and I am all for some warming at my little portion of the globe. Winter sucks! Here's to hoping some of you more northern folks get some of this soon. The end of winter is near! (And then it comes back again ...)

[LadyMuskie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

These people disagree with you.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Are you going to cite The National Enquirer and TMZ next?

[XU 87]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Are you going to cite The National Enquirer and TMZ next?

If they are citing to scientific articles, then yes I would. The Daily Mail didn't do the research or write the results; they just wrote an article about this scientific article.

[X-man]

None of us, I suspect, are in a position to assess the relative merits of the various positions taken on this topic in the climate literature. My view, that taking action to reduce carbon emissions is worth doing, rests on two propositions: (1) the vast majority of climate scientists appear to believe that the earth is warming and that higher levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations are the likely cause for this, and (2) the cost of being wrong is far higher if those climate scientists are right and we do nothing, than it is if they are wrong and we reduce our carbon emissions. I will happily rethink my position if either of these two propositions can be shown to be false.

[Masterofreality]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Are you going to cite The National Enquirer and TMZ next?

Well, it was also printed in the Washington Post, arguably the best newspaper in the US. No one would accuse it of being a tabloid, and the scientists quoted aren't quacks. The point being, while many publications like USA Today and the NY Times continue to pontificate that man-made climate change is a certified certainty, it clearly is NOT. Dissenting voices must be heard...and they are being heard through the noisy madness.

Meanwhile, while some with liberal agendas in this country insist on breast beating and wearing sackcloth and ashes, the Chinese continue to burn coal at a humongous rate with impunity. Plus Obama is determined to rule by decree from on high rather than going through what he considers to be a "messy" political process. Don't like things? Can't get the ridiculous Cap and Trade through? Hell, just change the EPA rules to your liking.

[X-man]

MOR...if you're just going to spew political rant, please consider changing your monicker from "Voice of Reason" to "Political Hack".

[Masterofreality]

MOR...if you're just going to spew political rant, please consider changing your monicker from "Voice of Reason" to "Political Hack".

Not spewing anything. You, sir are denying that there is a reasonable debate here, just as Obama did last week in his speech. If any one is spewing a falsely "settled" opinion it is he.

Everything I said in that last post is accurate. Obama is changing rules to get around legitimate legislation, as he has done many times. The cases now in front of the Supreme Court prove it.

[XU 87]

MOR...if you're just going to spew political rant, please consider changing your monicker from "Voice of Reason" to "Political Hack".

When you can't argue against the message, just attack the messenger instead.

[X-man]

Whatever. I laid out my position six posts above, and my reasons. I did not accuse anyone on the other side of having an "agenda", nor did I claim that I or anyone else knew with certainty what is happening to the earth's climate. I am curious how you guys (87 and MOR) know so much with certainty on the issue, along with being so sure that anyone disagreeing with you has an "agenda".

[Masterofreality]

Whatever. I laid out my position six posts above, and my reasons. I did not accuse anyone on the other side of having an "agenda", nor did I claim that I or anyone else knew with certainty what is happening to the earth's climate. I am curious how you guys (87 and MOR) know so much with certainty on the issue, along with being so sure that anyone disagreeing with you has an "agenda".

Obama said last week that the climate change issue was "settled" and he's ordered rule changes to reflect that position. I said above, as the Krauthammer article said, that there is a reasonable debate still in place. So, who is spewing the "certainty" and the "agenda"?

Once again to the UN, stop making America your whipping boy on the issue and pressure the true polluters in China that wear face masks every day.

[SpectorJersey]

87's and MOR's overall point seems to be that they that there is conflicting reports out there than what the liberals want you to believe. Also, the left wants to control of the environment so they can tax it and put it under the govt control. Arent people tired of taxes and govt control? Everything sounds great in theory, then US citizens end of paying for it. Just like the proposed minimum wage increase. Sounds great, but then it comes out of my pocket as the consumer. More EPA standards? Great my company just cut bonuses. Enough of the red tape.

[X-man]

87's and MOR's overall point seems to be that they that there is conflicting reports out there than what the liberals want you to believe. Also, the left wants to control of the environment so they can tax it and put it under the govt control. Arent people tired of taxes and govt control? Everything sounds great in theory, then US citizens end of paying for it. Just like the proposed minimum wage increase. Sounds great, but then it comes out of my pocket as the consumer. More EPA standards? Great my company just cut bonuses. Enough of the red tape.

Ah, more of the "agenda card".

[X-man]

Obama said last week that the climate change issue was "settled" and he's ordered rule changes to reflect that position. I said above, as the Krauthammer article said, that there is a reasonable debate still in place. So, who is spewing the "certainty" and the "agenda"?

Once again to the UN, stop making America your whipping boy on the issue and pressure the true polluters in China that wear face masks every day.

I missed the part of the IPCC report that said that only the US needs to scale back carbon emissions, or that they know what is happening with "certainty". Help please?

[XU 87]

Ah, more of the "agenda card".

There is an agenda. The UN has an agenda of "US, stop polluting. The rest of you- burn baby burn". The rationale- the US has already polluted so the rest are allowed to pollute to "catch up". In short, it's a means of income distribution.

The "scientists" have an agenda because they make a lot of money from grants etc. Same with Al Gore.

Obama has an agenda because most of his liberal followers believe in global warming so it keeps his base happy to say and do the things he does re: global warming.

[vee4xu]

Just me thinking out loud here, but this thread has seemingly reached the proverbial agree-to-disagree level. The posters on both sides of the issue are show passion and the truths as each sees it. It may now be best to wait and see what is nature's vote. For it is the only vote that counts. Just a suggestion.

[OH.X.MI]

Just me thinking out loud here, but this thread has seemingly reached the proverbial agree-to-disagree level. The posters on both sides of the issue are show passion and the truths as each sees it. It may now be best to wait and see what is nature's vote. For it is the only vote that counts. Just a suggestion.

I just hope Nature doesn't have an agenda! Can't trust those agendas one bit!

[NY44]

The "scientists" have an agenda because they make a lot of money from grants etc. Same with Al Gore.

Do you know what peer review is?

[XU 87]

Do you know what peer review is?

Do you know what "changing data to fit your theory" means? How about the "hockey stick graph is unsupportable by science"?

Do you dispute that Al Gore has made Millions as a result of "global warming"? Do you dispute that scientists are also profiting from "global warming"?

[X-man]

There is an agenda. The UN has an agenda of "US, stop polluting. The rest of you- burn baby burn". The rationale- the US has already polluted so the rest are allowed to pollute to "catch up". In short, it's a means of income distribution.

The "scientists" have an agenda because they make a lot of money from grants etc. Same with Al Gore.

Obama has an agenda because most of his liberal followers believe in global warming so it keeps his base happy to say and do the things he does re: global warming.

1. Please show where in the IPCC document it says that only the US must curb emissions while the rest of the world gets a pass.
2. Please explain why only the (overwhelming group of) scientists worried about climate change are sullied by outside financial support, while presumably those opposed are not.
3. Please explain to me why only Obama, who has shown far greater inclination to go against his base on all kinds of issues (the Pipeline issue comes to mind, for example) than his counterparts across the aisle, has an agenda while those on the other side do not.

Please, grow up.

[XU 87]

Please, grow up.

You really undermine everything you're trying to argue when you have to resort to this kind of nonsense.

[NY44]

Do you know what "changing data to fit your theory" means? How about the "hockey stick graph is unsupportable by science"?

Do you dispute that Al Gore has made Millions as a result of "global warming"? Do you dispute that scientists are also profiting from "global warming"?

You didn't answer my question.

[X-man]

You really undermine everything you're trying to argue when you have to resort to this kind of nonsense.

Actually you undermine your own position when you make the kind of ludicrous statements contained in your post that prompted my plea for you to grow up. We might be able to have such a rational discussion if you would stop making stuff up.

[XU 87]

Actually you undermine your own position when you make the kind of ludicrous statements contained in your post that prompted my plea for you to grow up. We might be able to have such a rational discussion if you would stop making stuff up.

See my previous post. Telling me to "grow up" because you disagree with my position is not a good argument and tends to show the weakness of yours (it's known as attacking the messenger when you can't argue against the message).

But if you google "global warming income redistribution" you will know where I'm coming from.

[X-man]

See my previous post. Telling me to "grow up" because you disagree with my position is not a good argument and tends to show the weakness of yours (it's known as attacking the messenger when you can't argue against the message).

But if you google "global warming income redistribution" you will know where I'm coming from.

Please answer my earlier questions about your assertions. If you can't, we are done. We cannot have a rational discussion if you insist on making stuff up.

[XU 87]

Please answer my earlier questions about your assertions. If you can't, we are done. We cannot have a rational discussion if you insist on making stuff up.

Since you asked, we'll start with this article. And don't get mad and call me names after you read it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

Or this one may help:

http://www.qando.net/?p=6080

OR this one:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/UN_AGWscam.htm

Or this one:

http://legalanalytics.com.ua/en/zakonodavstvo0/mizhnarodnidogovory0/58-kyoto.html


I don't expect you to agree with these articles, but I would hope these would tell you that I'm not the only person in the world who feels this way. And remember, no name calling when you disagree.

[X-man]

I have looked at your links and still don't see where (1) the IPCC document on climate change calls for carbon reduction by the US alone, (2) where climate change scientists are shills for some outside funding sources (as to opposed to the pure ones on the other side of the issue, and (3) where Obama is slave to his base, unlike those on the other side of the issue. I won't call you names, but I do wish that you would actually source the allegations in your earlier post.

[XU 87]

I have looked at your links and still don't see where (1) the IPCC document on climate change calls for carbon reduction by the US alone, (2) where climate change scientists are shills for some outside funding sources (as to opposed to the pure ones on the other side of the issue, and (3) where Obama is slave to his base, unlike those on the other side of the issue. I won't call you names, but I do wish that you would actually source the allegations in your earlier post.

I didn't want to get into Obama being a slave to his base. That is really a different subject.

I actually never said he was a "slave to his base." What I said was that he has an agenda when it comes to global warming. His base likes it and it plays well to his base. And while he is talking about global warming, he doesn't have to answer questions about Obamacare. That's his agenda.

I linked you to the Kyoto treaty- did you see the part where China and India don't have any requirements? Did you read the links about how global warming is really just about income redistribution? A guy from the IPCC made that comment. But here's another article for you to read, which discusses America's role v. other countries like China and India:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-global-warming-folly/2013/07/04/a51c4ed0-e3fc-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

I also didn't say the scientists are shills (some are just dishonest- see below). But again, I said they have an agenda. One of their agendas is to get more government funding for their "research".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professor-slams-global-warming-science-calls-manns-hockey-stick-a-very-very-nasty-fabrication/




I also said Al Gore has made millions off his global warming crusade.

http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit

Here's an interesting article:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6783/global-warming-fear-is-about-money-not-science/

How about answering one question for me- how do you feel about scientists who manipulate their data so it supports their theories?

[X-man]

87, let's agree to disagree. And let's also respect the fact that people can have opposing positions on this without (1) being a captive to their base, (2) being driven by some (hidden) agenda, and (3) designing research to reach pre-existing conclusions or worse, for sponsor money. And finally, let's remember that we agree on Xavier basketball.

[XU 87]

87, let's agree to disagree.

And finally, let's remember that we agree on Xavier basketball.

I concur. And for being so friendly, I will buy you a beer at a game some time. I'm a few aisles over.

[X-man]

I concur. And for being so friendly, I will buy you a beer at a game some time. I'm a few aisles over.

Sadly that "some time" has to be next season. I am out of town from Saturday morning until Saturday the 8th, and so I have to miss the last two home games (two of the games I wanted to see most even before the season began). But thanks for the offer, and root on the Muskies to a couple of badly needed season-ending victories.