Even if their whole state was permanently under water these climate change skeptics would still be denying any change to their last dying breath.

Well, the winter is still chilling, isn’t it? Well. ….scientists already change the banner, now is….CLIMATE CHANGE!! Because “global warming” was becoming old and wrong.

South America is going to have a hot summer, maybe hotter than 2009/2010, but…..It’s cold here, right know!, and in many years I never reach late december without click the air conditionair “on”. Strange……..global warming is cooling us? Ahahahhahah……

Snow just means it’s precipitating when it’s cold. Not precipitating when it’s only super cold.

Warm air holds more moisture meaning we will get more rain and snow in the winter, but overall the earth continuos to warm up.

Ed Lascar said:
Well, the winter is still chilling, isn’t it? Well. ….scientists already change the banner, now is….CLIMATE CHANGE!! Because “global warming” was becoming old and wrong.

This is actually completely false.

“Although [Frank] Luntz (Right Wing political consultant, frequent guest on Hannity and conservative guru) later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe “global warming” as “climate change” since “climate change” was thought to sound less severe.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz)

So to clarify, the reason people began using the term climate change was not because the concept of global warming was incorrect, but because conservatives wanted to make it seem less serious than it actually was. Please actually know what you’re talking about before posting.

dbt said:
So to clarify, the reason people began using the term climate change was not because the concept of global warming was incorrect, but because conservatives wanted to make it seem less serious than it actually was. Please actually know what you’re talking about before posting.

Thats the dummest thing I ever heard. You say “global change” popped into our lexicon due to Conservatives wanting to make it seem less severe, but how do you explain the “believers” using the same phrase? Are you saying they were strong-armed into saying the same thing?

LeviCoult said:
Even if their whole state was permanently under water these climate change skeptics would still be denying any change to their last dying breath.

Even if the earth returned to an ice-age (like the current global warming alarmist predicted in the 70′s,) global warming believers would still believe in biggest con in scientific history.

Scott_in_MI said:
Thats the dummest thing I ever heard. You say “global change” popped into our lexicon due to Conservatives wanting to make it seem less severe, but how do you explain the “believers” using the same phrase? Are you saying they were strong-armed into saying the same thing?

What in hell does it matter what they call it!! All that matters is that the earth is getting warmer, which causes violent extremes as we have had the last five years or so. The sad thing is: You don’t care. You don’t give a damn that the earth is in trouble. You just don’t care. Go watch TV, watch you Beck, listen to your Limbaugh, smoke your cigarettes, and do nothing for mankind. What a waste.

James Nelson said:
damn that the earth is in trouble. You just don’t care

Fact: When I was little kid I herd of a story about the sky is falling from Chicken Little. Who would guess that they are suppose to be adults and swear by it today and call it the politically correct term Global Warming! What they should do is speak the truth and say my hands want to warm your wallet! That’s what warming means and they want everyone on the globe to give it to them! Handouts for us that don’t do it for themselves! Pathetic!

James Nelson said:
The sad thing is: You don’t care. You don’t give a damn that the earth is in trouble. You just don’t care. Go watch TV, watch you Beck, listen to your Limbaugh, smoke your cigarettes, and do nothing for mankind. What a waste.

The earth’s weather is always changing and man is to miniscule to do anything about it. Man’s “contribution” to our planet’s overall CO2 output (the gas “causing” global warming) is 0.035. Thats right, POINT ZERO THREE FIVE.

The sad thing is the sheep who continue to believe these lunatics. I’m sure you were one of the dolts who believed that we were headed toward an ice age in the 70′s.

Time magazines Cover Story 06/24/1974 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Newsweek Cover Story 04/28/1975 http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Just4thefax said:
Fact: When I was little kid I herd of a story about the sky is falling from Chicken Little. Who would guess that they are suppose to be adults and swear by it today and call it the politically correct term Global Warming! What they should do is speak the truth and say my hands want to warm your wallet! That’s what warming means and they want everyone on the globe to give it to them! Handouts for us that don’t do it for themselves! Pathetic!

You just dont care about the environment justthefax. You’re not as sensitive towards Mother Earth blah, blah, blah. Here’s a classic example of emotion being used to hypnotize the liberal masses, but like I say: facts trump emotion everytime.

C’mon, face it, you can’t measure global warming by the actual temperature. it’s too important for that. That’s why the media is right to cover up the overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been dropping, not rising, over the last decade. Just think it through — if we actually started letting facts get in the way of policy, how would we justify all the failed government initiatives, bankrupt entitlements and spending boondoggles that are the foundation of our democracy. You start by measuring global warming by actual temperatures, and there is no telling where that would lead.

Fact: We live in a dynamic universe don’t we, where all things in motion change. Humans also are causing the melting of the large ice cap that has been disappearing on Mars Oh my God!

felixw said:
C’mon, face it, you can’t measure global warming by the actual temperature. it’s too important for that. That’s why the media is right to cover up the overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been dropping, not rising, over the last decade. Just think it through — if we actually started letting facts get in the way of policy, how would we justify all the failed government initiatives, bankrupt entitlements and spending boondoggles that are the foundation of our democracy. You start by measuring global warming by actual temperatures, and there is no telling where that would lead.

To add on to your point, do you think that the High Priest of Global Warming would buy a mansion on an area predicted to be covered with rising ocean waters? Of course not, that would be a waste of money.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/al-gore-montecito-journal-newspaper-ad

I love the global warming/climate change nuts, they make life interesting.

felixw said:
C’mon, face it, you can’t measure global warming by the actual temperature. it’s too important for that. That’s why the media is right to cover up the overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been dropping, not rising, over the last decade. Just think it through — if we actually started letting facts get in the way of policy, how would we justify all the failed government initiatives, bankrupt entitlements and spending boondoggles that are the foundation of our democracy. You start by measuring global warming by actual temperatures, and there is no telling where that would lead.

Should I listen to a partisan hack like yourself or the experts on the subject who have done years and years of research?

“Despite it often being mentioned that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is undisputedly occurring, Corbyn proudly goes against the grain and advocates for his hypothesis of the coming global cooling.”

It’s often cited, and it’s a blatant lie. The cited poll numbers are always of the IPCC’s panel which is made up exclusively of climatologists and POLITICAL scientists — which they actually have the gall to associate with physical scientists.

No physical scientist takes climatology seriously anymore anyway. In fact, they should’ve ignored them long ago since the field of climatology was invented specifically because meteorologists weren’t in on the global warming alarmism. Climatologists expected everyone to believe that they were a different field entirely because apparently we’re supposed to believe that meteorologists are just too stupid to look at past global temperature patterns.

timzank said:
I love the global warming/climate change nuts, they make life interesting.

The same way we love you socialist/marxist/communist/illegal president nuts, you make life fucking hilarious.

Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.”

Why are you even drawing attention to this crap? This man is a charlatan. However, playing that role does pay money and get you on the cable news, I suppose.

However if you are looking for Exhibit A as to why Fox viewers spend their time watching a NEWS channel and get basic facts wrong, here it is! And yes, Fox and Friends is an opinion or entertainment show or something. That doesn’t mean they get to invent their own facts.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Should I listen to a partisan hack like yourself or the experts on the subject who have done years and years of research?

Ok, don’t listen to us, but how about listening to 32,000 SCIENTISTS (with 9,000 PhD’s) who realize that the world has been fooled into believing the myth. Here’s the link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Its the biggest scam in the history of science. Unfortunately, sheep are easily led, so this fraud will take time to be kown.

dbt said:
So to clarify, the reason people began using the term climate change was not because the concept of global warming was incorrect, but because conservatives wanted to make it seem less serious than it actually was. Please actually know what you’re talking about before posting.

This is a blatant lie, which is of course the currency of the global warming alarmist. It’s all they really have since their entire argument is based on lies.

“Climate change” was a term invented by another solely political body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was founded in 1988.

That original terminology didn’t strike enough fear into the unwashed masses, and the global COOLING alarmists of the 1970s were being widely discredited (funny how history is really cyclical). So, the globalist political organizations switch to calling it global warming to scare the people, and because the cooling trend never panned out. Now, that’s not panning out either since — surprise, surprise — the Earth’s climate doesn’t work on our political timewatch. The process is slow and largely unaffected by humans. Termites have more of an effect on the climate than humans, 10 times actually, and even they can’t force it to swing wildly from one extreme to the other.

da-wdc said:
This man is a charlatan.

And yet you listen to a former vice President (with NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND) who’s making HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS off this lie?

Come on dude, think for yourself. Investigate, research and stop being a sheep.

Scott_in_MI said:
Its the biggest scam in the history of science.

I dunno, the collusion against Galileo was pretty big too, and they forced him into capitulation. Just sayin’ :-)

Now the scope of the global warming hoax is bigger, but the truth has largely exposed it to be political motivated wealth redistribution. So ultimately the damage isn’t as bad… except in Europe, but fucked those nimrods for screwing over their own economies on what is largely religious dogma at this point.

Fact: Human global warming hits Mars!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Tony Westover said:
This is a blatant lie, which is of course the currency of the global warming alarmist. It’s all they really have since their entire argument is based on lies. “Climate change” was a term invented by another solely political body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was founded in 1988. That original terminology didn’t strike enough fear into the unwashed masses, and the global COOLING alarmists of the 1970s were being widely discredited (funny how history is really cyclical). So, the globalist political organizations switch to calling it global warming to scare the people, and because the cooling trend never panned out. Now, that’s not panning out either since — surprise, surprise — the Earth’s climate doesn’t work on our political timewatch. The process is slow and largely unaffected by humans. Termites have more of an effect on the climate than humans, 10 times actually, and even they can’t force it to swing wildly from one extreme to the other.

Time magazines Cover Story 06/24/1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Newsweek Cover Story 04/28/1975: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

da-wdc said:
Why are you even drawing attention to this crap? This man is a charlatan.

Yeah, such a charlatan that he’s been proven right.

Doesn’t it suck when the facts work against you? If you based your science on scientific method instead of political method, you wouldn’t have this problem, now would you.

Tony Westover said:
I dunno, the collusion against Galileo was pretty big too, and they forced him into capitulation. Just sayin’ :-) Now the scope of the global warming hoax is bigger, but the truth has largely exposed it to be political motivated wealth redistribution. So ultimately the damage isn’t as bad… except in Europe, but fucked those nimrods for screwing over their own economies on what is largely religious dogma at this point.

That incident only involved the Church and many of them actually believed in a heliocentric universe…the Global Warming fraud involves the UN, global leaders, politicians, scientists who all realize that they are scamming the entire populace

It doesn’t matter which side of this debate that you’re on, it’s hard to take it seriously after shoveling a FOOT OF SNOW OFF MY SIDEWALK. Let’s wait until summer. My head and back hurt too much.

Tony Westover said:
I dunno, the collusion against Galileo was pretty big too, and they forced him into capitulation. Just sayin’ :-) Now the scope of the global warming hoax is bigger, but the truth has largely exposed it to be political motivated wealth redistribution. So ultimately the damage isn’t as bad… except in Europe, but fucked those nimrods for screwing over their own economies on what is largely religious dogma at this point.

But whether Galileo or this takes the “title,” this fraud is going to shake up the scientific world.

SmartAlec said:
It doesn’t matter which side of this debate that you’re on, it’s hard to take it seriously after shoveling a FOOT OF SNOW OFF MY SIDEWALK. Let’s wait until summer. My head and back hurt too much.

I wish there were global warming

wow, those liberal crickets sure do get loud when a debate involves facts.

felixw said:
C’mon, face it, you can’t measure global warming by the actual temperature. it’s too important for that. That’s why the media is right to cover up the overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been dropping, not rising, over the last decade. Just think it through — if we actually started letting facts get in the way of policy, how would we justify all the failed government initiatives, bankrupt entitlements and spending boondoggles that are the foundation of our democracy. You start by measuring global warming by actual temperatures, and there is no telling where that would lead.

Sigh….. Did any of you go to college?

It’s going to be a real laugh once ‘Climate’ scientists are forced to admit that something as simple as CONVECTION completely renders the Greenhouse Effect MOOT with regards to Surface and Tropospheric temperatures.

SmartAlec said:
It doesn’t matter which side of this debate that you’re on, it’s hard to take it seriously after shoveling a FOOT OF SNOW OFF MY SIDEWALK. Let’s wait until summer. My head and back hurt too much.

Showing how little you know of the issue. How you and your little small-minded friends use snow as proof there is no global warming. You selfish clowns do not care about this world. You and your ilk care as much about this as you did about the first responders. To be a right wing extremist is to be selfish.

Scott_in_MI said:
That incident only involved the Church and many of them actually believed in a heliocentric universe…the Global Warming fraud involves the UN, global leaders, politicians, scientists who all realize that they are scamming the entire populace

Ahh, and now we are into conspiracies. Oh, those elitists (you know, the ones who read books) are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. When all this time, you and the other right wingers know that there is a giant cover-up about global warming, that all the governments in the world, are trying to force this upon you. ‘Cause it just might force you to think, and act responsibly for once in your little lives. Do any of you think? Read?

Scott_in_MI said:
Ok, don’t listen to us, but how about listening to 32,000 SCIENTISTS (with 9,000 PhD’s) who realize that the world has been fooled into believing the myth. Here’s the link: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Its the biggest scam in the history of science. Unfortunately, sheep are easily led, so this fraud will take time to be kown.

And you, with your vast amount of knowledge, figured it all out. Wow, you’re better than all those PhDs, better than all those who have fooled so many. Bet ya you can tell us about the Kennedy assassination too.

Liberalism = ‘cult ideology.’

Fact.

If nine doctors tell you that you have cancer, and the tenth one tells you that you don’t, you go with what he says.

Because then you don’t have cancer.

I was born in New York State and lived in a town that was about 2,000 feet above sea level and in the snow belt; that made it very cold.

Now I live in California, just off the coast at about 200 feet above sea level and it’s warm at Christmas.

So, for all practical purposes, I’ve been exposed to rising sea levels with Global Warming and outside of a few more liberals, it’s a lot nicer.

Scott_in_MI said:
And yet you listen to a former vice President (with NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND) who’s making HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS off this lie?

Come on dude, think for yourself. Investigate, research and stop being a sheep.

Where did I mention Al Gore? If you’re going to argue with someone, perhaps you should read what s/he wrote (I’m a she, by the way) instead of making it up?

Here, do your research:
http://www.climate.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/

Actually a brutal winter confirms climate change not the other way around.

James Nelson said:
Showing how little you know of the issue. How you and your little small-minded friends use snow as proof there is no global warming. You selfish clowns do not care about this world. You and your ilk care as much about this as you did about the first responders. To be a right wing extremist is to be selfish.

Did you even notice my name. Hint: It’s not really Alec
So you resort to insults and baseless name-calling. I guess you told me! Let me just say in my defense- FU.

Why did Al Gore buy a $9 million house on the beach after claiming the seas would rise wiping out beachfronts. Sounds like the “climate change” fearmongers fell for it and are still falling it.

JamesA1102 said:
Actually a brutal winter confirms climate change not the other way around.

No, a brutal winter confirms only one thing…that it’s a brutal winter.

LeviCoult said:
Even if their whole state was permanently under water these climate change skeptics would still be denying any change to their last dying breath.

You mean kind of like the global warming fools are still clinging to the mantra they learned from Al “the shyster” Gore? Man, you should just admit it–if only to yourself–that the entireity of human-caused global warming is, and always has been a power-grabbing con job, and that you got snookered. If you just quit trying to defend that which has no defense, the people who knew all along that you were being snookered will quit ribbing you about it.

Come into the light–there is truth and beauty in the light. There is happiness and joy in the light.

So Mr Piers Corbyn is predicting ‘global cooling’. Could somebody show me how his theory better fits the data than the ‘global warming’ theory.

Mr Corbyn is argueing that the ‘global warming’ theory is false but that his is correct. All the arguments that he can use against the science of ‘global warming’ would equally apply against ‘global cooling’. Unless he can come up with some good observations which fit his theory then his arguments are home goals.

Yes ‘global warming’ is a theory but it provides the best fit of the data we currently have. Does it fit all the data, no. Does any other theory have a better fit of the data, no. Until somebody can come up with a theory that is better than the ‘global warming’ theory then we should act on the predictions provided.

This planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for billions of years; long before man ever walked the Earth.  Any geologist can tell you that.  So, why is mankind suddenly the cause of and solution to earth’s natural proclivity?  

i am in europe right now,the son of a bitch is not telling the truth.yes it snowed but that is not unusual in europe.
right now it is quite okay.It snowed in england,and most parts in europe,but snow does not always mean extreem cold It has been sunny for the past 2 days and most of the snow are melting as i speak.The forecast for the coming days is cold just like winter in europe,gees what a nut job.

Nahu Tuk said:
Yes ‘global warming’ is a theory but it provides the best fit of the data we currently have.

Fact: Climatic Disruption?
1930′s hottest decade on record?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYLzyD7Jcg

Fact: Cap and trade tax! Sceme!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2304/
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/11/01/cap-and-trade-global-warming-bill-is-a-scam-experts-reveal/

“Despite it often being mentioned that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is undisputedly occurring”

As if science is a high school popularity contest…. No wonder science has gotten so bad.

Scott_in_MI said:
Ok, don’t listen to us, but how about listening to 32,000 SCIENTISTS (with 9,000 PhD’s) who realize that the world has been fooled into believing the myth. Here’s the link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

That “petition” has been thoroughly debunked…but, by all means, keep on posting it to support your misinformed stance on climate change.

Hell, even skeptics have shredded the veracity of this “petition”.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

Just4thefax says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:19 pm Just4thefax(Quote)
Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

James Nelson said:
damn that the earth is in trouble. You just don’t care

Fact: When I was little kid I herd of a story about the sky is falling from Chicken Little. Who would guess that they are suppose to be adults and swear by it today and call it the politically correct term Global Warming! What they should do is speak the truth and say my hands want to warm your wallet! That’s what warming means and they want everyone on the globe to give it to them! Handouts for us that don’t do it for themselves! Pathetic!
=====================

You read the WND website. You NO credibility on anything. You are a laughingstock!

26 degrees in Daytona Beach. But the surfers still catch waves.

Matt wrote, “Despite it often being mentioned that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is undisputedly occurring, Corbyn proudly goes against the grain and advocates for his hypothesis of the coming global cooling.”

There is NO CONSENSUS in the scientific community. It is in TOTAL dispute that warming is occurring.
Just repeating what liberal loons say will not make it true.
Corbyn has been RIGHT and the global warming nuts have not.

SmartAlec said:
No, a brutal winter confirms only one thing…that it’s a brutal winter.

So you admit that one brutal winter or storm doesn’t contradict global climate change.

James Nelson said:
And you, with your vast amount of knowledge, figured it all out. Wow, you’re better than all those PhDs, better than all those who have fooled so many. Bet ya you can tell us about the Kennedy assassination too.

No dolt, I haven’t figured it out. I follow fact and reason instead of following my emotions like you do. Why don’t you stop following the herd and start THINKING for yourself?

Hugo Daun said:
That “petition” has been thoroughly debunked…but, by all means, keep on posting it to support your misinformed stance on climate change. Hell, even skeptics have shredded the veracity of this “petition”. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

It hasn’t been “thoroughly debunked.” Yourt link found problems with some of the scientists listed on the petition. For the sake of argument, lets say that half of the petition signers are “questionable.” That still leaves 15000 scientists who don’t believe man-made global warming. Far from the consensus you libs constantly repeat.

James Nelson said:
Showing how little you know of the issue. How you and your little small-minded friends use snow as proof there is no global warming. You selfish clowns do not care about this world. You and your ilk care as much about this as you did about the first responders. To be a right wing extremist is to be selfish.

You refuse to debate anything SmartAlec says and yet you say it shows “how little he knows about the issue.” Its your inability to back up anything you say that shows who understands (and doesn’t understand) an issue.

JamesA1102 said:
So you admit that one brutal winter or storm doesn’t contradict global climate change.

I agree. But you should admit that when you have to change the name from ‘Global Warming’ To ‘Climate Change’ then you have lost the message and no one’s going to believe anything the climate change advocates throw out there.

As an environmentalist, I think the ‘global warming’ alarmists did much harm and no one trusts the science now. Telling the truth is just like our parents teach us, in the end, it’s always the best policy,

JamesA1102 said:
So you admit that one brutal winter or storm doesn’t contradict global climate change.

Never said that it did. You’re just looking to argue. Get a life.

Scott_in_MI said:
I wish there were global warming

Me too. For once I wish the Progressives were right. I remember in my youth here in the Midwest playing outside all winter long. Now its minus zero temps, too cold to do anything but stay inside, come on global warming! LOL

JamesA1102 said:
Actually a brutal winter confirms climate change not the other way around.

No, you cannot confirm a theory, you can only find evidence to either lend support to your expected outcome or you can evidence against it. Because you’re predicting future events, your best hope is to determine what might happen, and what the chances of different outcomes are. There’s no black and white here except in a movie.

Predictive modeling is just that, you are predicting future events based on evidence and assumptions. It’s as much art as science.

In 2008, a few market analysts predicted that the US housing market would crash, and that the entire banking system and financial system in the US was too highly leveraged (too much debt). Most ‘experts’ agreed that the good times would keep rolling, and that the skeptics were wrong, Those few skeptics are now vieweed as geniuses because rather than conforming to conventional wisdom and their peer experts, these naysayers looked at the data and saw fundamental and pretty obvious flaws. In essence, the skeptics saw what is now considered obvious. The numbers didn’t add up,

Sound familiar? I’m not saying the skeptics are wrong, I am saying its idiotic to not give it great weight to the skeptics since they are often the voice of wisdom since it’s much easier to ‘agree with the group’ than to be the one who disagrees.

Also, in general, if the media thinks it’s true, it probably isn’t. I’d trust the ‘common American’ more than a media expert any day of the week.

Scott_in_MI said:
It hasn’t been “thoroughly debunked.” Yourt link found problems with some of the scientists listed on the petition. For the sake of argument, lets say that half of the petition signers are “questionable.” That still leaves 15000 scientists who don’t believe man-made global warming. Far from the consensus you libs constantly repeat.

Yes, it has been totally debunked…from the skeptics link I posted and from many other sources.

But, go ahead spreading your misinformed nonsense. It’s clear from your response that you didn’t even bother to read the link I provided.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

From the piece:

“In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.”

Since he’s been right about this winter, unfortunately, here’s his twitter for the british folks since your official office thinks the winter will be mild.

The best sign of a good predictive model is when it predicts the right outcome. Sounds like his model using solar data is worth looking at. Here’s his twitter for anyone interested.

http://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn

.

I’m skeptical because some of the same players (James Hansen for example) that today say we are experiencing global warming were pretty vocal in saying that we were experiencing global cooling in the 70′s.

I’m skeptical because they used weather in the 70’s and 90’s to justify their points but now when the weather is against them they say that weather and climate are different.

I’m skeptical because they say that the increased snowfall is due to the increased precipitation brought on by global warming and ignore the fact many areas are experiencing record cold.

I’m skeptical because Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Curve was debunked by an outsider from Canada and not one of the so call Brilliant scientists within.

I’m skeptical that Al Gore who religiously believes this stuff and promotes it as gospel will not debate any knowledgeable skeptic and his lavish lifestyle of wasteful carbon output betrays his faith.

I’m skeptical because we have gone from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Global Climate change in 35 years and the Earth is 4.3 billion years old.

I’m skeptical that CO2 is referred to as pollution when it is a vital chemical for the survival of all plant life and thus the survival of man.

I’m skeptical because during the NYC 2007 debate between skeptics and theorists, the skeptics changed more minds than the theorists.

I’m skeptical because the leaked emails from the global warming scientists showed that they were out to silence debate rather than to defend their theories.

I’m skeptical because the global warming scientists have backed down on several of their high profile catastrophic predictions like melting glaciers, sea level rises etc that were to happen in the near future.

I’m skeptical because I worked for the Federal government for 15 years and I know that their number one job is to insure that they receive the same or more money next year and therefore they have to create a need to survive or they will face the axe. That biases opinions, making skeptics a necessary part in keeping the system in check.

I’m skeptical because record cold follows the global meetings this crowd convenes. Even moving to Mexico this year did not prevent record cold from occurring during the meeting.

I’m skeptical because abrupt weather changes in the past have occurred and man was not a factor, so this loose correlation between man and the recent temperature trends seem tenuous.

I’m skeptical because big global warming supporters are also supporters of socialism, re-distribution or wealth, and world governance, and they don’t try to hide it.

I’m skeptical because some of the major bureaus that produce the global warming trends now say they lost the original temperature data. How could you lose something so important? Now it can’t be reviewed.

I’m skeptical that the global warming agencies do not comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Is there something to hide? This is not a national security issue.

I’m skeptical because good measured data has only been around for a few hundred years and anyone with a scientific background knows that a sound process for measuring temperature has not been around during that time. Our equipment if used correctly is far more accurate than 150 years ago.

I’m skeptical because in the US a metrologist (Anthony Watts) called for an audit of the US temperature recording station and found many of those were not abiding by sound measurement techniques and were surrounded by pavement, buildings, and air conditioner heat exchangers that exposed them to urban heat sources.

I’m skeptical because man has achieved so much over the last 150 years in terms of health, life span, food production, quality of life for the intelligent members of society that even the less intelligent members benefited greatly. Yet the global warming theorists want to gamble that all away so that we can return the climate at least back to pre-industrial levels. The underachievers and the intellectually disadvantaged people would die in masses if we returned to the lifestyle of back them.

I’m skeptical because Phil Jones, leading global warming scientist from Britain says no measurable global warming has been detected since 1995. That came out after the leak. Why did he say otherwise beforehand?

Everyone has a duty to be skeptical. When somebody spouts something off you should immediately ask “How do we know that is true”? You should first test at the extremes and see if the theory fails. If it does, then see if it is true most of the time, some of the time, rarely, etc. Then you can determine how that theory can be applied. Look for a causal effect. Just because the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution does mean there is cause and effect. Just because there are more black is prison for crimes doesn’t mean that skin color is the cause. The Global Warming propaganda is intended to influence the uneducated masses rather than to win the debate on truth.

Hey morons, be skeptical all you want.

I’m sure there were many skeptical of Noah too XD

Ed Lascar said:
Well, the winter is still chilling, isn’t it? Well. ….scientists already change the banner, now is….CLIMATE CHANGE!! Because “global warming” was becoming old and wrong.

South America is going to have a hot summer, maybe hotter than 2009/2010, but…..It’s cold here, right know!, and in many years I never reach late december without click the air conditionair “on”. Strange……..global warming is cooling us? Ahahahhahah……

global warmings are always followed by a mass cooling.. thats the cycle of warming and cooling..

there is nothing we can do to stop it.. and we must just survive.. but hopefully it is going to be ok

Hugo Daun said:
Yes, it has been totally debunked…from the skeptics link I posted and from many other sources. But, go ahead spreading your misinformed nonsense. It’s clear from your response that you didn’t even bother to read the link I provided. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/ From the piece: “In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.”

Its clear by your response that you only read the conclusion (since it appeared to agree with your preconceived opinion.) If you bothered to read the entire piece, you’d see that the author only has issues with the scientific nature of Robinson’s petition. Here are some quotes:

“If Robinson had been conducting a real survey rather than a petition drive, he would not have allowed three different ways for persons to participate in his project.”

“But did they agree with all 20 overlapping propositions embedded in the four sentences of the petition? Did they agree with most of them? Did they agree with at least 50% of them? We don’t know. In a real survey, Robinson would have constructed a questionnaire in which his respondents could have addressed each of the 20 propositions in which he was interested”

“Robinson may be a brilliant chemist, but he seems to know almost nothing about the behavioral sciences, especially about conducting sound scientific surveys.”

Do you still want to say there’s a consensus about man-made global warming?

It’s funny, the conservatives would be the people that drowned. While Noah, and animal conservationists, and people that believe in global warming… would get on the arc.

You would all be dead if the bible is true XD

It’s good though, if we do end up having huge floods because of global warming, at least the crazy religious people and conservatives will still be in their houses praying to their gods and Tea Party leaders.

Meanwhile, we get to save ourselves because of their stupidity.

Let the conservatives say this all they want, when something bad happens, they be able to save themselves, they’ll just die because they ignored science.

It’s the way it should be, evolution.

gordonbloyershow said:
Matt wrote, “Despite it often being mentioned that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is undisputedly occurring, Corbyn proudly goes against the grain and advocates for his hypothesis of the coming global cooling.”

There is NO CONSENSUS in the scientific community. It is in TOTAL dispute that warming is occurring.
Just repeating what liberal loons say will not make it true.
Corbyn has been RIGHT and the global warming nuts have not.

proof?

Jon said:
Hey morons, be skeptical all you want. I’m sure there were many skeptical of Noah too XD

When the stakes of an argument are greater governmental control over our lives, those on the left prefer we not be skeptical of what our “leaders” are telling us. Its like rejecting the idea that the “War on Poverty” has worked. It cleearly has been a complete failure that has only made things worse, but a liberal would rather you ignore the facts and continue throwing money down a black hole.

Fact: Here you go left nut lunitics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMVJUMty-KA

Jon said:
It’s funny, the conservatives would be the people that drowned. While Noah, and animal conservationists, and people that believe in global warming… would get on the arc. You would all be dead if the bible is true XD It’s good though, if we do end up having huge floods because of global warming, at least the crazy religious people and conservatives will still be in their houses praying to their gods and Tea Party leaders. Meanwhile, we get to save ourselves because of their stupidity. Let the conservatives say this all they want, when something bad happens, they be able to save themselves, they’ll just die because they ignored science. It’s the way it should be, evolution.

There are some who say that Noah was a madman who was fortunate enough to have a bunch of sheep who’d listen to his claims about God exterminating mankind. When it started sprinkling, the human sheep just followed the rest of the cattle on board Noah’s boat without being skeptical of the man’s visions.

It never ceases to amaze me when the human race proclaims their belief in the power of their God and than arrogantly try to take His/Its responsibilities from Him. Those who believe in Global Warming try to take God’s work from Him by forcing the rest of us into poverty for their sake. Your arrogance toward God infuriates me. Mankind will never control anything but themselves and possibly the naive.

Scott_in_MI says:
“…facts trump emotion everytime.”

Here’s a fact for you:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/

Look at the global surface temp graph at the bottom. The last decade was the hottest on record, and the trend is up. Corbyn (and Beck incidently) are lying when they claim that temperatures are cooling.

Scott_in_MI said:
When the stakes of an argument are greater governmental control over our lives, those on the left prefer we not be skeptical of what our “leaders” are telling us. Its like rejecting the idea that the “War on Poverty” has worked. It cleearly has been a complete failure that has only made things worse, but a liberal would rather you ignore the facts and continue throwing money down a black hole.

Global warming is real, I dont’ care about your nonsensical bullshit. Waste of text space to be honest.

All deniers and skeptics of climate change, global warming, global weirding… you know, all you flat earth society people, read this (and yes, follow all the links to factual evidence as well). All you people constantly dumbfounded at the lack of critical analytic skills of Americans, you should read it as well. Good tips for responding to the various nonsensical denial statements.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/28/simple-rebuttals-to-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/#more-39346

http://alrdesign.com/blog/uploaded_images/global-warming-cartoon-705513.jpg

GlennBeckReview said:
Scott_in_MI says:“…facts trump emotion everytime.” Here’s a fact for you:http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/ Look at the global surface temp graph at the bottom. The last decade was the hottest on record, and the trend is up. Corbyn (and Beck incidently) are lying when they claim that temperatures are cooling.

Poor GBR can’t get anything right. First he tells us that there’s a “bombshell” news story coming out that will ruin Glen Beck’s career (so far that hasn’t materialized.) Now he’s using Pre Climategate data as proof of “global warming. Thats like using the Catholic Church’s writing from the 1500 as evidence of Earth’s position in the universe.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html

ZSG said:
All deniers and skeptics of climate change, global warming, global weirding… you know, all you flat earth society people, read this (and yes, follow all the links to factual evidence as well). All you people constantly dumbfounded at the lack of critical analytic skills of Americans, you should read it as well. Good tips for responding to the various nonsensical denial statements. http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/28/simple-rebuttals-to-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/#more-39346

Good site.
This is a good one too, with plenty of sources:http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Here, clickable: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

ZSG said:
All deniers and skeptics of climate change, global warming, global weirding… you know, all you flat earth society people, read this (and yes, follow all the links to factual evidence as well). All you people constantly dumbfounded at the lack of critical analytic skills of Americans, you should read it as well. Good tips for responding to the various nonsensical denial statements. http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/28/simple-rebuttals-to-denier-talking-points-with-links-to-the-full-climate-science/#more-39346

You’re dumbfounded “at the lack of critical analytic skills,” yet you rely on TALKING POINTS FROM A PROGRESSIVE WEBSITE for your information. Thats classic. Whats next? you using PETA information to analyze the effects of beef in our diets?

Facts aren’t what these people are searching for. They want to fear something and man’s effect on climate seems to be their present avenue. I just hope Al Gore and the rest of them get what’s coming to them. Let the name calling begin. Fear controls the masses. The process of God controls the climate and man has no control.

Scott_in_MI said:
You’re dumbfounded “at the lack of critical analytic skills,” yet you rely on TALKING POINTS FROM A PROGRESSIVE WEBSITE for your information. Thats classic. Whats next? you using PETA information to analyze the effects of beef in our diets?

OK, how’s this for you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806072.html

On Countdown or the evening news last night there was a brief, unexplained statement about why we’re getting the winter storms we’re getting. It has something to do with the melting icecaps, but no details or explanation was given.

I hope Corbyn is right, that we’re not facing the end of civil order within 100 years, that 99+% of earth scientists, of which he is not one, are wrong and that this is just a matter of solar activity:

“Corbyn’s predictions are based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.”[7] The technique “combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations.”[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth’s atmosphere.[8] Corbyn has declined to publish the details of his method.”

If he’s right, this will give America more time to find the energy alternatives needed for energy independence (what the last 8 presidents have been calling for) and will offer better skiing this year, something I won’t complain about. We’re going to need to transition from fossil fuels eventually due to peak production and massive price climbs if we don’t explore and develop alternatives. That is not a long time off.

Who to believe, a trained astrophysicist or Earth scientists? Hmmmmm. I’m going to go with what I’ve seen in the NE for the last 10 years, i.e., consistently less (much less) snow on the ground compared to the 60′s & 70′s. I’ll stand with the people trained in the Earth sciences over someone trained in astrophysics.

Papinian said:
OK, how’s this for you?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806072.html

Washington Post? Wow, thats even worse than the last site.

Scott_in_MI said:
Washington Post? Wow, thats even worse than the last site.

The article is writen by Sherwood Boehlert, a republican.
Get out of the closed information system.

GlennBeckReview said:
Who to believe, a trained astrophysicist or Earth scientists? Hmmmmm. I’m going to go with what I’ve seen in the NE for the last 10 years, i.e., consistently less (much less) snow on the ground compared to the 60’s & 70’s. I’ll stand with the people trained in the Earth sciences over someone trained in astrophysics.

Personally, I’ll look into it myself by examing multiple sources and reaizing that many sources (whether believers or non believers) have financial interests pushing their “research.” Finally, I’ll weigh the facts and COME UP WITH MY OWN CONCLUSION instead of being led by some guy using computer models to predict future temps (our local meteorologist cant even tell you what Fridays temp is gonna be, yet you follow some guy who says Earth will warm up 1 degree in the next 100 years.)

Papinian said:
The article is writen by Sherwood Boehlert, a republican.Get out of the closed information system.

Oh the Sherwood Boehlert who is on the board of Alliance for Climate Protection which stands to gain millions (or billions) if our nation’s energy structure switches over to renewable energy sources?

Hey Scott, facts is facts. You’re going to run out of labels because every major country, government, corporation, business, university, all say the same thing, your denial of facts is alarming. But for good measure, here are two more linsk saying the same thing:

1. The Pentagon QDR

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

2. Every major developed country government throught he National Academies of Science

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Scott_in_MI said:
Oh the Sherwood Boehlert who is on the board of Alliance for Climate Protection which stands to gain millions (or billions) if our nation’s energy structure switches over to renewable energy sources?

So you are against renewable energy sources?
“stands to gain millions (or billions) if our nation’s energy structure switches over to renewable energy sources?” -Please elaborate-

Signing off, back later

Yes, I would like to hear this one Scott. Please elaborate. How dare anyone make money! That would be capitalism! And it would create jobs…Here in the US! Heresy!

People who deny global warming are an embarrassment to our country on an international scale.

The world agrees on global warming… those of you who don’t think it’s happening. Go find a clue, no one cares about your ignorant opinion.

My video “Global Warming for Idiots”.

global warming for idiots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H86UDEYf-wg

The Earth is now warming it is cooling. My video presents absolute proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH31fv-hfsk

blankho said:
Everyone has a duty to be skeptical. When somebody spouts something off you should immediately ask “How do we know that is true”?

Great post. None of the loons here can answer it.

“How do we know that is true”?

Because the scientific method tells us it is… repeatedly, overtly, and without controversy (except of course that from the willingfully ignorant).

Hugo Daun said:
That “petition” has been thoroughly debunked…but, by all means, keep on posting it to support your misinformed stance on climate change. Hell, even skeptics have shredded the veracity of this “petition”. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

ZSG said:
“How do we know that is true”? Because the scientific method tells us it is… repeatedly, overtly, and without controversy (except of course that from the willingfully ignorant).

The willingfully ignorant, the same people that believed that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, that vaccines cause autism, etc.

Papinian said:
So you are against renewable energy sources?“stands to gain millions (or billions) if our nation’s energy structure switches over to renewable energy sources?” -Please elaborate-

of course not, but i don’t think its right for Al Gore (and crew) to make millions (in Gore’s case, hundreds of millions) off of companies that’ll benefit from junk science.

The real problem here is simple; plate tectonics. Every effort must be made to stop plate tectonics whether through taxation of obese individuals that place an obvious strain on the earth’s crust or some other means……oh wait, I forgot…..you can’t stop plate tectonics just like you can’t stop the the earth’s climate from changing…..sorry.

SmartAlec said:
Never said that it did. You’re just looking to argue. Get a life.

Actually you responded to my original post so you were the one looking to argue.

I attended the first “Earth Day” event held in the area where I was living at the time. There were a bunch of burned out hippies arriving in vehicles that needed a motor rebuild–or at least a ring job. One old hippie was hawking high-fat burgers triglyceride filled hot dogs cooked on a smoky old grill. There were signs bemoaning the need for an end to all steel mills and heavy industry–they were the culprits who were allegedly bringing an end to the Earth as we knew it.

Several “enlightened” speakers stood up to give speeches on the horrible fate that would eventually make ice cicles out of all of us. Yes, back then, all the scare and hype at the moment was about the coming ice age. It didn’t happen.

Thus, when I heard about the coming melting of the polar ice caps, I knew it was another ruse. I became convinced it’s all about gaining control of our lives. That’s what it’s always been about. Last time I checked, Manhattan is still not under water–unless you call being under 20″ of snow being “under water.”

To be fair, it seems there “was” a temporary increase in overall temperature on Earth a couple of years back, but commensurate increases were also recorded on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto. How humans caused that is still a mystery, just as it is still a mystery to figure out why driving Chevy Volts will make things better out in space.

Well, for the last couple of years, we’re seeing more blizzards in the US and Europe than ever before, and a pen pal I have in New Zealand tells me she’s about to freeze her arse off even though it’s now “summer” there.

The gist of all this is that ANYONE who tries to scare you with crapola stories and bunko data e.g. what the “human-caused global warming” crowd were spilling wants to scare you into submission by first filling you with guilt and then relinquishing control over your life. Don’t be a fool who falls for this line of crap.

JamesA1102 said:
Actually you responded to my original post so you were the one looking to argue.

You’re extremely wrong. I made a comment, you responded with names and insults. WTF?? You can’t even get the chronological order of posts right. You responded to my comment that I simply fired into the air and not at anybody.
I know your history here…you’re just a troll/stalker.
The only way I can respond to you is a simple FU.

Its been my observation over the the years that between the subset of people who are hard core climate changers and the subset of hard core evolutionist (the ones that openly mock the creationist), there is a HUGE overlap. (for the record on on board with the theory of evolution, but i find that mocking to be rather high schoolish and rather intolerant)

Anyhoo, a few questions. How can you tell me that at this point in time that the rise in CO2 is NOT part of the evolutionary process? How do you know that at a certian point the CO2 won’t trigger something in our bodies that will allow us to survive this earth for the next 2000 years? And why would those who do believe in evolution propose static answers? Nothing on this physical plane is static.

Finally I would take this global warming thing much more seriously when those that insist that its happening start living like it is happening. Any of y’all living of the grid yet? Anyone given up their car? Quit using their air conditioning? Lead the way. Just quit trying to get government to force me to do things you aren’t willing to do on your own. Better yet quit using government to force my to behave as you want me to period.

Science is not about consensus, Matt. You’re thinking of religion.

Yoda002 said:
Warm air holds more moisture meaning we will get more rain and snow in the winter, but overall the earth continuos to warm up.

But it isn’t warming up and hasn’t been since 1998. Please don’t say the 2000′s were the warmest on record, that’s another lie (the 1930′s were warmer). Stop reading the NY Times opinion page for scientific data.

wilky said:
Its been my observation over the the years that between the subset of people who are hard core climate changers and the subset of hard core evolutionist (the ones that openly mock the creationist), there is a HUGE overlap. (for the record on on board with the theory of evolution, but i find that mocking to be rather high schoolish and rather intolerant)

I am not part of this overlap. Evolution is solid scientific theory. Global warming is not. The difference is simple: there’s no money to be made in the advancement of evolution. Money corrupts science, and financial interests are what drives warmist agendas.

James Nelson said:
And you, with your vast amount of knowledge, figured it all out. Wow, you’re better than all those PhDs, better than all those who have fooled so many. Bet ya you can tell us about the Kennedy assassination too.

If the science is flawed, the numbers who believe in the fraud are irrelevant. Look at Piltdown Man. There was scientific consensus for decades, until some skeptic looked at the skull and realized it was a fraud. We are seeing this process underway now. More and more scientists are exposing the fraud.

Scott_in_MI says:
“I’ll weigh the facts and COME UP WITH MY OWN CONCLUSION instead of being led by some guy using computer models to predict future temps ”

Scott, the facts sometimes require some explanation to understand, and I’d rather listen to Earth scientists than an astrophysicist. This guy for example, Reese Halter. Sam first explains how Gordon, the blowhard with a show, can lie about climate change and the ignorant eat it up.

gordonbloyershow says:
“global warming for idiots”

This blowhard starts off telling us how many days are left in the Administration of the “abominable Barack
Obama.” Right Gordon, what f$%king morons are going to get their information from an anti-scientific blow hard rather than from Earth scientists? Oh, right, the ones who listen to Fox and Limbaugh as indicated by Sam in the Reese Halter video above.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Climatic Disruption?1930’s hottest decade on record?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYLzyD7Jcg

I did NOT say that!!!!!

Just4thefax said:
Nahu Tuk said:
Yes ‘global warming’ is a theory but it provides the best fit of the data we currently have.

What I meant was, I did NOT say this!

beamangrow said:
i am in europe right now,the son of a bitch is not telling the truth.yes it snowed but that is not unusual in europe.

What you may have heard about snow in NYC was a lie; it’s actually 72 degrees and sunny right now. Al Gore went to Atlantic City for a swim on New Years Day.

gordonbloyershow says:
“The Earth is now warming it is cooling.”

I’m glad that you have that straight in your head.

I say this with the least amount of hyperbole possible:

Facism is alive and well, and its perpetrators dont wear brown shirts, or even red shirts any longer- they wear green.

The green party members in latin america are commonly referred to as ‘sandias’, or watermelons in english.

That is, they are green on the outside, red on the inside- and if you dont know what that means I feel sorry for your ignorance.

Thank God 75% of us woke up before it was too late. For the other 25%, well there never was any hope for them anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064423/on-the-anniversary-of-climategate-the-watermelons-show-their-true-colours/

BarneyFranken said:
Thank God 75% of us woke up before it was too late. For the other 25%, well there never was any hope for them anyway.

vencit veritas.

BarneyFranken said:
I say this with the least amount of hyperbole possible:

Facism is alive and well, and its perpetrators dont wear brown shirts, or even red shirts any longer- they wear green.

The green party members in latin america are commonly referred to as ’sandias’, or watermelons in english.

That is, they are green on the outside, red on the inside- and if you dont know what that means I feel sorry for your ignorance.

Thank God 75% of us woke up before it was too late. For the other 25%, well there never was any hope for them anyway.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064423/on-the-anniversary-of-climategate-the-watermelons-show-their-true-colours/

Good grief, to listen to the hysterics on the right, the U.S. has never had anything to do with global trade regimes.

No such things as Bretton Woods – http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/bre.htm

No such thing as GATT or the WTO – http://www.law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/gatt.html

No such thing as the G-6, G-7 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Six

…G-8 – http://www.g8italia2009.it/G8/G8-G8_Layout_locale-1199882116809_Home.htm

…or G-20 – http://www.g20.org/index.aspx

Seriously, that is some of the dumbest paranoia out there right now. The entire global economy is controlled by corporate elites but somehow the communist hippies are outflanking them at every turn? What power!

LOL

Paul Westlake said:
Seriously, that is some of the dumbest paranoia out there right now. The entire global economy is controlled by corporate elites but somehow the communist hippies are outflanking them at every turn? What power! LOL

Wait, you call being against global warming dumb paranoia, right after spouting off some crazy shit about the WTO?

Your anti-capitalist rhetoric is so in depth, you can feel the paranoia coming off your post…I especially like how you quoted me yet immediately went into a tirade about global trade regimes, even though that had nothing to do with what I posted. Now thats a special foaming-at-the-mouth crazy that I must applaud. Bravo sir!

But as for your probing of the roots of the global warming scam, only to come up with ‘communist hippies’ being behind it? Now thats just disappointing really. I’d think a full fledged tinfoil hat wearer such as yourself would have come up with something better than that- Or is there even such a thing as eco-facism?

That’s just conservatives in hysterics again, nothing to see there but a bunch of granola eating hippies singing kumbaya, yup. No way world governments are getting involved, drafting legislation to regulate industry and tie economic and social justice to the environmental movement because they found the people are willing to palate it more in that form. Nope, not happening whatsoever.

Like I said, for 25% of you there is no hope.

BarneyFranken said:
“Thank God 75% of us woke up before it was too late. For the other 25%, well there never was any hope for them anyway.”

pyrope says:
“vencit veritas.”

Denialism does not amount to the truth, and if denial of what the Earth scientists are telling us conquers, we are royally screwed. I don’t mean we as in you and I; I mean we as in our great grandchildren and their children. Beck, with all his doomsday scenerios never addresses this one which, unlike national bankruptcy, will truly destroy our civilization if not addressed. We have the means to control the Earth environment…at least until the sun starts its long decent into death. (That gives us a couple billions years, but so long as the denialists hold court, we won’t be around for much of that future.)

If there are 25% of people who are totally off the wall, they most certainly include the extremists on the right who buy into Beck’s absurd claims about progressivism, Obama or pretty much anything else he addresses. There are kooks on the far left, but the lion’s share of kooks are the gullible and/or low IQ plebeians on the right.

Here is more accurate information from Democracy Now on the global warming issue and its health effects: From Snowstorms to Heat Waves, How Global Warming Causes Extreme Weather and Climate Instability http://bit.ly/hIpdpN

SmartAlec said:
You’re extremely wrong. I made a comment, you responded with names and insults. WTF?? You can’t even get the chronological order of posts right. You responded to my comment that I simply fired into the air and not at anybody.I know your history here…you’re just a troll/stalker.The only way I can respond to you is a simple FU.

Sorry but I made this comment:

JamesA1102 said:
Actually a brutal winter confirms climate change not the other way around.

To which you responded:

SmartAlec said:
No, a brutal winter confirms only one thing…that it’s a brutal winter.

Then I responded to you:

JamesA1102 said:
So you admit that one brutal winter or storm doesn’t contradict global climate change.

And then you responded with:

SmartAlec said:
Never said that it did. You’re just looking to argue. Get a life.

That’s when I responded:

JamesA1102 said:
Actually you responded to my original post so you were the one looking to argue.

And then you responded with the above. Anyone here can scroll up and see the history which confirms that you responded to my comment, not the other way around. And that you were the first person to resort to namecalling, not me.

As far as being a “troll/stalker” as you put it. If I am, than everyone else here is one too.

lane said:
No, you cannot confirm a theory, you can only find evidence to either lend support to your expected outcome or you can evidence against it. Because you’re predicting future events, your best hope is to determine what might happen, and what the chances of different outcomes are. There’s no black and white here except in a movie. Predictive modeling is just that, you are predicting future events based on evidence and assumptions. It’s as much art as science. In 2008, a few market analysts predicted that the US housing market would crash, and that the entire banking system and financial system in the US was too highly leveraged (too much debt). Most ‘experts’ agreed that the good times would keep rolling, and that the skeptics were wrong, Those few skeptics are now vieweed as geniuses because rather than conforming to conventional wisdom and their peer experts, these naysayers looked at the data and saw fundamental and pretty obvious flaws. In essence, the skeptics saw what is now considered obvious. The numbers didn’t add up, Sound familiar? I’m not saying the skeptics are wrong, I am saying its idiotic to not give it great weight to the skeptics since they are often the voice of wisdom since it’s much easier to ‘agree with the group’ than to be the one who disagrees. Also, in general, if the media thinks it’s true, it probably isn’t. I’d trust the ‘common American’ more than a media expert any day of the week.

The housing and financial crisis have nothing to do with climate change. There are over 200 peer reviewed studies that confirm it is real and man made yet not one that refutes those facts.

GlennBeckReview said:
If there are 25% of people who are totally off the wall, they most certainly include the extremists on the right who buy into Beck’s absurd claims about progressivism, Obama or pretty much anything else he addresses. There are kooks on the far left, but the lion’s share of kooks are the gullible and/or low IQ plebeians on the right.

You can’t go one post without mentioning Beck. Obsess much? I think he needs to file a restraining order against you.

Yeah, but being skeptical of global warming? Yeah THATS CRAZY.

JamesA1102 said:
The housing and financial crisis have nothing to do with climate change. There are over 200 peer reviewed studies that confirm it is real and man made yet not one that refutes those facts.

Consider yourself refuted.

http://www.helium.com/items/2041470-1000-scientists-refute-man-made-global-warming-climate-change

Your welcome.

BarneyFranken said:
Consider yourself refuted. http://www.helium.com/items/2041470-1000-scientists-refute-man-made-global-warming-climate-change Your welcome.

Where’s the peer reviewed study? There was no study, let alone one that was peer reviewed, just a petition. And exactly who are these 1000 scientists? Are they climatologists? I could care less whether a physicist or an archaeologist thinks climate change is real or not.

JamesA1102 said:
The housing and financial crisis have nothing to do with climate change. There are over 200 peer reviewed studies that confirm it is real and man made yet not one that refutes those facts.

Don’t be obtuse. The point was that the skeptics can be right even when the ‘consensus’ of experts in a field are in general agreement. The point again, is that good climate experts should be open to continual re-evaluation of the science, the modeling, and instead many seem to be on crusade with advocates to be alarmists rather than to stick to the science.It’s a disservice to the environmental movement.

BarneyFranken said:
Wait, you call being against global warming dumb paranoia, right after spouting off some crazy shit about the WTO?

Your anti-capitalist rhetoric is so in depth, you can feel the paranoia coming off your post…I especially like how you quoted me yet immediately went into a tirade about global trade regimes, even though that had nothing to do with what I posted. Now thats a special foaming-at-the-mouth crazy that I must applaud. Bravo sir!

Your primal (and not at ALL hyperbolic) scream was essentially a long whine about losing sovereignty. That’s what “fascism” in the context of a global regime to combat climate change means. God, I’m so tired of finishing the thought for you short-attention-span-theater rejects. I mean, seriously, dude, you can’t even keep right wing talking points straight!

BarneyFranken said:
But as for your probing of the roots of the global warming scam, only to come up with ‘communist hippies’ being behind it? Now thats just disappointing really. I’d think a full fledged tinfoil hat wearer such as yourself would have come up with something better than that- Or is there even such a thing as eco-facism?

That’s YOUR point, nimrod! You’re the one who thinks there’s a global liberal cabal with enough power to push around the wealthiest industrial capitalists on Earth, not me! LOL!

Eco-fascism? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BarneyFranken said:
That’s just conservatives in hysterics again, nothing to see there but a bunch of granola eating hippies singing kumbaya, yup. No way world governments are getting involved, drafting legislation to regulate industry and tie economic and social justice to the environmental movement because they found the people are willing to palate it more in that form. Nope, not happening whatsoever.

And now you’ve come back full circle to whining about sovereignty again. Can you, possibly, try to keep your own gibberish straight, at least in your mind? Hmm? You know, when I brought up Bretton Woods and things like GATT, it was in THIS context. “Context” is a word you should look up and get to know. It’s very helpful in life.

BarneyFranken said:
Like I said, for 25% of you there is no hope.

As long as there are idiots like you running around, you might be right!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lane said:
Don’t be obtuse. The point was that the skeptics can be right even when the ‘consensus’ of experts in a field are in general agreement. The point again, is that good climate experts should be open to continual re-evaluation of the science, the modeling, and instead many seem to be on crusade with advocates to be alarmists rather than to stick to the science.It’s a disservice to the environmental movement.

Who says they are not? However, there has not been one peer reviewed scientific study that refutes the consensus on climate change. So just because in a totally unrelated field the skeptics were proven right does not make them right in this case. It’s that thinking that is obtuse.

BarneyFranken said:
Yeah, but being skeptical of global warming? Yeah THATS CRAZY.

You’re not a skeptic, you’re a denier. Big difference.

lane said:
Don’t be obtuse. The point was that the skeptics can be right even when the ‘consensus’ of experts in a field are in general agreement. The point again, is that good climate experts should be open to continual re-evaluation of the science, the modeling, and instead many seem to be on crusade with advocates to be alarmists rather than to stick to the science.It’s a disservice to the environmental movement.

Your point is partially valid, but only in the context wherein skeptics have an equal or better understanding of the underlying science. Meteorologists do not fit that bill, no matter how good their models are. And Corbyn is well-known to play fast and loose with his own models, let alone climate science. He’s not qualified to peddle the product he has, which is only ever accurate by coincidence. Every one of his long-term seasonal predictions has been wrong. And his solar methodology doesn’t come close to a correlation with observed solar activity.

- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/langswitch_lang/sk/

There isn’t one reputable scientific organization, not one university, not one peer-review journal that disputes the underlying science of climate change. Not one. We can find skeptics for literally every concept under the sun – the Flat Earth Society STILL exists, for instance. But just because skeptics exist doesn’t mean they’re right. What is a disservice to the environmental movement is junk science. And people like Piers Corbyn are junk science through and through.

GlennBeckReview said:
pyrope says:
“vencit veritas.”
Denialism does not amount to the truth, and if denial of what the Earth scientists are telling us conquers, we are royally screwed.

It’s interesting that you mention “denialism.” Here we have some interesting phenomenon that the human-caused global warming proponents are denying:

During the brief span (< 2 years) when some indication of increasing temperatures on Earth were reported, astronomers detected increased temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto. (Mercury and Venus were not considered as they are subject to changes in temperature during solar flares, while Saturn, Neptune and Uranus were in positions such that temperature variations were impossible to measure.)

Taking out of consideration those temperature measuring points that were effected by radiant heat from asphalt, HVAC vents, etc., that can only be considered nefarious at best, the so-called "hockey stick" graph and the other works created at East Anglia became irrelevant.

Later, we learned the extraordinary ice melting in Greenland and at the South Pole were both caused by seismic activities–there are volcanoes near both places!

The reports on increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are inconsequential when one realizes that chlorophyl-based flora thrives on CO2–AND this causes these plants to produce more O2. So, the relationship is a wash.

Now, we have the coldest December on record in the US AND in New Zealand, to say nothing of Europe, which has shut down most of its air travel during December because of ice and snow. I pity those who have been trapped in NYC and Flagstaff, AZ because of the snows. Phoenix, AZ even got snow today!

No scientist denied that some totally inconsequential warming occurred a couple of years back, just as no scientist could deny that the warming phenomenon was exclusive to Earth–this makes the "human-caused" part of the argument false.

Similarly, no scientist can deny today that we are experiencing some significant cooling. I personally have not examined data on what might be happening on other planets in our solar system but I do know that such cooling as we might be observing now is no more "caused" by humans than the warming we observed earlier.

During my life as a geologist (I was actually employed as a seismologist at the time), I spent some time near Prudhoe Bay. We drilled test holes through the ice and what we found below the ice were remnants of palm trees and other tropical fauna. This is important because it totally refutes the speculation that humans are anything resembling consequential in relation to the dynamics of the Earth. It is the vanity of some that causes them to think otherwise, but more importantly we must realize what the entireity of the global warming (now called "climate change") argument is:

It is totally about control. There are a group of people who wish to control all the rest of us and this is the latest attempt. I refuse to fall for this ploy and, as a scientist, I refuse to entertain the BS these people use as their "proof."

Once one realizes theirs is a game of control, one may realize that the purchase of carbon credits and the guilt trip these hucksters are trying to lay on the unsuspecting and ignorant is designed to decrease our freedoms. To get past their claims requires the ability to question their authority or even their claim to any authority at all. That is up to you.

pyrope said:
During the brief span (< 2 years) when some indication of increasing temperatures on Earth were reported, astronomers detected increased temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto. (Mercury and Venus were not considered as they are subject to changes in temperature during solar flares, while Saturn, Neptune and Uranus were in positions such that temperature variations were impossible to measure.)

Less than two years? There is more than enough empirical evidence to showing warming trends going back to the 70s:

- http://pbl2010sithirak.wikispaces.com/file/view/graph_on_global_warming.jpg/148894261/graph_on_global_warming.jpg

As for warming on other planets, it would require a corresponding increase in solar output to be correlative, and this isn’t happening, nor is the warming trend uniform, or even confirmable in the outer system:

- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

pyrope said:
Taking out of consideration those temperature measuring points that were effected by radiant heat from asphalt, HVAC vents, etc., that can only be considered nefarious at best, the so-called “hockey stick” graph and the other works created at East Anglia became irrelevant.

None of those measurements were conducted in absolute terms, but in comparative terms, meaning it’s not the number from station to station that matters, but the trend in changes reported by the same stations over time. Rural, suburban and urban stations have all shown consistent warming trends over time. The hockey stick is still more than relevant:

- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

pyrope said:
Later, we learned the extraordinary ice melting in Greenland and at the South Pole were both caused by seismic activities–there are volcanoes near both places!

Seismic activity has been occurring in those same spots for centuries and the ice sheets grew there anyway. And the amount of energy the Earth would have to release to melt even a fraction of the ice that has already melted is way beyond “seismic activity.” This study is about Arctic Sea ice but the comparison is more than valid:

- http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/volcanos-in-gakkel-ridge-not-responsible-melting-the-arctic-ice/

“It would take a thousand volcanos the size of Mount St. Helens every year to account for just 1% of the yearly Arctic ice loss.”

And it’s not the only glacier melting away:

- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kilimanjaro/vanishing.html

pyrope said:
The reports on increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are inconsequential when one realizes that chlorophyl-based flora thrives on CO2–AND this causes these plants to produce more O2. So, the relationship is a wash.

The flora-fauna balance already existed long before humanity started throwing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes, there is a cushion and there are many CO2 sinks in the world that have absorbed a tremendous amount of human CO2 output – but we long since maxed out those sinks and atmospheric CO2 is still rising:

- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

pyrope said:
Now, we have the coldest December on record in the US AND in New Zealand, to say nothing of Europe, which has shut down most of its air travel during December because of ice and snow. I pity those who have been trapped in NYC and Flagstaff, AZ because of the snows. Phoenix, AZ even got snow today!

We don’t yet know if this will be the coldest December on record becuase it isn’t over yet. Three good warm days, which we’re getting in NYC now heading into January, could reverse any trend you be perceiving. And the weakening of the northern jet stream is the cause of the plunge of arctic air into more temperate zones this month, a shift that is actually predicted by climate change models:

- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/

pyrope said:
No scientist denied that some totally inconsequential warming occurred a couple of years back, just as no scientist could deny that the warming phenomenon was exclusive to Earth–this makes the “human-caused” part of the argument false.

Similarly, no scientist can deny today that we are experiencing some significant cooling. I personally have not examined data on what might be happening on other planets in our solar system but I do know that such cooling as we might be observing now is no more “caused” by humans than the warming we observed earlier.

Plenty of scientists with really good credentials and peer-reviewed studies say exactly the opposite. No warming trends over the past several decades are “insignificant” to a climatologist, and there is NO cooling trend now. The hockey stick still applies. The only graph you can find that shows a cooling trend is junk science that’s measuring a very narrow and specific window of time and across peak values only. All legitimate studies use mean values only and weight statistical outliers accordingly, as all good statisticians do. Peak values are, by definition, statistical outliers. Ergo, drawing a line through them is meaningless. There is NO cooling going on. The Earth is still warming and Montana’s dead pine forests are testament to that truth.

pyrope said:
During my life as a geologist (I was actually employed as a seismologist at the time), I spent some time near Prudhoe Bay. We drilled test holes through the ice and what we found below the ice were remnants of palm trees and other tropical fauna. This is important because it totally refutes the speculation that humans are anything resembling consequential in relation to the dynamics of the Earth.

I’m sorry, but I have a really hard time believing you have a geology background making such specious assumptions. There are many different forcings that act upon the Earth’s climate. Many people believe that the top producer of methane globally is cow farts. But they’re actually number two. Number one is significantly less significant – termites. If termites can be the number one producer of natural methane on earth, surely humans with their millions of internal combustion engines, smoke stacks and heat-generating industrial and energy production processes can have SOME measurable impact. And it turns out we have quite a large impact. Some people believe that volcanoes pump out more CO2 per eruption than all of humanity in our entire history, when, in fact, humans pump out more CO2 in a month than all the volcanoes of the past twenty years combined. Once you get a better grasp of the true numbers, human impact becomes very easy to understand.

I mean, seriously, we dug a ditch between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. What do you think would happen if we kept going, just kept widening it out and really just separated the continents down there? Once the Atlantic and Pacific oceans met in the middle, do you think it would be under our control anymore? I don’t. I think mother nature would take over and we’d be looking at whole new ocean currents, whole different types of erosion in that region, and a completely different looking western hemisphere within a few decades. We can have an influence, but mama still makes the rules.

pyrope said:
It is totally about control. There are a group of people who wish to control all the rest of us and this is the latest attempt. I refuse to fall for this ploy and, as a scientist, I refuse to entertain the BS these people use as their “proof.”

You know, I agree with that, but you got the wrong gang. The environmentalists don’t have anything to lose with the status quo because they aren’t in control now. It’s the anti crowd that thinks it has enough to lose that they’ll use any argument to fend off what they perceive to be their personal economic disaster. Seriously, who do you think is more in control of the world’s economy right now, environmentalists or corporate polluters? Whatever money environmentalists might be making from hocking books and seminars (and I’m not so naive as to think they aren’t out there) are dwarfed by the trillions upon trillions of dollars riding on the perpetuation of the current, unsustainable, system. If you just follow the money, honestly, I think you’ll find the true villains.

pyrope said:
Once one realizes theirs is a game of control, one may realize that the purchase of carbon credits and the guilt trip these hucksters are trying to lay on the unsuspecting and ignorant is designed to decrease our freedoms. To get past their claims requires the ability to question their authority or even their claim to any authority at all. That is up to you.

Couldn’t agree more, but again, you’re looking at the wrong crowd. Who are the people who claim authority in this economy, environmentalists or bankers? Climatologists or industrialists? You may be making a valid point but you’re making it about people who have no power and no control over economic affairs. The people who DO have that power and control are uniformly on the denial side, from energy and timber companies to conservative politicians who depend on their contributions (and the likes of Pies Corbyn, who has a fake weathercasting system to sell).

Yes, please do question authority. At long last, won’t some of you people on the right start to ask those very same questions about the corporate elite? Can’t you take your own medicine for once? I can rattle off a list of grievances I have with my side, from the perpetuation of a stupid drug war to the escalation in Afghanistan. When will we see some self-policing on the right? When will that challenge of honest introspection be taken up by the challengers? I wish I was doing something more than just humoring myself and wasting my time on this board, but I don’t hold out much hope. The only benefit to the 20 minutes I just spent typing this is that your self-assured misstatements will not go unchallenged. [sigh]

GlennBeckReview said:
If there are 25% of people who are totally off the wall, they most certainly include the extremists on the right who buy into Beck’s absurd claims about progressivism, Obama or pretty much anything else he addresses. There are kooks on the far left, but the lion’s share of kooks are the gullible and/or low IQ plebeians on the right.

The reactionary homophobe BarneyFranken says:
“You can’t go one post without mentioning Beck. Obsess much? I think he needs to file a restraining order against you.”

Actually, I do a lot; but often I include Beck in my comments because he’s such a threat to civil discourse and people’s lives. If Beck needs a restraining order for someone sitting in front of a computer in Upstate NY, then he’s more mentally ill (paranoid) than he pretends to be. And yes, Beck pretends a lot: he’s a complete fraud, tears and all. An actor, a convincing actor for the gullible reactionaries desperate for a spiritual leader, a Messiah. Beck plays the part well.

The reactionary homophobe BarneyFranken adds:
“Yeah, but being skeptical of global warming? Yeah THATS CRAZY.”

I’d say that arguing against the world wide scientific consensus on climate change is more stupid than crazy. It’s called denialism; read the book.

Paul Westlake said:
Less than two years? There is more than enough empirical evidence to showing warming trends going back to the 70s:

That was a typo, I meant <12 years. The data, however, was still "cooked" and it's easy to understand why–if one allows themselved to do so.

I'll respond to your other remarks but I should first ask that you do not doubt what I tell you in regards to my credentials; this is something I do not lie about and I consider it an insult that you would accuse me of such. I will tell you where my last office was before I retired: it was a 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA. You can find out where I worked if you wish to do so.

Now, here's a pragmatic little link I want to provide for your consideration:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming031307.htm

This is only one of many arguments but scientific research is such that arguments are always inevitable–it is through the debate process that the truth is smelted from the ore of theory.

As a geologist, I could expand on many things concerning the hydrosphere (the driver of Earth's climate, paleontology (the records which indicate Earth's conditions in the past), and vulcanology (which you eluded to in your remarks about the South Pole and elsewhere, but will spare your time as much as it is possible to do so. Perhaps the one thing geologists know that most others fail to consider is that the geologic processes are ongoing and most "events" (e.g. orogenies) often take millions–if not billions–of years to complete. Thus, all the climate data recorded by humans using various meteorlogic gadgetry is virtually inconsequential with respect to the history of Earth. It is through recovering data e.g. I collected at Prudhoe Bay (and elsewhere) that provided me with the opinion that "human-caused" anything that concerns the dynamics of the Earth is laughable–the most that humans are capable of is some short-term phenomena. And, insofar as our climate may be concerned, there have been ice ages and periods of warming in countless cycles through geologic time. Once one learns to embrace this truth, one is able to get past all the hysteria we hear from time to time.

In the following link, one of the more important passages reads "The number of sunspots visible from the Earth not only changes from day to day, but also in cycles that can last from decades to centuries to millennia." This is perhaps the fact most overlooked–or ignored–by the proponents of global warming.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

But, generally, the eleven year cycle is also important.

So, thus far, I have presented two important clues that relate to the irrelevance of humans.

Paul Westlake said:
Three good warm days, which we’re getting in NYC now heading into January, could reverse any trend you be perceiving.

Again, regional phenomenon are irrelevant. While you may have enjoyed three relatively warm days in NYC, if you consider the temperatures recorded over the globe, you could gain a better insight as to what is happening on a cosmopolitan basis. I.e. it would be irresponsible to look at a local–or even regional–set of circumstances, and while December may not be over yet, the average temperatures over the globe will likely cancel out what you may be seeing. (The people in Tucson, who have just recorded snow for the first time in decades would certainly argue with your assessment! So would the folks who are seeing the coldest summer in decades in New Zealand.

Paul Westlake said:
The hockey stick still applies. The only graph you can find that shows a cooling trend is junk science that’s measuring a very narrow and specific window of time and across peak values only.

You may get a lot of argument on that!

Paul Westlake said:
There are many different forcings that act upon the Earth’s climate.

You prove my point. Thanks!

Paul Westlake said:
The people who DO have that power and control are uniformly on the denial side, from energy and timber companies to conservative politicians who depend on their contributions (and the likes of Pies Corbyn, who has a fake weathercasting system to sell).

Again, you may wish to reconsider. It is the government who have the most to win in perpetrating the global warming hoax. It is the government who sell the carbon credits and rake in the new taxes. It is also the “green energy” folks, e.g. Al Gore, Van Jones, and others of such ilk who have the most to gain–POWER is what it’s really all about.

I’m sorry I cannot complete my thoughts as my lovely wife is reminding me we must go celebrate the New Year, but I think I’ve provided you with some ideas to consider.

In the end, I would like to leave you with this: Humans are insignificant creatures in the grand scheme of things. We have been infesting this planet for perhaps only a million years. We are a flash in the pan so to speak, but our most remarkable trait is and has been our vanity.

Happy New Year!

pyrope said:
I’ll respond to your other remarks but I should first ask that you do not doubt what I tell you in regards to my credentials; this is something I do not lie about and I consider it an insult that you would accuse me of such.

I understand and I tried not to directly accuse you of lying, I just said I had a hard time believing it given the conclusions you reached. It’s also impossible to verify the information you provided because we don’t who you are. If you feel it important to remain anonymous, fine, I understand that. But it erodes any confidence I might have in the veracity of your claims. All that being said, I’ll take you on face value but I still think you’re a mediocre student. ;-)

pyrope said:
Now, here’s a pragmatic little link I want to provide for your consideration:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming031307.htm

And this is why. There MUST be something better than CanadaFreePress for this. I didn’t even click on the link because I don’t trust anything on that website. If you can provide a citation on a more reputable site, even Fox! I’ll run with it. But I don’t waste any time on RedState or CanadaFreePress or WND. I wouldn’t give you a link to HuffPo (unless it was supported by additional links from sites we can agree on). I know you won’t take anything from HuffPo or MediaMatters, etc. So do the favor of treating me in kind. If you have meaningful data from reliable sites that contradict my assertions, I WANT to know about them, because I don’t want to go through life believing the wrong things. I’m not trying to just win one for the left, I really do care about the truth. So, please, if you’re serious about this debate, do the solid of finding the data on sites we can agree on. In these debates, I generally trend toward university scholarship because it’s footnoted and less politically charged – not the scholarship from IPCC members, but from post-grads and doctoral students analyzing the data. If anyone has a chance of being totally honest and transparent in this debate, it’s a post-grad trying to make a name by debunking the grandest theory of them all right now. So far, I haven’t found anyone at that level who has succeeded in debunking the climate science.

pyrope said:
And, insofar as our climate may be concerned, there have been ice ages and periods of warming in countless cycles through geologic time.

Of course there have. Humanity has survived through countless ages and environments. That’s not the point. The point is that humanity can adapt to these changes, even if they happen rapidly, but the ecosystem we have come to rely on to sustain our massive human population cannot. Species need centuries to evolve, not years. The polar bear is already interbreeding with grizzly bears as a result of habitat shrinkage. But the Asian bark beetle will only get more aggressive and the Pondarosa pines have no natural defenses, nor are they likely to develop natural defense in time to stop the entire species from being wiped out at this rate.

pyrope said:
It is through recovering data e.g. I collected at Prudhoe Bay (and elsewhere) that provided me with the opinion that “human-caused” anything that concerns the dynamics of the Earth is laughable–the most that humans are capable of is some short-term phenomena.

I’m won’t doubt that your experiences were real or that you came away with that conclusion. What I will say is that what you discovered at Prudhoe Bay was an incomplete picture and insufficient to form the hypothesis you posit. The geological forces you describe happened over millenia. Tectonic plates, as I’m sure you know, drift at a pace that makes “glacial” look like NASCAR. And yet, even with all that gradual movement and eons of time, sudden changes do happen. Earthquakes lift the ocean floor suddenly, volcanoes appear above the ocean’s surface for the first time, massive chunks of antarctica break off and float around, crashing into sub-tropical islands in the south pacific with some regularity, mud-slides take out whole sides of mountains, and sink-holes carved by runoff from underground aquifers appear out of nowhere. The forces at work may be slow and ponderous, but the tipping point is usually quite catastrophic, as I’m sure you know. Before humans started throwing CO2 into the atmosphere, we were nowhere near 300ppm. Now we’re up over 380 ppm.

- http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/co2equivalents

We are literally in uncharted territory. That most certainly is a human impact. And the reason I was so flippant about your credentials is because the notion that humans CANNOT have an impact on the Earth’s climate because we’re “so small” has been debunked on many, many occasions. There is a permanent dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River as a result of farm runoff that is entirely human. It just stretches credulity to suggest that humans are so insignificant as to make no impact at all.

pyrope said:
In the following link, one of the more important passages reads “The number of sunspots visible from the Earth not only changes from day to day, but also in cycles that can last from decades to centuries to millennia.” This is perhaps the fact most overlooked–or ignored–by the proponents of global warming.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

Yes, but the sun has been in a cooling trend for the past decade, even as other planets have continued to warm, particularly Mars and Pluto. The sun is most definitely a factor, and, as it’s the main source of fuel on Earth, it’s an important one to consider. But, in and of itself, it is not anywhere near a correlation. There is no doubt that climate science is waaaay more complex than is afforded in these Mediaite debates, but I contend that your position that human impact is preposterous is a tad too simplistic. If we can create smog, acid rain, and a depleted ozone layer with aerosols, we can surely impact the global environment. Again, if termites represent the largest source of natural methane on Earth, which they do, is it really a stretch to believe humanity can be contributing, too? I don’t think so. And the evidence seems to suggest so at almost every turn.

pyrope said:
Again, regional phenomenon are irrelevant.

I know that, but you’re the one who brought it up when you said…

pyrope said:
Now, we have the coldest December on record in the US AND in New Zealand, to say nothing of Europe, which has shut down most of its air travel during December because of ice and snow.

If you’re being honest about this, you would know that ANY regionality is erroneous. And again, we won’t know where this December ranks until all the data is in. If you want to stick to the reliable data sets, you shouldn’t bring up the subsets yourself. And it’s annoying to be baited and switched on like that. ;-)

pyrope said:
Paul Westlake said:
The hockey stick still applies. The only graph you can find that shows a cooling trend is junk science that’s measuring a very narrow and specific window of time and across peak values only.

You may get a lot of argument on that!

Perhaps, but it would all be wrong. Seriously, there is NO cooling going on and that graph is bogus. If you have one that shows cooling NOT using peak values and statistical outliers, I would be eager to see it.

pyrope said:
It is the government who have the most to win in perpetrating the global warming hoax. It is the government who sell the carbon credits and rake in the new taxes. It is also the “green energy” folks, e.g. Al Gore, Van Jones, and others of such ilk who have the most to gain–POWER is what it’s really all about.

OK, but how? What power would Al Gore and Van Jones accrue if a cap and trade system became reality? I just don’t see where the payoff is. And even if government stands to rake in more money, who’s taking it home? It’s not like Congress hands out bonuses or federal employees get a take of the year’s haul. Where is all this power going and where is all this money going and by what mechanism? When corporations make more money, it goes into raises and bonuses and maybe a little to hiring and upgrades. When the government takes in more money, it gets spent on a myriad of programs, from defense to infrastructure. But it doesn’t get converted to cold hard cash in the bank accounts of the congress critters… at least not directly. And the people who are in the best position to turn political favors into cash aren’t in the environmental movement or in climate science circles, they’re in corporations. So again, I understand the points your making, but I don’t see how it applies to the people on the outside looking in. It much more appropriately applies to the commercial interests that smother Washington with lobbyists and stand the most to both gain and lose in any system.

pyrope said:
Humans are insignificant creatures in the grand scheme of things. We have been infesting this planet for perhaps only a million years. We are a flash in the pan so to speak, but our most remarkable trait is and has been our vanity.

Geologically speaking, humans are a flash in the pan, sure. But other than insects, we are the only species on Earth that survives on all continents in all climates. We are the only land creature that has figured out how to fly. We’re the only species that can leave the planet… though not for very long. And we have long since subdued all of the natural forces that threaten our lives on a daily basis, from extreme weather conditions to predatory fauna. We are the only species that can open a hole in the ocean floor and let out billions of barrels of oil, the only species that can convert uranium into a weapon of devastating power, the only species that can tell time and make clocks with the precision of the universe. We are the king pin on this world and only mother nature herself has any semblance of power over us, and we mitigate that more and more.

We may be extremely primitive in the universal sense, still, but we’re not infants. We have a powerful footprint on this Earth and even if all the climate claims were totally false, isn’t it a good thing to consider our impact on the world we depend on for our survival? And since eliminating fossil fuels wouldn’t really cost us nearly as much as the denial alarmists would have us believe, and since the companies that rolled out green tech would stand to earn billions, what is really going on here? What truly mystifies me the most is why a wealthy energy company wouldn’t be tapping into the gold mine that is renewable energy right now. This is what I mean by incompetence. Any nimble company worth the paper the charter was printed on would have been all over this decades ago. But the oil sector just keeps plodding along as though we’re still in 1949. If anyone in this issues has a problem with reality, it’s big business.

As for our vanity, you may think it an exercise in vanity to consider the human impact on the world around us, but I don’t. Asking someone you accidentally bumped into on the sidewalk if they’re OK isn’t vain, it’s polite and socially responsible. The same applies here. We’re not concerned about our impact on the planet because we have inflated egos, we’re considering our impact on the planet because it’s the only planet we have. It’s kinda important.

My first post of 2011. Happy New Year!

PS – I have personally measured sea level rise at my summer stomping grounds over my lifetime. I spent my summers living and working on Fire Island, a barrier beach off the south shore of Long Island, NY. In between the two islands is the Great South Bay, across which the ferries travel from Long Island towns to the beach towns on Fire Island. That bay is very shallow and prone to constant shoaling, so it’s likely that sedimentation has an impact on water levels in the basin. However, shoaling alone doesn’t account for a nearly one foot rise in peak high tides over the past twenty years. One foot! No joke. The Fie Island Ferry company has moveable wooden steps at every dock to facilitate getting on and off the boats. When I was a kid, the biggest of those had two steps. Today, they all have four. Yes, the boats are bigger, but the gangway is the same height above water line. They were designed that way. What about the ocean side? Can’t measure it because the army corp of engineers rebuilds the beach after every few years worth of erosion. The reason the bay is measurable is because of fixed structures at the water’s edge. And we considered that those structure may be settling into the Earth but the other fixed structures around them don’t show those signs and the height relationships have remained the same over time. So there is little to no settling going on but significant water rise. That’s my personal story and I can only back it up by bringing you out to the island to meet the old-timers. But I’d bet you have friends in parts of the country that can tell similar stories. Anyone with a friend in Montana should make a phone call and find out what’s happening with their forests. It’s bad. Real bad. You won’t find too many climate change skeptics around the pines anymore. That tune is changing fast in Montana.

Here in Florida we can lo longer fish from small islands we camped overnight on as kids because they’re under water. They didn’t erode and haven’t sunk but since 1962 they’ve been swallowed by the ocean. But for constant beach renourishment, Florida would have few usable beaches left today.
Global warming is merely a symptom of climate change, which is occuring. Ask the folks in Cincinati, Arkansas if they ever ahd a winter tornado before, climate change at work.

Paul Westlake said:
One foot! No joke.

Hope you enjoyed a festive New Years celebration. Did you make it to Times Square?

I’m going to cut to the chase a bit for you Paul. In prefacing, I want to make it clear that I believe we must be good stewards of the Earth. We are in charge of what’s going on here and the Earth is meant to serve not only our generation but all the generations to come. So, I’m not what you would call a “rape the Earth” kind of man, even though my specialization has, at times, been to devise and oversee methodologies to extract resources. (I have also been active in environmental remediation–cleaning up some of the messes made by others.)

Neither am I a climatologist, meteorologist, or any form of scientist who renders opinions as to what’s going on in atmospheric dynamics. I don’t believe you are qualified in those areas, either, so we’re just two men who have opinions that probably differ less than you might think. That I happen to hold degrees in geology, metallurgy, and a couple of other things is anecdotal. I don’t know what your background is but I don’t believe you’re a dummy.

The gist of my argument is not whether some form of climate change is occurring but that it is not majorly caused (nor can it be effectively controlled at this time) by human beings. The other principal component is what government is doing in this area.

Before I go further, you asked for a more credible source. I don’t believe sources get much more credible than this guy:

http://myrightmind.blogspot.com/2007/11/founder-of-weather-channel-debunks.html

&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw

What tells the tale for me is what government is doing. Cap & Trade (which is not dead), as -0bama accurately stated “would necessarily cause our energy costs to skyrocket.” This, in and of itself, should be adequate for anyone to understand what’s going on–that we’re about to be fleeced (again) by the government, and the government will end up having more control of our lives. Maybe that’s OK for you, but it doesn’t fit too well in my plans, or the kind of world I hope to leave for my grandson.

Another crucial question is just how much good our government could hope to do in issuing “carbon credits” to US citizens, when the rest of the world doesn’t have to–and will not–buy them. Although it is “possible” that the US government “might” impose some sort of import taxes on imported goods, such a tax would only serve to make everything more expensive for US consumers and such import taxes would most certainly NOT be paid by the source country of said imports–they’d probably tell the US to stick their tariffs where the sun doesn’t shine, and rightfully so!

At the end of the day–and I DO hope this is the end of the day for us on this topic–I want to impress upon you that most humans take themselves entirely too seriously. We might be able to wipe ourselves off the face of the Earth (although it is likely we’ll become extinct by some other means) but we cannot destroy the planet, nor all life on it, and even if we could, new life (hopefully more intelligent) would eventually spring up again. In the mean time, I want to live out from under the yoke of government insofar as possible, and I want the same for my children and grandchildren.

Tedderman said:
Here in Florida we can lo longer fish from small islands we camped overnight on as kids because they’re under water.

I used to live in Florida (I served part time in an adjunct capacity at FSU), and spent a few years observing the area around St. George and St. Andrews Islands. I noticed the bays becoming increasingly shallow during my time there. I also noticed some changes in the mangroves south of Naples. I asked a sedementary petrologist what he thought was going on. He said the wind tends to blow sand from the islands back into the bays, which makes barrier islands such as St. George and St Andrews eventually disappear. Eventually, he said, new islands would appear as tides bring in more sand. If you’ve looked around at Cape San Blas, you may have noted some narrowing in the cape. The same, said he, is true of the mangroves, but the plant life tends to stabilize them.

pyrope said:
Hope you enjoyed a festive New Years celebration. Did you make it to Times Square?

You too. No, I’m not big on massive immovable crowds. My favorite time in Times Square is Sunday mornings just after sunrise. Beautiful, and empty! ;-)

I won’t block quote everything out so we can wrap this up. I want to start by apologizing for conflating your position with the denialists. Your ideas are much more clear to me after that post and, obviously, you’re not denying that change is happening, just not convinced on the causes. However, John Coleman is not new to me and he’s been pretty thoroughly discredited on these points in multiple places. But I live by the “even a broken clock” theory so I’m not saying he’s 100% wrong – though he probably isn’t 100% right. However, you’re right that we’re much closer to agreement on that point. Climate science is way too complicated for any solid conclusions to be drawn with the amount of information we have acquired up to now. That being said, I do tend to err on the side of action because I’m concerned about the kind of environment we leave to our children and grandchildren. I don’t want to be the generation that tells the ones that come after that human life on Earth is term-limited.

You’re absolutely right that the Earth will persist and life will go on long after the passing of humanity – some people are big on the bees as the next intelligent evolution, I’m in the wolves camp. But it would really suck if life went on without us within the next few generations. Because the thing that is way more scary than climate change itself is humanity’s response to it. As much as you’re afraid of the heavy hand of government is probably as much as I’m afraid of the wars and mass migrations that climate change can easily bring about. Climate change wiped out the Mayan civilization in one generation, and that was part of the natural cycle. The margins for error have been collapsed to infinitesimal with a population bordering on 7 billion. The tiny trickle that immigration across our southern border represents now is a fly speck compared to the mass migration that would result from Mexico’s aquifers drying up, for instance (and I know it’s more complicated than that, just using the example of water access). It’s not the planet that worries me, its people. And I don’t mean that in a racist – keep ‘em all out – way, I mean we actually wouldn’t be able to handle the influx and the fighting begins within seconds after that.

This is the level the debate needs to live on when it comes to policy and politics. The science is still incomplete, but we know enough about the environment and the human condition to be able to forecast the outcome of certain scenarios. And every scenario that includes habitat loss, also includes social instability. I totally understand reticence with government programs – I’m from the government and I’m here to help: run for your lives! I get it. But the profit motive is insufficient to handle certain projects, like the interstate highways or the space program. I’m afraid that if we let the market do its thing, it will do its thing until we’re all dead. What good is a big pile of cash next to a big pile of bones? There must be a way to address the issue without turning fascist or communist. We just have to stop pretending we can ignore it, and now I realize that you’re not in the “ignore it” camp, just in the “don’t let government touch it” camp. I just wonder if you have a better alternative that doesn’t just let the market continue on its merry way to oblivion.

Lastly, I can’t verify your credentials but you’re no dummy either and you’re making sensible arguments when you don’t let Coleman do it for you. Also, your description of the dynamics in Florida comports with what I know of coastal erosion – an issue I have dealt with my entire life as a resident of a barrier beach. Science for me is a hobby but I do have some background with physics and acoustics in college. I’m also a broadcast technician and we deal with the mistakes engineers make every day. I have a BA in Liberal Arts, a Broadcasting Certificate, a Teacher License and a Certificate in Firematics (volunteer dept). I never took the GREs but I did three practice tests – general, physics and music. I aced the general and the physics, but totally failed on the music… and I was a music major for three years! Go figure. And I did way better on the practice LSATs than I thought possible. (But the fiancee is in grad school now – one at a time – and every time I think about going back to grad school, I get a job offer instead.) I’m also an active teacher and bring scientific method into my classes regularly. What little authority of knowledge I claim on the subject comes from my background in media, journalism, education, and being surrounded by smart scientists in all locales, which is why I rarely use personal anecdotes or my own opinion in these debates. I pretty much always reference the work of active scientists. And I think that gives me an edge, actually. People who are steeped in one or two disciplines often have difficulty with comparative studies. Journalism is comparative study. And not being in the scientific community means I don’t have a pet theory to defend – which I’m not saying you have, but Coleman sure does, for instance. So that’s where I’m coming from. I felt you deserved that after your thorough explanation.

In closing, I accept that you’re not just whistling Dixie here. But I would suggest that you take a more critical eye to people like Coleman. If you already have and can show me where he’s been vindicated, I would be happy to check it out. No need to continue this thread, though, if you’re done. I’ll check back.

Glad we had this out the right way. Happy New Year.

Thanks for you well-considered comments. I haven’t much more to add.

It is rare that I take one scientist’s opinion or claim as “the” ultimate source–as the island of knowlege grows, so does the shoreline of the unknown. But, those who are rabidly claiming that all the ills on our planet are the fault of humans do seem to be elitists, after a fashion, and I shall continue to believe humans are not all that significant.

You opened an interesting line of thought when you mentioned what wiped out the Mayan culture. I would have guessed some virus or communicable disease, reasoning that the lack of water would have simply dispersed them.

That said, the “current” lack of potable water supplies is an issue that will weigh heavily in our future–Memphis and Atlanta are already being adversely effected. (Short of distillation, water from the Misssissippi River cannot be purified enough to make it potable.) But, a few years back, people were worried about the Floridan (yes, that’s the way you spell it!) aquifer that serves Florida was drying up. That no longer is the case.

Alas, I digress.

If there are two things I’ve learned in my reasonably short tenure with government (some 12 years of my professional life), it is this:

1. Anything done by mankind is done less efficiently when the government is involved.

2. When *any* program is undertaken by anyone that is alleged to benefit some individual or some group, the first question one should ask is “at whose expense.” This is what worries me greatly about all the climate initiatives we’re hearing about.

BTW, I really wrankled quite a few bureaucrats with such talk, but I had ‘em over the barrel with my skill set so they had to put up with me! ;-)

At the risk of digressing even more, here’s something to keep you awake at night:

The population explosion. You eluded to it in your comments. I’ll preface this by saying I’m NOT a proponent of eugenics, but that this one issue–our breeding ourselves out of existence–is far more worrisome to me than climate change.

Here’s a chart for you–not the best I’ve seen but still fairly accurate:

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

Our Earth cannot support these numbers for long and it seems that those who have the least capacity to provide for their progeny are the same ones who lie down in the dirt and make more of themselves.

And on that happy note, I’ll wish you and your fiance’ the happiest in the coming year. You may wish to invest in some soylent green stock.

Paul, thanks for sharing information about yourself. You have quite a lot of knowlege and interesting skills. Pursue the advanced degrees!

I am an immigrant from Greece (Thracian), I came to the US in 1966, served a hitch in the Air Force (Vietnam and Cambodia) as a forward air controller. I’ve collected a few diverse pieces of paper to hang on the walls in my computer room. Now, I’m retired. Hooray!

pyrope says:
“But, those who are rabidly claiming that all the ills on our planet are the fault of humans do seem to be elitists, after a fashion, and I shall continue to believe humans are not all that significant.”

That’s called anti-intellectualism and denialism respectively. These “elitists” have Phd’s in one of the Earth sciences. They have earned the right to claim more knowledge than you or I have. The difference is that I don’t practice denialism of their conclusions.

Denialism can kill you.

GlennBeckReview said:
These “elitists” have Phd’s in one of the Earth sciences.

So do I. My PhD is in Non-Ferrous Diagenetic Ore Development with a specialization in manganese; I earned it from the University of Missouri–Rolla. (BA University of Tennessee, MS Arizona State University.) I don’t like to brag about my CV, but since you have sought to disqualify my thoughts with your uninvited opinion that non-PhDs thoughts are irrelevant, you needed to know where I’m coming from.

Now, the fact is, I’ve met quite a few PhDs who couldn’t find their way out of the rain; those who spend their lives in the rarified halls of academia seem to be the worst–they’ve theorized about everything but have accomplished nothing.

I have spent my life as a pragmatist and in that I also hold degrees in metallurgy, environmental science (hazardous materials technology), occupational safety and health engineering, mining engineering, with minors in physics and English, and I’ve picked up quite a few certifications along the way.

I do not say this braggingly because had I not come to the United States, I would never have had such opportunities.

“But only a crank would deny the underlying temperature data that show the Earth getting warmer — records compiled by independent stations around the world, combined with satellite measurements and confirmed by observations of rising sea levels, vanishing glaciers and other inputs — because to do so is to deny material and measurable facts.”

Facts are straight forward: Fox and many of their guests lie through their teeth. They are cranks, far right propagandists!