Crud,, Willy must be working solo this morning. Squack at least has a few faces on.

Enter climate change skeptics…

Fact: A democrat reports from NYC!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBVRXFdK314

Hugo Daun said:
Enter climate change skeptics…

I’m no skeptic…I believe in the warming of the earth…it is called “SUMMER” after our summer, we cool down…that is called “WINTER!”

In WINTER, we measure snow by the foot, not by the inches as they do in “Wimpy NYC!”

To my east coast friends…”Buck Up! it will warm up soon! and NO… you don’t need any “Federal Grant Money” to get out of your situation. We let God do it for us…I am sure he will bless you with some warm weather soon.

Hey Hugo, I thought it was called “global warming”? Kind of hard to say that with a straight face standing atop of a mountain of snow, eh?

Hugo, I thought you might enjoy this article, which states, in part:

Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we’re experiencing now, weren’t even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region’s strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, “In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile.”

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.aspx

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
I thought it was called “global warming”

Nah, it was ALWAYS called global climate change…the “global warming” label was adopted in an effort to dumb down the complicated science for folks like yourself, folks who can’t differentiate between weather and climate.

The “no warming since 1998″ myth has been thoroughly debunked for quite some time, by the way.

Poor little liberal sheep. They’ll believe anything they are told by their environmental gods.

Poor little “conservatives”. Science makes their tiny little brains hurt.

Superstition, on the other hand, is where it’s at.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Poor little liberal sheep. They’ll believe anything they are told by their environmental gods.

No, it’s called science.

Here’s the first grade version for those who are entertained by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and anyone who says that because it snows there’s no global warming…..

Polar ice melts due to warming of the earth.
The ocean water south of the north pole gets colder from the melting ice.
the jet stream (you can look up what the jet stream is) picks up the colder water causing cooler weather.

Other things you might want to know to increase that first grade aptitude….

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, NOT 6,000 years
Dinosaurs are NOT a left wing conspiracy
The Earth is NOT the center of the universe
Evolution IS real
Finding articles to fit your point of view doesn’t make you right

Here ends the first grade lesson for the day.

Sorry Stephen, not all scientists agree. You libs are just scared of the debate.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Hugo, I thought you might enjoy this article, which states, in part:

Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we’re experiencing now, weren’t even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region’s strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, “In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile.”

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.aspx

The author of this article does not seem to know what data the thesis is based on. The climate change thesis is largely based on measured climate trends. And the thesis is indeed falsifiable. All you really need to do is find significant counter-evidence that average surface temperatures are not increasing.

By the way, just because the popular term is ‘global warming’ doesn’t that it is all related to heat. As Hugo pointed out, the term is a simplified one. All sorts of changes are predicted. For example, they predict the east coast and Europe will freeze once melting ice caps shut down the Gulf stream.

Stephen, There has been no debate on the subject by scientists because the global warmers are scared of the debate. If your side was so confident you are right, you would welcome any and all debate in my opinion. They fact that your side shuns debate, says volumes.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Sorry Stephen, not all scientists agree. You libs are just scared of the debate.

Not all scientist agree about everything. Consensus is what is important.

Still though, please point me to a climatologist that does not support this thesis. I’d be interested in hearing their argument.

We’re not scared of the debate, by the way. We’re just debating different things. You guys are still wanting to debate about whether or not climate change is occurring, when it is already scientifically established that it is. The scientific community and the rest of the world are debating about humanity’s role in climate change, with the general consensus edging on human-caused exacerbation.

Frankly, I don’t know what conservatives think they are protecting on this issue. The right for businesses to pollute the air we all breathe as much as they want? The right to drive a gas-guzzling SUV that seats 8 and has a comparable number of television screes when you only have one child? Is that all it is? The protection of pollution and excess materialism? Please, Window, tell me what you are defending here and please tell me that’s not the case.

Still though, please point me to a climatologist that does not support this thesis. I’d be interested in hearing their argument.

Feel free to google it. I’m sure you will find what you are looking for.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Stephen, There has been no debate on the subject by scientists because the global warmers are scared of the debate. If your side was so confident you are right, you would welcome any and all debate in my opinion. They fact that your side shuns debate, says volumes.

If there hasn’t been a debate, then why do you say that ‘not all scientists agree’? How would you know that if there hasn’t been a debate?

Scientists are not going to debate whether or not climate change is occurring because it is already established that it is. That’s like asking scientists to debate whether or not the Solar System is heliocentric.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Still though, please point me to a climatologist that does not support this thesis. I’d be interested in hearing their argument.

Feel free to google it. I’m sure you will find what you are looking for.

Your desire to state evidence and then essentially ask me to look it up myself points to the speciousness of your argument.

No, I’m just sick of doing the research libs could do for themselves IF they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think said libs have any desire to hear the other side and therefore won’t do the research.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
No, I’m just sick of doing the research libs could do for themselves IF they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think said libs have any desire to hear the other side and therefore won’t do the research.

Well, that’s not how to argue, is it? If you make an assertion, you should also provide evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it’s intellectually dishonest. Hence the speciousness.

As a scientist, I would be open to all evidence, so long as it has been collected empirically and published in a scientific journal. Research is pretty much all I do.

Stephen Hogan said:
If there hasn’t been a debate, then why do you say that ‘not all scientists agree’? How would you know that if there hasn’t been a debate? Scientists are not going to debate whether or not climate change is occurring because it is already established that it is. That’s like asking scientists to debate whether or not the Solar System is heliocentric.

I think the debate is whether or not it is caused by man and if it is, how much is man responsible for it. Also how much of a threat it is.

The Sham of ‘Settled Science’ — Insider Says There Was No IPCC Consensus

Remember that “settled science” that Laurie David’s alleged married boyfriend was forever prattling on about? Well, surprise, surprise… according to the National Post’s Lawrence Solomon, it turns out that it’s not so settled after all.

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Calvin said:
I think the debate is whether or not it is caused by man and if it is, how much is man responsible for it. Also how much of a threat it is.

And you would be thinking correct.