-
1
01/12/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
It's funny how closely examining the facts and not just the headlines leads to the truth!
-
2
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Gee Dana, I wonder why...
...Michael Mann's formula didn't predict this?
-
3
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
What I find amazing is that the people who say that global warming isn't happening don't realise that those who DO believe it want the nay sayers to be RIGHT! The people who believe know that to do nothing will mean that either nothing happens or our planet is irevocably damaged. But to do something about it produces only one possibility, a cleaner planet REGARDLESS of whether it stops global warming or not.
-
4
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
But...hasn't global weather cycled drastically for centuries?
-
5
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Look closer at all of the facts....
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
You can read it yourselves, but I'll keep it simple and use the summary.
"70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations."
In simple terms. Mankinds activity and its influence on global temperatures cannot be measured compared to the effects of the solar cycle.
I do not know why scientists say global warming is mans fault when they have admitted to tampering with data. I don't know why they feel the need to admit to a systematic suppression of peer review that refutes their falsified data.
But they have admitted they lied. They have admitted they tampered with the data to support their global warming arguments and they have admitted to surpressing disenting views.
Was it mans fault global temperatures rose from AD 800 to 1300 causing Greenland to have no glaciers on it and have a 10 month growing season?
Was it CO2 from mans huge factories that melted the Artic sea ice north of Canada in AD 800 feeding legends of the Northwest Passage?
Was it mans CO2 emissions from cars and planes that caused warming across Europe, Asia and the Americas in AD 800 that caused crops to fail and people to die by the millions?
And why did the warming suddenly end around 1300 and plunge the world into the Little Ice Age?
Was it because man started filtering the CO2 from his factories, cars and planes?
The global warming conspiracy scientists and supporters have no answer to those questions.
They don't want answers to what happened in AD 800 because the answers might explain what is happening now.
Until they can tell me why global temperatures went up in AD 800 before mans industrial age pumped CO2 into the air I will put my fate in the hands of Mother Nature on the global warming issue.
I prefer to focus on controlling real manmade pollutions like the toxic heavy metal emissions from China and India that have grown over the past 30 years.
-
6
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
A cold snap proves nothing about global warming anymore than does a
heat wave. That's weather. Of course the climate, long term, is warming
as earth exits a very ling Ice Age, but the benefits are not
necessarily outweighed by the detriments.
Climate models around which so much hysteria is generated just don't
measure up to the climate's complexity.
-
7
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Sunspots = Global Warming
Long before the industrial age the Earth was warmer than it is now, and it will cool off again. Going back hundreds of years it is obvious that there is a correlation between sunspots and warming trends.
The Vikings didn't call Greenland 'green' because they wanted the world to think they were a bunch of idiots. They called it that because, upon its discovery, there was considerable vegetation growing there at the time (it can't now, its too cold!)
Global warming is the biggest scam in a long line of scams designed to scare people into surrendering their rights to a bunch of elitist freedom-ophobes who don't trust the rest of us to make the right decisions on our own.
-
8
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
I nominate Dana's blog as the dumbest of 2010 (so far)
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/a-call-to-rein-in-climate-hype-cold-or-hot/
- maurizio ( http://omniclimate.wordpress.com )
-
9
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Bit of a chip on the old shoulder here - Dana, that isn't just England in the NASA satellite photo, it's the United Kingdom. Which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, though the latter is mostly obscured by clouds. Apart from that I agree with the third post - GWoods1974 - whatever happened to the cautionary principle?
-
10
01/13/10 | Report as spam
@HatesIdiots
> I do not know why scientists say global warming is mans fault when
they have admitted to tampering with data.
One small group of scientists admitted selecting data. Rather like
you're selecting the facts to back up what you want to believe. Just
because one group of people who claim the world is spherical fiddled
the numbers doesn't mean the Earth's flat.
> Mankinds activity and its influence on global temperatures cannot
be measured compared to the effects of the solar cycle.
Nobody knows exactly what proportion mankind has contributed to
climate change but I hope it's a lot, as will you when you look at
the options:
1. If it's all down to mankind, we need to counteract our own
activities so far.
2. If a large proportion of climate change is due to factors outside
our control, we have to counteract our own activities AND the ones
of nature.
The second one is harder and it's what you're implying.
By the way, that's a picture of Great Britain, not just England.
-
11
01/13/10 | Report as spam
potholes
There's more potholes in the roads this winter. Global warming.
My son's snake shed twice in 3 months, normally it sheds once every two months. Global warming.
Fewer cardinals at the feeder this winter. Global warming.
My buddy is having a hard time getting a database linked to an apache document root. Global warming.
There were quite a few people in wheel chairs at the grocery store today. Global warming.
They don't make masking tape the way they used to. Global warming.
Global warming is about to cause Wiemar Republic/Zimbabwean style hyper-inflation and legalize marijuana in Washington State.
Scary stuff.
-
12
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Dana, Your in bed with the global warming scientists and a dork. Har Har Har.
-
13
01/13/10 | Report as spam
I'd like to know when theyre going to stop calling it freak weather
I mean, how many times do we have to go through this before its treated as normal and is planned for?
Our shoddy infrastructure here in the UK clearly cant cope with a slightly-worse-than-normal winter snap and hasnt every time but nothing is done.
Salt is useless at the temperatures we are getting, and here in the south 3 inches blocks entire tracts of main roads. How much would it cost to buy a few snow-ploughs, or maybe rope in some people... Two of my near neighbours are ground-workers and they did nothing but moan that they couldnt work because of the snow.
Did either of them grab a shovel and clear the pavement before it froze and made it treacherous? No, they watched me do it while they were enjoying a cuppa in the warm. Thats why nothings being done, the government thinks its too expensive and the populace think its the governments job to sort out the country's woes.
So who do they think the government will tell to do the work when or if they decide to act? Of course, the lazy complainers and shovel-leaners, who will naturally do the bare minimum, and grudgingly because they have been told to.
Natural or manmade climate change, either way our future is grim; get off your arses people and stop waiting for our leaders to tell you what common sense is - they have no clue themselves!
Peace
-
14
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Avoiding the question....
steve_jonesuk@...
Like so many other global warming supporters, you avoid the question...
Why did the earth warm to such scorching temperatures after AD 800 that the polar ice caps did not exist and Greenland was actually green for 10 months of the year?
We know mans factories, cars and planes did not do it? So what warmed the earth in AD 800?
The facts are the earth has been through several warming and cooling cycles over the last 50,000 years.
Scientists know that at more than a few times in the history of the world the earth was globally a tropical place.
And mans factories, cars and planes trains did not cause the warming 50,000 years ago. So what did?
..................... Dead air.
No answer as usual.
-
15
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Tell us Herbert Albert Walker Gore, err I mean Dana
Are you going to tells us that the south pole will be devoid of ice in 5-7 years like Al did? Keep in mind that the man who did the study that Al was referring to was quick to say, "I didn't say that."
Look, I won't bury my head in the sand. We need to do our part to keep our planet clean but we don't know enough our planet's normal cycles or weather predictions in general to be acting like some fish flopping around because it was taken out of the water.
How about a more common sense approach to finding cleaner forms of fuel, improving energy efficiency in homes/businesses, and take Al's private jet away from him.
-
16
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Debate Continues
I am still wondering what kind of SUVs the mastadons drove to end the ice age. I like a cleaner environment, but I think we need to temper this hysteria with real science that includes astro-physicists who actually include the solar activity into their calculations as opposed to most of the people who believe in man-made global warming.
-
17
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Who cares what anybody "wants to be true" - that's not science. Oh, neither is anthropomorphic climate change (read: man-caused global warming) if it has to be based on carefully cooked data and and grand campaign to hide historical facts that counter this "science".
Go ahead - err with Galen.
I don't need to reference the data cooking, right? We all know about that. You may not know that a key "climate scientist" has spent some time editing over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to (a) remove or trivialize all references to the Medieval Warming that preceded the "Little Ice Age" and (b) block over 2000 users who tried to prevent or correct his distortions.
Now why would Science need actual known facts to be removed? A theory should serve the facts, but it's become all too clear that with AGW the opposite is the case.
And here's the info on THAT:
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
-
18
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Like another poster stated...global warming is a normal phenomenom driven by solar activity and other things unrelated to mans activities.
-
19
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
fdaf
-
20
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Dana are you a professional journalist? part I
Dana Blankenhorn, are you a climate scientist? Have you done independent research which indicates that now global warming is causing global cooling which by coincidence just happens to be occurring during the winter months? If you are not a scientist nor have engaged in independent research in this field, then do you consider yourself a journalist? If so, as a journalist do you not have a PROFESSIONAL responsibility to present the various points of view of those scientist which do research in this area you are so found of writing about? Are you not interested in their point of view, what they have to say, how they arrived at their results? After all if you have not studied or researched both sides of the argument how do you which side is correct? I ask this question because I have yet to see a topic here at ?Smartpanet? which presets information by those scientist whose independent research does indicate an opposing view. Why is that? isn't that our job, responsibility to be neutral and present both sides? Is it that you are not a professional journalism or is it that you have your own agenda, perhaps you are a propagandist, liar or just chose to be ignorant? I am not climatologist however I do have a BSc degree and do look at all points of view before forming my opinion. I believe that is the intelligent manner of approach when endeavouring to understand something and thus before forming a particular point of view. That same intelligent approach allows people to change their opinion on a subject once they realize information contradicts their current point of view.
It seems to me you are as closed minded as those within the administration of the Catholic church during the seicento (?600) when Galileo proved to them the earth revolved around the sun and not other way around. It was not that Galileo did not sufficiently prove his point of view such that the ?Church? did not believe him, it was that this proof meant that if the earth was no longer the center of our universe then neither was the ?Church? the center of all things on this earth and beyond. Galileo had to be suppressed because his proof did not suit their temporal position on this earth. In fact it would end up shifting power form the ?Church? which desired to form peoples opinion to the free approach of independent bodies of thought. Unfortunately, and ironically this is occurring once again however by those who actually believe they are more enlightened form such a dogmatic and politicised institution as the Catholic church.
-
21
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Dana are you a professional journalist? part II
Enough people have presented information to the contrary to what you have written such that you should have by now responded by presenting those other articles points of view. That fact you have chosen not to when such a move could actually increase traffic to your blogs indicates you are a unprofessional journalist whose articles are suspect in their full disclosure, truth and relevance. If I am wrong then please respond with those links and if so I apologize in advance. Remember even though Galileo was kept under house arrest for the rest of his natural life he is considered today the "father of modern observational astronomy, the father of modern physics, the father of science and the Father of Modern Science" Stephen Hawkin. Galileo stood by his principles and this is how he will be remembered for eternity. How do you wish to be remembered Dana?
-
22
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
I think it would be more accurate to describe this phenomenon as "Global Climate Shifting".
-
23
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Anecdotal evidence, unsupported dogma, but no science
Not a single link to a reputable science journal or article among
the deniers' propaganda here.
-
24
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Real pollution is the problem.....
If Global Warming stood on legitimate ground why would the scientists at East Anglia need to manipulate the data to support their warming theory?
Why would they feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
Why would a supposedly reputable scientist spend time altering Wikipedia entries to cover-up the Medieval Warming Trend?
This is the real world. One volcano, Mt. Pinatubo, caused global cooling for 3 years with the sulfur dioxide it dumped in the atmosphere in one day. ONE DAY?..
Faced with that kind of power from Mother Nature, you have a long way to go to convince me that mankind has that much of an impact on global warming or cooling.
Can we poison the earth with radioactivity, heavy metals or a million other things? Yes.
Those and many other real pollutants should be controlled. But CO2 as a pollutant is a stretch.
I ask again.
What melted the Arctic ice pack in AD 800?
What made Greenland such a beautiful ice-free place that the Vikings called it Greenland?
What caused the global warming that triggered droughts and famines that killed millions from Europe to the Americas and Asia after AD 800?
Will you even admit the Medieval Warming Trend from AD 800 to 1300 happened?
??????????????????????????.
Again, no response from the global warming crowd.
-
25
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
what a big ego man has to think it can make a difference in the weather. The simple fact is it's getting warmer on other planets too. Unless you want a one world goverment don't buy into this. The earth gets cold then warm and so on nothing to do with us. If you follow the money you can see why their trying to fool us into this.
-
26
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Research it my good man.
mikirby..
Do something novel. Try doing some research on your own.
Any link I throw up here you are going to rip apart so that is a waste of time.
Try doing a Google search and read about the theories out there on what may have caused the Medieval Warming age.
Do a search on solar activity and read about its impact on global temperatures.
It is a bit old school, but try going to a library and read the theories on what may have triggered the Little Ice Age.
Try reading about the scientists who think a large asteroid impact on a North American glacier may have caused global warming and triggered the end of the last major ice age?
Read about the global impact of volcanic eruptions and the years of global temperature changes that followed major eruptions like Mt Saint Helens, Mt Pinatubo, Krakatoa or Yellowstone.
Stop being a mushroom. Use your mind.
-
27
01/13/10 | Report as spam
@Hates Idiots
> Like so many other global warming supporters, you avoid the
question...
No I don't, I think it's obvious from what we know (such as the
examples cited in your post) that previous variations in Earth's
temperature were not due to man. That isn't under dispute, it's not
a question I'm dodging. In fact, it's not a question at all - I
assumed you were being rhetorical.
I was addressing, instead, the point I assumed you were driving at
(apologies if I was mistaken) - that, if man isn't responsible for
global warming (which I'm sure he partly is, by the way, although we
can't be sure how large a part) - we don't need to change our
behaviour to counteract global warming.
So, would you care to answer my point - that if man is not
responsible for global warming, we face a *bigger* challenge to
reverse it? Saying that global warming is occuring due to natural
means (as well as man-made) does not back-up any argument against
climate intervention; in fact, it makes the problem more acute.
I'll make a second (related) point while I'm on; some global warming
sceptics talk about pre-man climate change as if that means, since
it's natural, we don't have to worry about it - the logic being
something like "it's happened before, and we're here and fine now,
so how bad can it be?". Thing is, when it happened before, we didn't
have huge civilisations built a few metres above sea level. I'm no
bleeding heart, worried about the polar bear or whatever, I'm a
capitalist worried about the world economy. If London, New York and
so on are deluged (or we have to build huge defences), the quality
of life and freedom to spend our time and money as we'd like will be
far more compromised than the sort of proposed legislation which
encourages you to get out of your SUV and nail a solar panel to your
roof.
-
28
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
So, based on the words you used in your article, this is a political issue and not a scientific one.
-
29
01/13/10 | Report as spam
mikirby
Anecdotal evidence, unsupported dogma, but no science
Take your head out of the ground and read carefully what the other posters have written.
In fact, it is the global warming scaremongers who have no real science to back up their "science".
Not a single link to a reputable science journal or article among the deniers' propaganda here.
Why would any links to articles be necessary when the global warming "science" has already been discredited so thoroughly in the last 20 years and especially in the last couple of months.
The only people in "denial" are very clearly the people who still insist that their "global warming" science is "real science".
What part of "global warming science is a fraud" don't you understand?
As it stands, instead of the planet warming, it has actually cooled in the last 11 years, and with the current deep cold snap, it is well into a 12th year; in fact it will be virtually impossible for temperatures during the rest of the year to overcome the fact that this will be the 12th year in a row for global cooling.
It's time for you and Dana and Al Gore to get on the band-wagon and start the next scare about "the coming ice age". Some scientists are in fact predicting a mini ice age of around 30 years.
So, stop your "denial" of the facts. It's time to let that baby of yours and Dana's to remain in the grave. Global warming science was and is a fraud. Let it go and move onto another agenda. That's all it was from the beginning; a means towards an agenda.
-
30
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
I guess you expect us to believe that we the people are the cause of
this climate change, right? I'm guessing the earthquake in Haiti is
somehow related to what we have done as well(sounds like another
business venture for Al Gore). Hopefully the gullible who bought into
this nonsense are starting to sober up. Regardless, if people want to
waste their time and money crying Chicken Little, suit yourself. I've
got more important things to worry about that I can actually control.
-
31
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
And how do we know that this is not also a precursor the an Ice age? The two my coincide, but of course we, our scientists especially, like to think they're infallible.....
-
32
01/13/10 | Report as spam
sorry
I can spell, just not type....
-
33
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
It's amazing how we nonscientists, though well-read, have so
many answers at our fingertips, answers that often disagree
with scientists who have spent decades studying global
weather. Humans, regardless of how much (or little) knowledge
they possess, feel the need to arrive at conclusions on complex
issues, have it done with and filed away, end of issue. It might
just do us well to keep an open mind so that it might continue
to absorb information that might just inch us a bit closer to the
truth.
But then I wish pigs could fly.
-
34
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Interesting that Global Warming is the cause of everything
Consider this. Has anyone in the global warming crowd ever stated what data would change their minds on it? If it is a scientific theory based on facts then if the new data changes the result it should change the result. If all climate changes are attributed to feeding the global warming mania then it isn't a theory it's based on faith not facts.
-
35
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
were all going to freeze and or drown. Same hype, same
excuses for the same flawed so - called science. To many
people have cashed in with global warming to stop now.
Trillions are to be made and no truth will be allowed to stop
this hype.
If you really want to keep this religion going, fine, build a
church. Stay out of federal/world controls, mandates and
education. - Hug a tree, don't ask me to pay for it.
-
36
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Like the posts below. I agree that global warming/cooling is cyclical, man made activities have little to do with it. I live near Lake Michigan, once a glacier, it melted long before we started burning fossil fuels.
-
37
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the industry that makes more money per year than most countries might have paid some scientists to "get caught" manipulating data just so all the nay-sayers would have a field day screaming "we were right!" at the top of their lungs? Or is it inconcievable that the same people that start wars just to sell guns would do something like that? And besides, like the previous poster said, what real difference does it make where the fault lies? Doing nothing will not fix the problem. Or do the nay-sayers all think since they can't wrap their arms around the earth that it must be too big to affect positively or negatively? I wonder how close the ratio in size between a virus and a human is to the ratio in size between a human and the earth? Oh but that's not a fair comparison unless you're going to assume there's 6 billion viruses in the human. Wake up people.
-
38
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Global warming is over. Now comes the predicted ice age that is caused by diluting the oceans with fresh water from polar melt. Hope you idiots who deny climate change like real cold weather.
-
39
01/13/10 | Report as spam
Try2Ketchup, will you make up your mind?
Mere months ago, we were to be doomed by rising temps that would make
life unbearable. So many experts told us so. Now you're arguing that
instead we're heading for the next ice age? (A fate much worse than
warming)
There's so sure what's happening, and yet they can never tell us what's
going to happen next. That's hardly science.
-
40
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Actually, the country is The United Kingdom or, "Great Britain" would be equally acceptable, "England" excludes Scotland and Wales and, depending on how you interpret "United Kingdom", the six counties of Northern Ireland.
If you examine the Union Flag (also known as the Union Jack)you will see that it is a composite of three flags - the crosses of the patron saints of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
It is very definitely not the "English" flag. Also, there is no such thing as an English Prime Minister, English Army or English Parliament, etc.
To conclude, this mistake would be the equivalent of talking about the Californian President, the Pennsylvanian Army or the Wisconsin House of Representatives.
As a US tourist once cheerfully told me in London ?I?ve already visited England and tomorrow I?m going north to visit the United Kingdom?
-
41
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
@Hates Idiots
Answer: The Sun.
You seem to think that, since scientists are blaming CO2 for "Climate Change", CO2 is the only thing which could cause temperature changes (or are you being disingenuous?).
@adornoe
Not in my part of the World (South Australia). We just had the hottest year on record (yearly average temperature). We are told here, that the hottest 8 or 9 years on record, have occurred in the last decade.
I would like to see data on average wind speeds.
If air is getting hotter in the Temperate zones, it should flow towards the Polar regions faster. This would also mean that cold air from the Poles would move towards the Equator faster. We should see an increase, in average wind speeds, if this is occurring.
Strangely enough when I first read about "Global Warming", in the 1980s, I predicted that it would be a precursor to a new "Ice Age".
The question is, what should we do to control the weather?
Should we modify our behaviour (Anthropomorphic warming)?
Should we build a giant space mirror/shade to control the amount of Solar radiation we receive (Solar warming)?
Should we do nothing at all and just accept that, if the climate becomes unbearable, we'll die out like the dinosaurs?
lehnerus2000
-
42
01/13/10 | Report as spam
lehnerus2000
Not in my part of the World (South Australia). We just had the hottest year on record (yearly average temperature). We are told here, that the hottest 8 or 9 years on record, have occurred in the last decade.
Nobody denies that "climate change" happens. In fact, I'm one of the biggest believers of climate change. It's been happening since the planet was "born" and will continue to happen until it dies.
Regional temperatures is not what has been discussed when ti comes to "global warming". Notice that the key word is "global". What the global warmists have been arguing for the last 25 years is about "global" warming. They've talked about the last decade being the warmest in history. But the facts say that the last 11 years have actually cooled and we're well on the way towards 12 year of cooling.
The argument is about which group is correct: the "global warming" proponents or the "deniers"? When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire results, then you know for sure that the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent. Faulty or fraudulent science is not science at all; at that point it becomes "science fiction".
-
43
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
The first thing we need is some facts. Is the the Earth warming or cooling? Then we need to know why it is and only then can we take any action about it. If it is warming and it is caused by man we can decide when. what and how to change it. If it is caused by other causes, then we must adapt to those changes. We must take it out of the area of religion and place it back in science. Crying the sky is falling with no real evidence to back it is counter-productive and clouds the real problems. The same holds true if there is global cooling. It seems there are 2300 scientists claiming global warming and about 33,000 that say no. There is no consenses at this time, but the cooling faction has the larger numbers. Where I live the temperatures have been falling for the past ten years.
-
44
01/13/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
That iced island is Great Britain, not England.
-
45
01/14/10 | Report as spam
@adornoe
> When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire
results... the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent.
Again, one fraudulent action doesn't make the whole concept spurious.
There's tons of data which hasn't been manipulated and which suggests
global warming, why do you focus on the one example which backs up what
you wish to believe? I guess it's just human nature.
People want to believe man has no responsibility for any environmental
catastrophe so they can continue living without the constraints we'd
have to endure to avoid such a thing. But just because one group of
scientists covered-up some figures which suggested gravity doesn't
exist, doesn't mean it's safe to go jump off a cliff.
-
46
01/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes.
-
47
01/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes.
If global warming wont "take off like a rocket", this is "your final warning". LOL. Skip this pro-large government global warming alarmism which you so obviously lie about, and support reason and freedom which is threatened by the progressive neo-marxist environment of today.
-
48
01/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Can Dana Blankenhorn support us with a peer reviewed study on the ice fat theory and that the Earth is behavior is similar to human bodies? As an AGW denier I can support all my standpoints on peer reviewed climate science.
-
49
01/14/10 | Report as spam
Scientists do not falsify data
If they do, then they are not scientists, but something else. A true
scientist presents data the way he finds it, regardless if it supports
his own private views or not. Like Richard Feynman did (RIP). Lets call
these other people something else. Like sciencebluffs or something. Mr
so-and-so is a sciencebluff, working for the globalwarmingparty or the
iceagesects.
-
50
01/14/10 | Report as spam
Swing and a miss...
steve_jonesuk@...
You are still missing the point.
By denying the Medieval Warming Trend from AD 800 to 1300 ever happened these so called scientists are missing the opportunity to identify a potential cause, or the multiple contributing factors, of natural global warming.
By denying natural global warming occurs they refuse the opportunity to study the evidence from prior natural global warming events. They lose the opportunity to compare it against 20th century warming data and they walk away from the chance to look for more evidence on both cases to try and determine why such natural warming events happen.
If the global warming of the 20th century was natural and it does precede another Little Ice Age, as the Medieval Warming Trend did, than knowing the natural causes of both may allow us to mitigate the damage, but I doubt we could stop the warming or the cooling if Mother Nature is behind it.
When a volcano can change global weather for 3 years in a single day of erupting it looks to me like mankinds chances of doing anything measurable to stop natural global warming or natural global cooling are slim to none.
To paraphrase Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow: The best we can do is get out of the way and focus on saving as many as we can.
-
51
01/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Cooling is global warming.
Up is down. Down is up.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
-
52
01/14/10 | Report as spam
@Hates Idiots
Swing and a miss? How?
I don't think anyone is denying the existence of warmer periods in
Earth's history which clearly had nothing to do with man. The
statistics on such things aren't widely disputed, are they?
You make a new point about what we could learn from focussing more
on such figures but I think they've been thoroughly pored-over in
formulating current climate thinking. They're kinda key to that.
Do you have any links to people claiming the Earth's currently the
hottest it's ever been? Or anything else to back-up your theory on
"our ignorance"?
Or have you simply observed that natural global warming occurs
(which - ahem - IT DOES!) and handily surmised that manmade global
warming must be nothing you should change your lifestyle for?
-
53
01/14/10 | Report as spam
Conservatives be true to your name
With the lack of ethics, it can be hard to trust data. Accurate data
can be twisted to wrong conclusions or mistaken as correlation is
causation.
If global warming is a slow and cumulative process, then confirming
global warming before acting could be our last mistake for millions in coastal regions.
Isn't the conservative approach to take steps to reduce greenhouse
gases?
-
54
01/14/10 | Report as spam
Great web site with many links...
steve_jonesuk@...
Check out this site.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
This site has information with dozens of links to government agencies like NASA, NOAA and their counterparts in other countries that have the supporting data.
There are also links from other facts to universities across the planet that are studying global cooling.
Looking at this site it seems obvious why a recent survey found less than 5,000 scientists who support the global warming argument, but over 30,000 scientists that support global cooling.
A few hours searching online or in a good library will open your eyes.
-
55
01/14/10 | Report as spam
Greenland?
"elitist freedom-ophobes who don't trust the rest of us to make the
right decisions on our own."
This idea that there is some "conspiracy" among scientists, or that
the warmth of Greenland in the year 1000 AD disproves global warming
seeks to turn science into politics, which it isn't.
If it were, objects of different weights dropped from a height would
drop at different speeds, the Sun would go around the Earth, and
Galileo would still be a crank.
What makes the difference between science and political ideology is
usefulness.
So far, every prediction made by climate scientists 20 years ago has
proven accurate. The idea that actions don't have consequences, that
you can do what you want to this planet and everything will self-
correct, is wishful thinking -- it's politics and not science.
Politically we can build that bridge back to the 13th century if you
want, but you're not going to like what happens when we get there.
One hint for what you'll find there. Haiti. They didn't "believe" in
the science of engineering buildings correctly. They built houses and
palaces of unreinforced cement.
It's too bad we can't run the experiment -- you run your part of the
world politically and we'll run it scientifically. There's only one
planet.
And the water's getting higher.
-
56
01/14/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
@adornoe
I mentioned my location because that's the only area I have info on. Someone else mentioned that temperatures are dropping where they live.
"But the facts say that the last 11 years have actually cooled and we're well on the way towards 12 year of cooling. "
Whose facts? The "facts" in my country directly contradict your "facts".
Part of the problem is that the results of research are based on who commissioned it. Research by Coal & Oil companies shows no "Global Warming", research by "Alternative energy companies shows "Global Warming". Both sides have vested interests in the outcome.
The only way to get around this, is to have some sort of Worldwide, independent research body created to thoroughly examine the actual data. Half of the scientists would be picked by World Governments.
The other half could be picked by businesses, who pay a tax to help fund the research. If a business pays enough tax to fund a scientist's wage, they could nominate a researcher for the project. Smaller businesses could form groups, so that their tax payments would be large enough, for them to nominate researchers.
I guess that other groups could be formed and they could donate funds so that they could nominate researchers. All data & funding should be open to public scrutiny.
I have stated on other posts that, anyone (media commentators, politicians, religious fanatics & scientists) who commits scientific fraud should be jailed!
lehnerus2000
-
57
01/14/10 | Report as spam
I'll repeat my query
The question is, what should we do to control the weather?
Should we modify our behaviour (Anthropomorphic warming)?
Should we build a giant space mirror/shade to control the amount of Solar radiation we receive (Solar warming)?
Should we do nothing at all and just accept that, if the climate becomes unbearable, we'll die out like the dinosaurs?
lehnerus2000
-
58
01/15/10 | Report as spam
It is all about the science...
Dana you are hopeless.
By failing to look into the science behind the AD 800 warming, and why Greenland was green, you avoid the discussion that the same natural forces could be at work today.
-
59
01/15/10 | Report as spam
Unpredictable microclimates....
lehnerus2000...
Lets take the chance global warming happens and triggers global cooling.
The chance of a sudden flood the size of what happened to New York in The Day After Tomorrow has been shown to be remote. But..
The cold and snow could come and maybe it comes as fast as in the movie. The big variables we have now compared to the last ice age are urban centers.
Lets say the globae get snowed in like in The Day After Tomorrow. The skyscrapers will act as heat sinks and warm the urban areas melting the snow and ice. It would be like tree wells.
The depressions you see that form around trees when deep snow melts close to the tree. The solar heat captured by the tree warms the trunk and surrounding ground and causes the hole. These holes form in even heavy snow areas meaning the melt is faster than the fall. Even in below 0 temps.
These urban hot spots would have a disruptive effect on the formation of glaciers and the long-term effect of snow reflecting solar radiation. The net effect would be local warm spots and a potential of shortening the length of the ice age by 10 or maybe 20%.
These manmade microclimate events have an impact on regional weather today. One example today of a manmade heat sink altering a microclimate is at Kilimanjaro.
Temperatures on the mountain its self have not changed significantly in the past 50 years, but much of the area surrounding the mountain has been deforested. This has triggered local warming around the mountain, which has lowered the level of moisture in the air. This reduced amount of moisture has trigged a local microclimate change reducing winter rains in the region and snowfall on the mountain.
The limited snowfall the mountain does get is not keeping up with the normal melting of the glacier. That is why the glacier is shrinking. Blaming global warming is letting the locals off the hook for destroying their regional microclimate through deforestation.
Microclimate changes are why the west coast of Antarctica has been seeing huge melting of the ice pack yet the east coast is colder, wetter and the ice pack is growing. The net change on the overall South Pole ice pack has been growth over the last several years. Not shrinkage.
Climates are much more complicated than the global warming people want the average person to believe.
-
60
01/15/10 | Report as spam
@Hates Idiots
I will try to check that website out properly, but just scanning
down it quickly it obviously looks quite convincing; however, I'm
well aware that you can find websites which are quite convincing
trying to prove any point - convincing in isolation, that is.
Sadly, this whole debate and the fact that all the people posting on
this article get so mad at each other is simply testament to the
fact that, on the subject of what the climate is doing, or is going
to do, or what's causing it, or what we could possibly do about it,
nobody knows 100%. And even sadder for us, that even if anyone
really did know none of us would find out to an incontrovertible
extent by doing a few hours' Googling.
Which brings us to the fact that a very large majority of the
experts in this matter think that man-made global warming is a
significant phenomenon and threatens dire consequences. The paradox
is that while we should never accept a dogma passed-down by "those
who know best", they still know best. What do the rest of us do with
that, eh?
And I have a lot of sympathy for those who think that global warming
is a scare story, certainly there's a great tradition of spurious
scare stories and this one bears most of the classic traits, not
least the near-religious fervour and the vitriol towards those who
dare to doubt.
I would say, to you personally, that your early posts on this matter
kept putting the point, fairly aggressively, that global warming
"believers" deny the existence of warm periods in the past which
could never have been caused by man. Which we don't. You make a much
more reasonable point in your later points that natural factors may
be so huge that we could end up with global warming - or cooling -
no matter what we do. I wouldn't argue with that, although the
figures suggest that man-made global warming is very big compared to
natural factors, at least over the last 50 years, so we probably
should do what we can. After all, we have to find a replacement for
oil probably in the next century anyway.
While I'm banging on, I'd just like to say:
1. To echo gwoods1974's early point, those of us who believe global
warming is real would love to be wrong!
2. I seriously doubt the global warming theory is any sort of
financially-motivated conspiracy because the money talks the other
way; it would be much more profitable to cover-up a real
environmental crisis than to act on it; big business hates all this
eco-legislation - something so bad for business wouldn't be invented
for money.
Cheers all,
- Steve.
-
61
01/15/10 | Report as spam
One last note.
Should we be concerned about the warming or cooling of the planet? Yes.
With proper warning we can prepare for what we cannot stop Mother Nature from doing.
Mankinds contribution to greenhouse gases is tiny under peer review.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
-
62
01/15/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
@Hates Idiots
In some ways "Global Warming" would be easier to cope with than "Global Cooling". Just look at the chaos in Europe and the US.
That "heat well" effect wouldn't last very long, if the Sun was blocked out by clouds for weeks on end.
lehnerus2000
-
63
01/15/10 | Report as spam
Faulty premises, KMart climatology
First, while temperate and tropical glaciers have been in noticeable retreat, nowhere in the Arctic is that the case. What is the case is that the EXTENT of SUMMER SEA ice and the THICKNESS of WINTER SEA ice has been reduced.
Given those facts, we might just expect a MORE STABLE Arctic climate, for the following reasons:
First, while it is true that ice has a higher specific heat than a typical rock(2.05J/gK for ice vs. 0.790J/gK for granite), ice has about half the thermal capacity of liquid water (4.1813J/gK).
Even more important may be the ability to conduct heat between air and the surface, be that surface glacier, ice pack, or open sea, and clearly, open sea wins that contest hands-down. Not only do waves and spray increase the conduction, but water convects to transport heat rapidly to or from the surface. So, more open water means a more stable atmosphere.
However, in the Arctic Winter, most of the sea is frozen over. But here is where ice is really doing its thing: When ice freezes it liberates 333.55J/g, as much heat as it would liberate in cooling from 0 deg C to -162 deg C. When it melts it takes the same amount of heat back. The melting and freezing of pack ice proceeds much more rapidly now than in the past because of the thinner pack ice and, in the summer, open seas, which provide less insulation to impede that process.
Thus, the major stabilizer of the Arctic climate, the Arctic Sea, has become a more potent force for stabilizing the Arctic climate than it was before the climate warmed.
Does that mean that "Global Warming" had nothing to do with the recent surges of cold air into the temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere? No, not necessarily. I could postulate that that the contrast between the (stabilized, hence,) warmer Arctic Ocean temperatures and the cold-as-ever temperatures over, say, Greenland, which usually sports a high pressure zone, led to some instability that caused the break-outs. But I would just be pulling it out. The fact is, day-long simulations of this climate with the fastest available computers and the best available programs lead to unreliable results. Any pen-and-paper analysis should be done on soft tissue so that the final result might find some ultimate application.
-
64
01/16/10 | Report as spam
And it was all predicted, AND explained 2700 years ago.
Isaiah 30:25-26
In the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall, streams of water will flow on every high mountain and every lofty hill.
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.
-
65
01/19/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Hates Idiots,
Hate your self much? What an idiotic statement to say that polar ice caps did not exist after AD 800. There is more than 3 kilometers of ice at places on Antarctica and I guarantee it didn't all build up in the past 1300 years. Greenland has never been less than about 80% ice covered in the past 1 million years. It may have been slightly less ice covered than it is now around 800 AD but it was not that dramatic a change. You really should study the science behind your statements because you're just repeating sound bites that make you one of the idiots you hate.
-
66
01/20/10 | Report as spam
History lessions needed.....
Read up on the Vikings. They did not call it Greenland because it was 80% covered in ice.
Yet another person unwilling to admit the planet was warming in history than it is today.
How about Shangri-La? Read up on that.
The legend started in the 10th century that a beautiful place existed in the mountains of Tibet. The reality is that one of the ruling Buddhists families built a city, Shambhala, in the mountains of Tibet in the 8th century to escape the summer heat during the early part of what we know as the Medieval Warming Trend. Early western travelers hearing the legend of it pronounced it Shangri-La
The place existed in an isolated valley that saw rain while a drought ravaged the lower altitudes and crops grew when many starved. Any place with that much food and water would be considered a paradise.
The kingdom was populated by the Shang Shung dynasty until the 16th century when the Chinese killed the ruling family and the Little Ice Age made it too cold to grow enough food to support a large population.
Many of the temples still exist today and are maintained by local villagers, although the interiors are in a bad state because the modern Chinese Army trashed the place during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s.
The Vikings and the Buddhists were not nuts. They moved to cooler climates, north to the ice free polar region for the Vikings and up into the mountains for the Shang Shung, to escape the global warming. Then they were either killed off or vacated those places during the Little Ice Age.
Deny it all you want, but history knows the green vineyards of Greenland and the gardens of Shangri-La did exist in their day. Both of which were during Medieval Warming Trend.
The proof is there for those who wish to look.
-
67
01/20/10 | Report as spam
Follow the Money
Anyone else catch this? Michael Mann, creator of the long-since discredited "hockey stick" graph (that was formerly the showpiece of the IPCC reports and Al Gore's movie) and featured player in the East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit e-mail has received a $541,184 grant to fund work "Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing," which will contribute "to the understanding of abrupt climate change." That's on top of another $1.9 million grant for the investigation of "environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases."
Both grants say they were "funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."
I'm so glad that at least his job has been saved.
-
68
01/20/10 | Reported as spam
Chat
Thskyuo
Sohbet
Sohbet Et
mynet sohbet
mynet
Chat
ara? muayene
g?zellik salonu
vidyo
arsiv
kiralik bobcat
-
69
01/20/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Hates Idiots,
I challenge you to show me any rigorous scientific data that Greenland has been ice free in the last 10,000 years. You won't find it. They've drilled ice cores from the center of the Greenland ice sheet that goes back more than 100,000 years. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet It's generally believed that the Greenland ice sheet first formed around 2 million years ago and Greenland has never been totally ice free since then. Around 1000 some ice around the perifery melted back a bit but if you could go back and ask Erik the Red about it he'd laugh in your face about your assertion that Greenland was ice free.
Shangri-La/Shambhala is a myth much like Atlantis. The Medieval Warming Period appears to primarily be limited to lands around the North Atlantic with little evidence of it affecting the Southern Hemisphere.
Go ahead and live in your fantasy world if you like, I prefer to live in reality.
John McGrew,
The "hockey stick" graph is only discredited in the minds of you and people like you who don't want it to be true. The original had some minor statistical errors but has subsequently been shown to be substantially correct when fixing the errors didn't change it much. Newer graphs of the same thing done by others show a fuzzier hockey stick handle than the original graph but otherwise match it pretty well.
Why shouldn't Michael Mann, a leading scientist in his field, get grants. You can investigate him all you want but you won't find much to discredit him. I guess he's too good at covering his tracks. (That last was sarcasm in case you don't understand.)
-
70
01/21/10 | Reported as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
The people who believe know that to do nothing will mean that either nothing happens or our planet is irevocably damaged
sinirsiz porno izle
sikis yap
blog
seks izle
sikis izle
-
71
01/21/10 | Report as spam
The science of "Global Warming"
Whatever I might think of this article (not much, see item 63 above,) the fact of a gradually warming global climate is irrefutable, as is the contribution to that warming made by greenhouse gases.
Of course, following Rahm Immanuel's infamous dictate that "no good crisis should be wasted", many political "scientists" and "political scientists" have exaggerated the effectiveness of squelching the production of those gases while also exaggerating the consequences of failure to do so and minimizing the costs of so doing. For some, this has resulted in fame and fortune, e.g., Al Gore and his famous science fiction movie which won him a Nobel Prize.
Our problem (unsolved) is to separate the reasonable actions which we might take from the "Oh My God, the sky is falling and the world is burning up!" hysteria promoted by many who have ulterior motives, including personal financial motives and/or a grab for power.
A great deal of warming that has not yet occurred is already dialed in. It is clear that whatever the US does will play a rather small part overall in the worldwide balance of greenhouse gases: China and India will dominate the future production. It is likely that China's GDP alone will surpass that of the US in 10 years, and given their 80% reliance on coal (vs. ours, 20% and declining,) their CO2 output will soar. They have, in effect, said that they will make no significant effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under these circumstances, anyone suggesting that the US should throttle our economy to "stop global warming" is either woefully ignorant or actively seeking to deceive someone.
I believe that the reasonable coarse for the US is to concentrate on resource conservation, including but not exclusively non-renewable fuels, which is essential to the future of America. This will also have as a side-effect a significant reduction of greenhouse gas production. But the criterion for success should not be carbon emission: That is beyond our control. Cap-and-trade is just a way of setting up a new tax system while giving preference to the United Mine Workers and other large contributors. We would do better with a tax on extracted calories or joules (units of energy) from fossil and nuclear fuels, to encourage keeping them in the ground, to discourage their import, and to encourage their replacement with renewable energy resources.
-
72
01/21/10 | Report as spam
It's Global Climate change!!!!!
Global climate change has been happening for millions of years. It just so happens that we are in a warming cycle right now. Nothing we do now or in the future is going to change that!!! It's going to happen, we are just along for the ride. Let's spend our money on being ready for the change that is coming, not on trying to stop it. Why are scientists and politicians such dumb asses about this????
-
73
01/21/10 | Report as spam
RE: Why are scientists and politicians such dumb asses about this????
?The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ? and hence clamorous to be led to safety ? by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.?
- H. L. Mencken
Or, if not entirely imaginary, at least exaggerated beyond reason.
-
74
01/21/10 | Report as spam
riverat1: Why shoulnd't Michael Mann get a subsidy?
Because he's been exposed as a fraud. Instead of getting grants, he
should be under investigation by the AG.
The "Hockey Stick" was exposed as a fraud as far back as 2003, when
Mann et-al refused to release the data behind it. It was left to
other independent researchers to expose the fraud. The released e-
mail from the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit
merely confirmed what we already knew. If anything, it demonstrated
that the fraud was even worse than we originally suspected.
(Clearly, we were not cynical enough)
1
;
2
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3
;
4
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-
0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
What is that you might ask? It's the coded from Mann's program that
produces the stick.
-
75
01/21/10 | Report as spam
Observation...
Did anyone else notice that all the hatred, anger and bitterness expressed here is coming from the people who believe in and support Global Warming?
I thought the trend was worth pointing out.
-
76
01/21/10 | Report as spam
Stop being a mushroom riverat1
Try something new in your life. Do your own research and make up your own mind.
Did you learn about Global Warming from Wikipedia? Big mistake. at least 50% of the information listed in Wikipedia is in accurate because anybody can go in and alter a legitimate posting.
When you dig into global warming you will be very surprised what you can learn from sciences that look at global warming as a systemic issue, not just a climate issue.
Did you know that different volcanos have different chemical signitures?
Some pump out massive amounts of CO2 (triggers warming), some massive amounts of sulfur dioxide (triggers global cooling) and still other pump out massive amounts of water vapor which is yet another temperature altering gas.
Do you know that Greenland is rising out of the ocean? It called plate rebound. Look it up and see that many geologists say that is why Greenlands glaciers are sliding into the sea faster.
Glaciers calving faster into the sea is not always weather related.
Did you know that the earth has gone through 2 heating and cooling cycles in the past 30 years? Both jump started by gigantic volcanic eruptions.
The world is a complex place and to blame global warming on man generated CO2, which is less than 1% of all CO2 output, is narrow minded.
-
77
01/21/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
The "Hockey Stick" graph had some problems but it was a useful addition to the scientific literature at the time. Read this. The analysis for historical temperature reconstructions have been done by a number of others without Mann's code and they substantially match what Mann came up with.
Some comments and code are pretty meaningless in the absence of context. I've written stuff like that in my coding career when I'm testing the code. Unless you can take it all the way and show that there was deliberate falsification you have nothing but speculation.
"HI", I may have been a bit over the top in my previous comment but it gets tiresome when you keep repeating demonstrably false information. From all that I know about climate change, and I've been following it since the 1980's, we're close to being in a dire situation. Even if we stopped emitting excess CO2 tomorrow the warming would continue for several hundred years (most of it in the first 50 or 75 though) and sea level rise will be around a meter.
Many if not most of the effects projected by the IPCC report are happening sooner than predicted and it's probably only going to get worse. (And don't come back with the Himalayan glaciers thing, it was an error but it's also only a piece of secondary evidence.)
-
78
01/21/10 | Report as spam
Al Gore has spoken....
Look it up folks...It's in the conference notes.
To those who do not think that Greenland was actually green when the Vikings found it, heed your prophet.
In Copenhagen, Al Gore announced a report stating that all of the Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2014 without huge cuts in CO2 emissions. The glaciers on Greenland would be 100% gone within a few decades.
If the slight warming they claim has happened over the last century is going too permanently melt the Arctic sea ice and Greenland?s glaciers in my lifetime than I ask?.........
Why say it is impossible that Greenland was green during the Medieval Warming Trend when global temperatures were higher than they are now and higher for a much longer time?
If I am wrong is Al Gore wrong to?
-
79
01/25/10 | Report as spam
Fraudulent data is "useful"?
To whom other than those perpetrating the fraud?
Of course now everyone is being forced to back off in the name of saving their reputations:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
-
80
01/26/10 | Report as spam
Want to know how many people read your articles? Mention Global Warming
79 posts as of this.
Whether you believe Global Warming or not, convictions do not change. But it is entertaining.
-
81
01/26/10 | Report as spam
Nobody is ever convinced by insults
Those insulting Dana are out of line. Her position is one commonly held by scientists, even if other scientists disagree. Also, her point is valid. Just because certain parts of the planet is undergoing a cooling trend does not mean that there is a long-term warming trend. Even if the entire planet were in the middle of a 20 year cooling trend, it wouldn't prove much about the long-term trend.
I think both the alarmists and the realists (aka the deniers) agree generally with that.
But GW alarmists have set themselves up by pointing to tiny warming blips, and even unrelated weather phenomenon to win public support for their positions. Chickens come home to roost.
But all that aside, only True Believers are not pausing to reflect on what the recent revelations mean for the supposed scientific support for AGW.
-
82
01/26/10 | Report as spam
Riverrat1...
Let's say that I accepted everything that you said about global warming. You prove that the current proposals make no sense.
The Cap & Trade programs under consideration is a massive energy tax structure with a bent towards the redistribution of wealth. Even proponents don't think it will have any appreciable impact. It would, however, result in hundreds of billions of dollars being moved around the world.
So, if life as we know it is going to end, why does the solution not address the problem? The fact is that nobody expects C02 emissions to be reduced. But the "alarmists" seem willing to bet that if only rich countries give enough money to poor countries that everything will be okay.
Now do you see what it's all about?
-
83
01/26/10 | Report as spam
To those who are interested...
American Thinker has a couple of postings that explain the mathematical science behind what Mann did, and why he did it the way that he did. They also explain why what Mann did was not honest, and against protocols for the presentation of scientific information.
It's more understandable if you have a graduate degree in statistics, but most people can get an idea for what went on.
-
84
01/30/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
follow the money
-
85
02/02/10 | Report as spam
Global Warming is possible, Human influence is questionable
Please consider that the whole "global warming" issue is a power play. The "Global Warming Treaty" that was drafted in Stockholm provided for the transfer of wealth from the USA to poorer countries. It provided for the forfeiture of sovereignty. Perhaps as a first step to one world government. In any case a foreign committee, where the USA has only one vote,
-
86
02/16/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
Nope, This is the beginning of the modern Ica Age..... You heard it here first from me. Ivan S Kirkpatrick.
AGW is a hoax. The greenhouse gas theory on which AGW is based is nonsense. Any introductory engineering class in Heat Transfer teaches that heat transfer is from hot to cold and that it is not possible for a colder atmosphere to warm up a warmer earth. The sun warms the earth and the earth warms the atmosphere. Any ?scientists? that purport to show how this can work have a long way to go in understanding basic thermodynamics and heat transfer. This is the great Hoax of the 21st century. There is a very clear climate cycle of warming every 1500 years even in the ice ages.
-
87
02/17/10 | Report as spam
RE: That cold snap was global warming in action
@adornoe: Of course! The 11-year cooling cycle must explain why so much of the Arctic is melting! What idiots we've been!
@craigkra: Just to be picky, the Union Flag is the crosses of Saint Andrew (of Scotland), St Patrick (of Ireland), and St George (of England). The Welsh flag is a dragon, but didn't make it into the flag.
@riverat1: You're forgetting that the fall of Atlantis is evidence of how bad the global warming was - it was flooded by the rising oceans as all of the ice in the WHOLE PLANET melted and started boiling.
Sorry, need to take my pills.
-
88
03/08/10 | Report as spam
Oh dear so much melodrama, maybe I should turn off the TV soapies
I can't believe the rubbish that spills out of so many home made experts. Some one above implied all the nastiness is coming from the pro-warming people on here. Seems to me every article on this topic has the anti-warming people making some of the dumbest, uninformed and extremely nasty insults I have read. They contribule little to the debate but contribute many ugly emotionally driven insults. Dana is the target of so many bad mouthed anti-warmers. These shallow thinkers should be ashamed. They attack the pro-warmers when a mistake is made and go around slinging insults like a moron would. Funny how they go totally quiet when an anti-warmer makes bigger mistakes more often. Both sides have made errors but the anti lobby seem to make the biggest ones. They should pull back and re-group and do their homework with some calm logic. Other wise they simply discredit themselves and their fellow disclaimers.
Last week was cold. Real cold. Mitten cold.
