The hoax is being exposed! Eventually all hoaxes are exposed but the damage they
do in the meantime is horrific! Stunned silence in the White House and the EPA
headquarters today! How much money has the government squandered on this hoax?
Time to put this bad dream behind us America!
"natural climate fluctuations..." Uh Oh. Didn't take that one
into account, did we?
The best argument conservatives ever make is "we just don't know,
nobody knows" well do you always mess with things you don't know about?
Probably. But keep your darwinism bottlenecks confined to your own family.
1) There are a lot of retreating glaciers and underneath them old logs, tree
trunks is being exposed. You might think that this might be forests from
thousands of years ago. Well they are doing carbon dating on them, and they are
from 400-500 years ago. It appears that the glaciers grew during the
"Little Ice Age". That is a possible explanation. 2) On
the other hand, this could be a natural climate variation superimposed on man
made global warming. Without the manmade global warming it would be a lot
colder, but just wait until the cold spell is over and the temperature really
spikes up.I think manmade global warming is likely correct.
Throwing a lot of CO2 into the air should have a warming effect on the climate.
But Mountainman, if it ends up you are right and I am wrong, we will both be
happy because it will mean that Al Gore was WRONG.
@NedGrimleyTt's taken into account... 4 of the last 5 years were La
Ninas after all which tend to be cooler than neutral or El Nino years. We also
are in the weakest solar cycle in a century. Despite these things and others
(volcanoes etc) the 2000s were still .2F warmer than the 1990s.Let's try it this way. Take a piece of paper and draw a straight line
that is tilted upward in time. Now draw some random or wavy line that goes back
and forth across that first line. The first line would basically be the
greenhouse gas only line and the second line is what we are getting because
natural cycles are still at play. Anyone who is still humoring me by doing this
can see that you'll end up with periods of faster warming like 98-02
relative to the earlier 90s and periods of little warming like the last half a
@ redshirt007:It's much better for someone (conservatives) to
say they don't know about an issue when they don't, than for someone
else (liberals) to try to tell everyone they do know something when in reality
they don't... as this latest article has shown. Much less harm is done in
the first scenario. FYI: The world and it's environment is the
family of all of us... not just liberals after they've once again been
exposed with another of their extremisms. As such, things are being
"confined to our own family". Quit pouting.
I love how denialists jump on this as evidence. The authors aren't worried
about the lull nor are they "struggling" to explain it. There is
nothing being "exposed" nor is the idea of natural variation new to
their findings. It has already been accounted for, and the real story is simply
whether or not to include that explanation in the final report. On the one
hand, you've got scientists who say there's no real reason to address
it because it is statistically insignificant (when you have evidence dating back
thousands of years that takes into account fluctuations but also sees a general
trend, 12 years is merely a blip). On the other hand, you have the political
pragmatists who realize that those who report on the issue will not understand
the science and will misinterpret its absence as evidence of a coverup. The
comments thus far seem to reinforce the assertions of the pragmatists.
Is global warming man made? I don't know. Nobody does. The problem is that
making us move away from fossil fuels to......nothing, doesn't make sense.
It's great to work on alternate fuels. But until they are viable we need
coal and gas. Plus, all the developing countries emit so many greenhouse gases
that us lowering ours will have little to no effect overall. Furthermore, if
warmers are to be believed there is no stopping the damage already done. But
based on many other peer reviewed reports, it appears warmer WAY overestimated
the impact of manmade greenhouse gases on temperatures.
A significant flaw with how climate variability is being studied is the
treatment of climate models as data. They are merely interpretations, subject
to error and multiple interpretations. The fact that the models are wrong means
the model inputs--mostly the assumptions--are suspect, as are the modeling
methods.The logical conclusion of all this is we should NOT base
profound actions on these models.
Science is so fleeting isn't it? Everything we think we know about the
climate is being proven to be completely wrong or at least very incomplete as
per this article. As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our
science be to our grandchildren. In the meantime, we are not experiencing any
significant global warming. Experience isn't science but it is still
knowledge. Sometimes experience teaches us more than any science book!
It's gonna be fun watching all the anti-science folks sweating and sweating
and sweating . .
According to the NOAA and their 2008 climate assesment, it is impossible to have
more than 15 years without warming. We are now at that 15 year mark according
to the IPCC scientists. That means their models are wrong and are missing key
components to accurately predict climate cycle.Is it CO2 that is
causing warming, is it water vapor, is it reptilian aliens terraforming the
earth into something they can colonize? The answer is that we don't know,
and just making random guesses gets us nowhere. In the meantime blaming CO2 and
going down that rabbit hole will cost the world economy trillions, and will end
up killing people because of a lack of food.
@one old man, if the scientists are right, won't every body be sweating and
sweating and sweating......?
@OHBU, is it possible to have a political pragmatist?
It is possible to question interpretations of the data that suggest global
warming is occurring or that it is man made and not be "anti-science".
In fact, it is probably more anti-scientific to demand adherence to one
interpretation or the other while closing the door on the possibility that you
are wrong. Good scientists are naturally skeptical.
Why would Belgium want to cook the dates to, "yield a more upward-pointing
curve"?Seems like if your case is based on numbers, facts, and
trends... carefully picking the dates to show the results you want wouldn't
be necessary.I know we need to conserve more and more, but I
don't know if we need the guilt police and the draconian measures many
would like to impose on us at the alters of Global Warming.Seems
like this is more a power grab than a real concern they can fix (for some).
"I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically
have the **denialists** [emphasis mine] saying, 'Look the IPCC is silent on
this issue,'" said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of
Concerned Scientists.---------------------When someone,
like Meyers, uses such an obviously loaded and dismissive term like
"denialist" to describe someone who disagrees or is even skeptical of
his conclusions, it is an obvious indication of VERY unscientific
defensiveness.Much more than the iffy "data", it is that
emotion-laden kind of hyperbole and general atmosphere which I consider to be
the most damning indictment of what I've come to conclude is very corrupt
global warming cabal of self-aggrandizing "scientists" and power-hungry
politicians (though it is hard to say there are any other type of those).If I had any advise to those who wish to persuade more people that we
are in the process of slowly cooking ourselves, it would be to stop speaking and
acting in ways that discredit their already diminished claims of scientific
We have not had one of these arguments for at least a month, however it is good
to see that same old folks with the same entrenched positions are still alive
and well.Simple reality it is still warming, the trend for the ice
caps is less volume of ice, the frozen tundra is melting,,,, From my point of
view even if it is only a 50 - 50 chance that this is due to burning fossil fuel
then I am all for doing more to conserve the environment so we all can enjoy a
good standard of living for generations to come. Heavenly Father
did not give us Planet "B" as he expected us to care the one he gave us!
I tend to trust the findings of scientist without political agendas. Try the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These scientists
look at all possible causes of climate change, not just carbon emissions. Thier
finding are considerably different than those of the United Nations. And why are
carbon emissions so important to a certain political group?? Because you
can't be taxed on increased solar radiation, weakening magnetic fields, or
carbon sinks. Even when its not about the money, its about the money....
The professor of my graduate Oceanography class in 1965 told us that after 50+
years of study of the oceans and climate he had concluded that even if he had
1,000 years of accurate data he would still only really understand a few of
earth's climate patterns. His observation is as valid today as when I
recorded it. As I watch the climate data not fit the predictions I conclude we
are still infants in our understanding despite our powerful computers and
models. That's why we have many theories and few laws in science.
@canyonrunner"Try the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (NIPCC). "No thanks. The Heartland Institute is not where
I'd go to get science information... the idea that that group is
nonpolitical is a joke.
@canyonrunnerSeriously though, this is from the Heartland Institute's
wikipedia page..."The Heartland Institute is an American
conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, which
states that it advocates free market policies"And we wonder why
their little climate group came up with something suggesting anthropogenic
climate change isn't an issue. Let's just say I'm not surprised
The chemistry and physics are clear. Holding more of the sun's energy (by
way of carbon dioxide) near the earth will warm it.
To "Bebyebe" but the problem is that the scientists don't
understand the carbon cycle.Nor do they understand how clouds are
formed and at what rate they are formed, and exactly how much sunlight they
reflect back into space.Also, as this article points out, the
scientists who study the atmosphere don't really understand it's
interaction with the sun.In other words, they are guessing and have
made some bad models.
Right now, the "skeptics" -- with their lower, conservative estimates of
equilibrium climate sensitivity -- are closer to both the observed conditions,
and to the IPCC's revised-down estimates of ECS, than the wild-eyed
lunatics (James Hansen, Al Gore) who predict catastrophic climate change.For those who agree with the latter: Why do you deny science?
When one of the guys on the IPCC (responsible for deciding which analyses to
include and emphasize, and which ones to discard) identifies himself as "un
militant ecologique," I think, "yeah, *there's* "un honnete
One needs only to see the retreat of glaciers globally, rising sea levels and
the earlier spring and later autumnal migration of wildlife to know that
something is changing. The anthropogenic question may be unsettled, but putting
millions of tone of carbon into the atmosphere cannot be helpful.
Mountanman "Science is so fleeting isn't it?" Science
itself has never been fleeting except when religions have tried to silence it,
for political reasons. Science survived and bloomed in a society free to think.
Science is not words etched in stone, nor should it be, it changes as science is
able to understand things better, and technology advances, this is nothing
different. Funny thing I've noticed among the anti science
groups, is they use sciences and theories that fit their views of the world, and
discard any science that might conflict with their religion or political party.
This buffet style science, didn't work during the dark ages for those
loosing their power of authority to science either.This changes
nothing in the over whelming evidence, that changes are afoot.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" actually sience has been abused by the
non-religious to commit great atrocities. Hitler used the science of eugenics
and other bad science to justify himself.You should look at Al Gore
and his followers, and how they "use sciences and theories that fit their
views of the world, and discard any science that might conflict with their
religion or political party."How often do we hear AGW alarmists
say that the debate is over, and that there is a consensus. Scientific
principels are not resoloved on a consensus, but by statistical analysis and
repeatablity.The earth's climate has always been changing, but
we have yet to figure out how to model everything.