ABC Blames Global Warming for Extreme Cold Temperatures and Snow
On Friday’s World News on ABC, correspondent Linsey Davis filed a one-sided report in which she cited the views of climate scientists who blame the recent cold temperatures and high amounts of snowfall on global warming. After recounting the recent extreme weather around the country, Davis continued:
If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow.
The ABC correspondent concluded the report by noting the unusually cold temperatures in Boston:
LINSEY DAVIS: Here in Boston, the good news is that the snow has stopped, at least for now. But the bad news is that temperatures are expected to drop below zero for the first time in this area in six years. Diane?
DIANE SAWYER: And this could be the new normal, as you say. Linsey Davis reporting.
Notably, in July 2005, ABC’s World News filed a report touting predictions that hurricane intensity would likely increase due to global warming, omitting the theory that hurricane intensities go through cycles over decades. The report was recycled in September 2007 as a nearly identical piece ran.
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, January 21, World News on ABC:
DIANE SAWYER: And up next, millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? And this is what winter will be from now on? Linsey Davis is in Boston.
LINSEY DAVIS: More than half the country spent the day digging out yet again, a rough winter of broken records. Miami Beach, Florida, has just shivered through their coldest December on record. On the 14th last month, Atlanta dropped to 14 degrees, a record low for the day. More than 55 inches of snow has fallen this season on Hartford, Connecticut, which averages 46 inches in an entire winter. Typically, Boston gets about 42 inches worth of snowfall each year. But just in the last month, this area's had about 50 inches of snow. That's an entire season's worth of snowfall in just the first month of winter.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Feel like I'm in a different state right now. I ain't never seen nothing like this in Georgia.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Honestly, I think it’s enough is enough.
DAVIS: School administrators are struggling, too, not only with the snow days wracking up, but when to cancel outdoor recess. In Houston, the principal at Frazier Elementary typically keeps the kids inside if the mercury dips below 45 degrees. But in hardy South Dakota, the principle of Parkston Elementary says it has to be below bone-chilling 0 to keep his kids inside. If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow.
DR. RICHARD SOMERVILLE, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: In a warmer world, more water evaporates from the ocean and more precipitation falls down from the sky. And that's what we're seeing.
DAVIS: Here in Boston, the good news is that the snow has stopped, at least for now. But the bad news is that temperatures are expected to drop below zero for the first time in this area in six years. Diane?
SAWYER: And this could be the new normal, as you say. Linsey Davis reporting.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Cold = Warm?
Submitted by tvhall on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:31am.
Please! We may haveing global warming but so is Mars. Those SUVs are real SOBs if they are also causing global warming on Mars.
The arrogance of man to think he can cause and then cure global maladies!
PS As a Christian I know one sign of the end times is global climate change!
Drill baby drill; let’s make the road trip to Armageddon comfortable.
Talk about Nazi sized Lies
Submitted by Bluegill on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:51am.
This is bullsh--t, says astrophysicist - Warm weather NOT causing cold - Short video
21 Jan 11- "The idea that warming can somehow cause cooling is fiction and lies created by the global warming lobby." -Piers Corbyn
To the earth man is just another bug on its face.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:51am.
I had a bad day yesterday. Must have been Global Warming's fault.
Well everything is Global Warming's fault to some extent and George Bush's fault and the fault of white people and...never my fault.
I bet the Global Cooling crowd thought 110 degree days were the result of Global Cooling too.
It's the Martian Rover's
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:13pm.
It's the Martian Rover's fauly.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Remember when the news used to give BOTH sides?
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:43am.
"We've given you one side and made an appeal to the authority of experts. Don't bother looking for another point of view-we're giving you the ONLY point of view"
- ABC Propaganda Channel
I'm well into my 40s and I
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:17pm.
I'm well into my 40s and I can honestly say I do not remember the msm ever presenting both sides of a story, not on a consistent basis anyway.
They didn't want their scientists to look like idiots,
Submitted by 3strikes on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:10pm.
when the Global Warming skeptics look at them like retards and say "Global Warming causes cooler temperatures? Really?!"
Doesn't everyone chill their
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:14pm.
Doesn't everyone chill their beer in the oven?
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
→ Goes without saying
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:30pm.
I don't know about beer, but canned cokes explode in the freezer, so it only makes sense there was a fiery inferno while the door was closed.
Yea, squeeze some dry ice it FEELS hot...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:45pm.
It's all about feelings...feelings guide opinion and opinion is always right. That's lefties number one rule.
You Didn't Build That.
→ Freezer burn
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:52pm.
Who hasn't heard of freezer burn.
Al Gore is a flippin genius.
Freezer burn
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:07pm.
See there. Proof of AGW.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
The liberal mindset...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:45am.
...baffles all logic!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
It's mental
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:09am.
It's a mental condition/disease.
Just goes to show. Beauty is
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:46am.
Just goes to show. Beauty is only skin deep, but stupid runs all the way to the bone!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
beauty? Diane?
Submitted by SouthJersey1953 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:20am.
I have never found her attractive...
"Unpredictable ways"
Submitted by Bluegill on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:50am.
I don't think so this has been predicted by those without a political agenda
21 Jan 11 - Senior meteorologist Joe Bastardi of accuweather.com put out a great video yesterday explaining why this winter is so much colder than expected. Also, he thinks there may be many more cold winters on the way.
"Global temp falling even faster than I thought," says Bastardi. "There are some nasty short- and long-term implications in control of the weather and climate. You and I have nothing to do with it, nor can we control it."
"This something we have not seen before," Bastardi adds. NASA keeps lowering their sunspot numbers. Sunspots are now near where they were in the early 1800s during the Maunder Minimum.
I'm not saying we're headed into a little ice age, says Bastardi, but "this is alarming."
I firmly believe the long-term climate is going to be colder over the next 30 years, Bastardi warns. This La Nina will return next winter because of the cold PDO. If we're starting out as cold as it is right now, and with a double La Nina, "it's going to be cold all over."
"If this trend continues ... we'd better sit up and take notice!"
reacting
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:59am.
This is one of the reasons why I like Bastardi when it comes to the weather and the global warming nonsense.
Instead of following the nonsense that "we're the problem with the weather," which we aren't, we need to be adapting to the changes because that's what humans do anyway, we adapt to changes of one kind or another.
That's how it would normally go, you get high temperatures that are uncomfortable to humans, you have air conditioners. You get cold temperatures, you build heaters and you build the kind that can handle extreme cold and maintain them.
Above all else, when doing those two things, use common sense in their construction and work and stay the hell away from this "green" BS that yield at best faulty solutions. For example, get off this crap about ethanol and using grass/plants/corn for fuel as they tend to thicken and even solidify in cold weather. That diesel generator ain't gonna do a damn bit of good if its fuel is so thick and gooey that it won't run through the fuel lines because it's cold.
We have the technology to adapt to adverse conditions, we just have to use it and ignore all these global warming wackos out there.
That's the bottom line.
-Jon
Now that folks is a real
Submitted by richb313 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:01am.
Now that folks is a real unbiased prediction.
There’s the real danger
Submitted by Reaver on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:30pm.
There’s the real danger in all this, not just scientists wasting billions to churn out junk science but gullible politicians wasting billions to prepare for the wrong things and putting people at risk
. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8262064/...
“Ever more alarming facts are emerging to show how Brisbane’s floods were made infinitely worse by cockeyed decisions inspired by the obsession of the Australian authorities with global warming. Inevitably, the country’s warmist lobby has been voluble in claiming that such a “freak weather event” (as the BBC called it) is a consequence of man-made climate change. But far from being an unprecedented “freak event”, the latest flood was nearly a foot below the level of one in 1974 and 10 feet below the record set in 1893.”
Just like their blaming global warming for the cold their blaming global warming for the flooding even though they spent the last ten years predicting that global warming would cause droughts.
Why ABC'
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:51am.
Perhaps ABC should NAME these "10 scientists" so that people can judge for themselves whether or not the scientists have an agenda.
Quite frankly ABC-we don't trust you to do that job anymore. You have forfeited your credibility and are going to have to start using ACTUAL NAMES instead of hiding behind "some say" or "leading climatists say" bull-sh*t.
YOU ARE LYING. SHOW US THE NAMES.
Yeah, it's a pet peeve of
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:08am.
Yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine when the report relies heavily on "unnamed sources" or "sources close to the investigation" as other similar monickers for sources either real or imaginary. I, for one, take such reports with a grain of salt until and unless reputable, identified sources come forward publicly.
You always get the "So-and-so
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:46pm.
You always get the "So-and-so is a scientist funded by an oil company", but we never see "Joe Blow, who's living off of grants from algore". Al Gore stands to make potential billions tarding carbon credits. Why doesn't that bias any of his actions? I would like to know why we have to have all the data from the weather stations they still monitor run through all these urban adjustment algorithms and other such bs. Why have 80% of the Siberian weather stations that Russia maintains been removed from the global weather models? How can publications from the CRU and the IPCC be considered valid sources when they blacklist dissenting views? Can anyone who believe in AGW answer these questions for me? I keep asking but never get any takers. The solution to AGW for the true believers is to shift my money to some third world country, while using their allowed allotment of polluting ways to continue. How does that doing anything to curtail activities that they believe will effect the planet?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
The first ten scientists in
Submitted by Reaver on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:37pm.
The first ten scientists in Linsey Davis’ rolodex all agreed that the cold weather is caused by global warming, now that is scientific polling.More to do with old SOL
Submitted by Ole_Sarge on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:52am.
and nothing to do with mankind...
What does Mick Foley have to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:04am.
What does Mick Foley have to do with it?
[No-prizes for all who get the reference.]
Hey, I resemble that remark
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:10am.
.
Communist, Anarchists never give up.
Submitted by BBallleaper on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:57am.
You have to admire their tenacity. Drought? GW! Monsoons? GW! Arctic Temperatures? GW! Ice Pack Melting? GW! Ice Pack Growing? GW! Heavy Snow? GW! No snow? GW! As I've often said what a miserable life leftists lead. From the moment they wake up to the moment they lay their mush-filled drunken heads down, every waking moment is complaint and whining! Pessimism rules their day. What lies to tell today?? How can they spin the facts so they seem to support their lies?? How can they eradicate free speech,...on the Right? How can they kill more unborn babies today? How can they subvert the military so that America can be defeated? How can they spend more money and waste more money on worthless socialist and communist programs to facilitate their power and control over the proletariat? How can they pervert society even more than they have? How can they indoctrinate the children they didn't abort so that they can keep leftists in power forever? How can they make fun of religion and destroy religion so that people will only worship at their feet? How can they support dictators and fellow communists so that they can become a global oppressor? Etc., etc., etc. What a horrible way to live!
Global warming (a.k.a. --
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:05am.
Global warming (a.k.a. -- "climate change") is all Bush's fault!!!
or
Global warming (a.k.a. -- "climate change") is the result of all the negative rhetoric from conservative talk show hosts!!!
Take yer pick.
/sarc
Actually....
Submitted by Forbus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:48am.
until Al Gore showed up there was no weather.
Nor the Internet. /s
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:00pm.
Nor the Internet. /s
Does anyone even buy this line of Bovine Excrement
Submitted by richb313 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:58am.
It does ABC no good to keep pedaling this nonsense. I mean it, Does anyone even buy this line of Bovine Excrement anymore? Too much truth has been learned and it simply will not go away. The record keeping was so sloppy, their methodolgy so questionable that in serious Scientific Circles there was talk of delegitimizing Climatology, as it is currently practiced, as a real science.
That is the real story that was never reported. The debate within the halls of Science itself on the legitimacy of Climatology due to the way the field was run. Professional Scientific Publications were being used to promote a political point of view and any paper that would counter that view was being denied publication and the authors would be ridiculed.
When you run your house that way anything that it decrees is suspect. ABC, you want a story that no one is really doing? Tell us all how politics has contaminated science without taking sides. Bet you couldn't even do it if you tried.
ABC Disney
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:13am.
Disney is part of ABC and they've been pedalling "friends for change" even more than ever before even though more and more proof is coming out about how the GW is just an absolute fraud.
So they change it around to where they are doing "whatever they can to help the planet." And it's common basic stuff like gardening and whatever, you'd think they were introducing a new concept when in reality, they are doing indoctrination promos to kids.(I check it out from time to time because I got friends that have kids and they ask for my input and they have been alarmed at the GW nonsense on there) Bad enough Moochele is on some of those adverts as well, so you know ABC is in the pockets of the WH. And that's what they are doing, going after the most impressionable minds around, the kids.
It's enough to make one sick. I tell my friends, "make them go to the bathroom or get a snack during commercials or don't watch it at all." They don't like the Chairman and his co-chairman either.
-Jon
I actually saw that report
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:02am.
I actually saw that report and noted that the "10 climate scientists" were probably carefully selected in order to give a pro-global warming angle. However one of the "scientists" mentioned something that I seem to remember being debunked already. He claimed, and I am paraphrasing here, is that the reason for the influx of strong winter storms is that the areas close to the equator are warmer than normal thus evaporating more moisture which goes north and becomes stronger storms.
Problem is I seem to remember reading a documented report pointing out that the areas on and near the equator have been actually cooler than normal for the past couple of years.
Still seems the "global warming" (a.k.a. -- "climate change") theory is still based on junk science and outright fraud.
I, for one, am not buying it.
One of the scary things the
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:41pm.
One of the scary things the Global Warmers have done is to claim that all places that depend on water will turn to desert and places that depend upon limited rainfall will experience monsoons. Last time I checked these snow storms pounding the US aren't hitting the deserts of the southwest: they are hitting the places where Global Warming was supposed to REDUCE precipitation.
Global Warmers are like dumb 10 year old kids trying to lie to their parents because both constantly trip over themselves the longer they babble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Linsey Davis wants a raise!
Submitted by InfidelMan on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:12am.
Whenever I see the letters: ABC + climate scientist + consensus together in an article, the red flags go up and the odor of a hoax is detected by my senses. Then, I just giggle as the 'recipe' is followed: 'In an article container, add the soothsayers, (in this case the: Climate Scientists - why not meteorologists?) then a pinch of climate changes. Stir in the current situation and douse with comment from local inhabitants from the B-roll footage. After baking for 20 minutes, remove and let cool for effect.'
This was the "journalistic creativity" that was taught at the College of Journalism at a northern state university class I was to attend, until I changed my major. This method is to be used to draw readers into the story and to become part of the narrative. "This", it was instructed, "gives any and all commentators' credence and personal satisfaction, to know and watch themselves in the media, enhancing their self esteem, to know that they contributed to the situation."
Wish I'd kept the lesson plan for amusement and proof. What a theft and waste of the students' money and education, (and in this case, Linsey Davis') respectively!
Can You Say "CONTRADICTION"
Submitted by TruthMatters on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:10am.
"Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow." If it's "unpredictable", how can they generate a forecast for the future?contradiction
Submitted by SouthJersey1953 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:23am.
nice catch ... but ABC thinks we are too stupid to realize we are being taken for a ride...
Quite Predictable
Submitted by Bluegill on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:09am.
2006 - Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist (RIA Novosti, February 6, 2006)
2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006)
2007 - Read the sunspots: Prepare now for dangerous global cooling(Financial Post, Canada, June 20, 2007)
2007 - The Coming Global Cooling? (World Climate Report, March 16, 2007)
2007 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling (NewsMax, June 21, 2007)
2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times, June 24, 2007)
2007 - It's Global Cooling, and It's Deadly (NewsMax, June 27, 2007)
2007 - It's Time to Worry about Global COOLING (American Daily, July 27, 2007)
2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times, December 19, 2007)
2007 - Get Ready for Global Cooling (NewsMax, December 19, 2007)
2008 - Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age (RIA Novosti, January 22, 2008)
2008 - Solar Cycle 24 Could Be 13 Years Long – Cooler Times Ahead?(Watts Up With That?, February 6, 2008)
- Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age(DailyTech, February 9, 2008)
2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada, February 25, 2008)
2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling(DailyTech, February 26, 2008)
Need I go on and on, how about a few more
2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC, April 4, 2008)
2008 - Sunspots and a possible new ice age (American Thinker, April 22, 2008)
2008 - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (The Australian, April 23, 2008)
2008 - New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (Hawaii Reporter, May 7, 2008)
2008 - Astronomical Society of Australia publishes new paper warning of solar quieting and global cooling (Watts Up With That?, June 28, 2008)
2008 - More Global Cooling Ahead, Study Says (The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2008)
2008 - Is there a cold future just lying in wait for us? (Belfast Telegraph, UK, August 13, 2008)
2008 - Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway (USA Today, September 9, 2008)
2008 - An inconvenient truth: The Earth is cooling (The Baltimore Examiner, December 23, 2008)
I remember being told most of
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:34pm.
I remember being told most of the earths surface (the oceans) and that ball of heat in the aky, and volcanos had nothing to do with climate. We were told a small fraction of the air (CO2 was the gorilla.
Us skeptics knew we were in a temporary warm cycle that would cycle out. The oceans are on their cool cycle. And that ball of fire in the sky is acting unusual this cycle.
We wasted time we should have spent preparing for the cool cycle on chicken little. Instead of stock piling food. We were turning it into fuel for Hollywood and greedy politicians. Now there may be hell to pay. Climate scientist will kill.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
What needs to be pointed out
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:14am.
What needs to be pointed out is not whether GW can cause cold winters, but were these cold winters perdicted 10 to 15 years ago when the IPCC was claiming there was a GW crisis? Obviously, the answer is "no". We keep going back to the canard that if they were so far off in those early predictions, doesn't that just about throw the whole theory out the window?After it started cooling off,
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:58pm.
After it started cooling off, on the cycle of sunspot activity BTW, the mantra changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because people started saying "where's the predicted warming" (outside of summer)? Now the experts have gone to the bs that we are going to have 30 years of cooling and then the warming is going to kick in to stay. Something way out there that is just a freaking unprovable scare tactic to get their transfer of US wealth program started. I'm old enough to remember snow knee high all winter (great sledding) and summers when the heat index was over 95 degrees for over a month. I would still like to see someove prove the stated increase in global temperatures beyond any historical cycle we've previously seen. I don't believe that outside of Mann's model and East Anglia, it can be shown.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Hunter
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:06pm.
And I remember when ceilings were so tall I couldn't jump up and touch them.
I remember when I had to jump
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:18pm.
I remember when I had to jump to do that.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ And now I remember
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:00pm.
Jumping isn't such a good idea either.
In my lifetime. Coldest and
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:59pm.
In my lifetime.
Coldest and snowiest winter - 1979. Hottest and driest summer - 1988. Coldest and wettest summer - 1993. Warmest and driest winter - 1992.
Not much for trending - at least in my area.
Im confused... I thought the
Submitted by Snappy on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:26am.
Im confused... I thought the childeren of todays new generation would never experience snow? Dont tell me the rules of global warming have changed again?
pleae ignore that man behind the curtain
Submitted by SouthJersey1953 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:27am.
This story reminds me of a movie, just can't put my finger on which one /sarc
Newsflash, I am from Boston and shhhh, it get's cold
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:28am.
Are these the same ass hats that EVERY year right before hurricane season PREDICT....... the worst season ever?
And when we have a bad year (out of 30 predictions) they all pat themselves on the back and the media backs their bold predictions up by SAYING WE TOLD YOU SO.
I post this all the time whenever this bullshit comes up:
These same people said KILLER BEES were coming to wipe us out in the 70's and destroy our food supply.
These same people said Global COOLING was coming to wipe us out in the 70's and also destroy our food supply.
Now, I am no expert, but I stayed at a Motel 6 once, so I am wondering is this just about GRANT MONEY perhaps?
Named Storms
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:39pm.
What I like is the prediction of a "record number of named storms." Back before the satellites, the only way we knew there was bad weather was when we sailed through it. Storms would come and go without notice.
Now, when two rain clouds bump together on an overhead picture, they give it a name and tick up the talley.
global warming and penguins
Submitted by papadon on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:34am.
ABC is all over the place with global warming: I saw a "scientist guy" on Jeopardy! the other night in a "Penguin" catagory saying that the penguin population was increasing---because global warming was causing the ice to melt and the penguins were having to huddle closer together!
→ He's outright stupid
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:43am.
There are no penguins at the Arctic. They live at the Antarctic, which has actually been growing during this supposed Global Warming period.
I understand the penguins
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:52pm.
I understand the penguins tagged we dying. Because of the way they were being tagged.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
You forgot they live in San
Submitted by TruthMatters on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:52pm.
You forgot they live in San Diego too (you know...Seaworld)
Twisted logic....
Submitted by Forbus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:46am.
A is opposite of Z...therefore Z is caused by A.
So it's just as easy to say that the warming weather patterns of the last decades are evidence of global cooling.
Global Warming and Cold weather
Submitted by NVRAT on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:47am.
Well this must be the truth. Just ask any Scientist that is on the Government payrole (Grant system) They will tell you want you want to hear right? just ask Al Gore, he will tell you. In the early 50`s we were told that we would be in an Ice Age by 1980 (that was were the money was at then). Now, it is global warming (that is where the money is today). You old timers that are alive today should remember all of that Baloney.
A Lepord can not change spots...only method of attack. Be careful in 2012
It was as late as the 70's
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:51pm.
It was as late as the 70's that global cooling and a new ice age was all the rage for the papers and such to print. Its always something. If not cooling, its warming. I do think that in the 1920's and 30's it was global warming. There is nothing new here. Same story, diffrent people.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
NVRAT
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:26pm.
Just about every scientist - whether in academia or industry - receives some grant money from some government department.
Unless you are suggesting that all of science is dictated by what the government wants, I don't think the source of funding has much to do with it.
I've gotten grants for research and I don't ever recall finding a note stuck in the approval letter saying "we want these results, or else".
But then, I don't work in climate science and from everything I've read about over the years, that field of research seems to have been corrupted by politics. So who knows, maybe there is some tit-for-tat in that area of science when it comes to the government.
At this point, I really wouldn't be surprised.
Doc. I sincerely hope it's
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:29pm.
Doc. I sincerely hope it's different in your field.
I'm not a scientist. I was in administration. Most of our money came from federal block grants. There were definately a lot of federal dictates. IMHO. There were also unspoken dictates from both the feds and the state. I delt with a few of them.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
I'm Sure
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:47am.
That ABC News also blames their incisive and totally unbiased reporting for the steady decline in their ratings. The same logic applies.
My God
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:54am.
IT is nut'n but P R O P A G A N D A that comes out of the mouths of these hacks.
RoFlMAo
The Truth Will NOT be Televised
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:57am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO-zGbEasTA&feature=player_embedded#!
roflmao
Liberals are experts at handling the Truth recklessly.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:18pm.
They lie about Global Warming, and they lie that Obamacare reduces the deficit.
Charles Krauthammer points out some of the lies regarding Obamacare in a column titled: Everything starts with repeal.
duplicate
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:40pm.
garlock, how about that "BIG CLIMATE" EVIL CORPORATION
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:11pm.
The Global Warming Science Machine: $79 Billion and Counting
The result: the establishment of a near-monopsony that is distorting climate science in favor of climate alarmism.
You Didn't Build That.
Who are "they" that is lying about Obamacare and the deficit?
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:38pm.
Is it the liberals? Or the CBO? (And thus, the CBO must also be lying again about repeal increasing the deficit, right?)
Also, Jonathan Chait points out some of the lies regarding Krauthammer's column in a post titled: Charles Krauthammer Laughs At Arithmetic.
Too funny
Submitted by Hologram5 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:24pm.
I wonder when ABC news got their science degree?
When? I haven't the foggiest.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:03pm.
When? I haven't the foggiest. But I presume the source was an ad in the back of the Weekly Reader?
Inconsistant
Submitted by Nick Shaw on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:40pm.
Does anyone note that the "consensus" of climate scientists contacted by ABC news is that "global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways"? Think about that statement for a second. If all this climate change, nee global warming, is based on computer models, how the heck can it account for the unpredictable? The warmists throw up lines like this and think we are too dumb to notice or is it just me? I thought the first thing you learn about computer progamming is GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.These same scientists
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:07pm.
These same scientists moonlight as economists at the end of each month when the jobless numbers come out. To mix it up and disguise themselves, they use Unexpected instead of Unpredictable.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Seeing Spots......
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:01pm.
Personally, I'm fully convinced, after a total absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the destructive AGW and "Climate Change" afflicting the Earth is directly responsible for the periodic changes in sunspot activity.
Yup. Ipso facto, ex post facto, cogito ergo something-or-other, and all that cool Latin stuff that lends credence to this conclusion-in-search-of-a-cause.
Add to that the steadily-increasing evidence of warming on Mars and other planets, plus the alarming increase in the number of observed black holes in the universe, including (Trouble! I say trouble!) right here in our own Milky Way galaxy (or was it the Snickers one, I forget...).....
....it raises this crisis to epic proportions!
We simply must act now to avoide a universal, intergalactic apocalypse!
And if that doesn't work, we'll keep increasing taxes and governmental control over every aspect of your lives, just case.
Ya never know...
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Could the recent wave of
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:28pm.
Could the recent wave of vampire movies be some Hollywood type's precognition that mankind must stop the production of the solarbonite ??
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Global warmists have to be right
Submitted by JeffC... on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:13pm.
It's reality that is wrong.The GW Debate in a nutshell.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:16pm.
Here is a cute cartoon video about the climate change debate.
Prepare to laugh - or just shake your head. It's pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s
Weird
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:34pm.
Good grief, they really went electronic, even the script was voiced by synthesizers, no voice actors.
But it sure gets the point across. I laughed at the "I find your lack of faith disturbing" though.
-Jon
Iben Brauning predicted this in 1988- cause? Volcanic activity.
Submitted by meester on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:31pm.
I guess I better get this VHS video of an interview from 1988 on to the internet.
Based on a scientific analysis he predicted the changes in the jet stream that have occured since 89 due to the effect of volcanic activity. He suggested that 4 major volcanoes would like have major eruptions and I seem to recall 3 or 4 of them did erupt as he suggested. He said the effect of vaporizing a cubic kilometer of granite would be X and that it would cause colder colds, hotter hots, drier drys and wetter wets.
He negated man's influence of the weather as insignificant.
Britain could be heading for coldest winter in 300 years.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:24pm.
Not to worry it's just a local event.. /s.
The average temperature of the season so far has been -0.8C (32F), colder than any year since 1683/84 when the mercury plunged to -1.17C (29.9C).
But wait theres more...
If this winter breaks the record it would be the coldest in more than 1,000 years as temperatures are not believed to have gone below the current record since the beginning of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in 950.
You Didn't Build That.
I am sick of repeating this question regarding the
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:37pm.
Global Warming/Cooling/Changing/Not Changing/Might Change Money Grab. It's really pathetic. No matter what the data says, it proves their claim. It could be hot or cold or no change at all but these insane morons care not. It's PROOF they say!
The earth has gone through 7 ice ages. That's 7 times the planet transitioned from hot to cold and back. All of that before man walked the earth and burned his first piece of coal.
So please explain how it is now due to us. It's about money and power and nothing more.
And the crickets will chirp and no lib genius can answer.
A liberal is like a chicken
Submitted by DWoSD on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:44pm.
A liberal is like a chicken that wakes up every mourning thinking that this is the first day of their world. Nothing comes before and nothing comes afterward.....except terminal climate disruption. 30 years ago when we had winters like this it was blamed on global cooling.... now any weather is evidence of disastor. It is obvious that idiots are having way to much influence now a days.
Unpredictable Weather?
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:29pm.
Since when did cold and snow in January in the northern hemisphere become "unpredicatble weather" ?
Since when?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:33pm.
Since the Global Warming lobby predicted otherwise.
The midieval warm period
Submitted by phryingphish on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:44pm.
If Global warming brings extream winters, why didn't we have records of extream winters during the medieval warm period? Opp, forgot, logic doesn't apply here. Nothing to see please keep moving.
A few things
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:31pm.
I've seen a few comments about how ABC didn't report "both sides." This may be due to one "side" as being a 95-97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and caused by man-made activity. The other "side" is a slim minority of scientists who have less expertise and fewer credentials in the field.
Global warming - or "climate change", a term Republican strategist/consultant Frank Luntz introduced to the world, and who has since become a believer in the science - and rising global temperatures has an effect on weather volatility/unpredictability, which can lead to polarizing seasons of extreme cold in the winter and extreme heat in the summer, along with other events such as hurricanes and blizzards. Moreover, just because it's cold out where you are doesn't mean it's cold everywhere else in the world.
In fact, the news has recently come out that 2010 was the hottest year on record, tied with 2005 (2nd hottest if you're a British research center). Of course, one year's data doesn't prove anything. However, here's The Economist with more:
"The fact that every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997 is a little harder to wave away. 2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour. More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia. Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever, temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20° C higher than normal for the past month, the record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer, and so on."
I know most of you are probably screaming at this point, "But, what about Climategate?!?!" Well, it turns out that the Climategate scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing, repeatedly, and that their conclusions are not undermined and are still valid.
I also know that most of you will probably disregard all of my sources because they're "science" and "science" isn't to be trusted. Well, it's no wonder that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican and 9% as Conservative, so I'm not surprised.
Right. All the brains are liberal Democrats.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:43pm.
.
Actualy we know that 1) there
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:46pm.
Actualy we know that 1) there are problems with where temp monitoring stations are located 2) glaciers are thickening 3) other planets have been warming (is that man-made too?) and 4) the data that "proves" GW is missing . . . And there was that whole cover-up a few months back. Seriously, inform yourself why don't you.../// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Free Stinker
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:08pm.
1) I'm sure they are aware of problems some of the temp monitoring stations have, and have taken that into account
2) While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
3) Fundamental flaws in the "other planets are warming" argument
4) Which data are you referring to that is missing that supposedly "proves" global warming? Besides, some missing data doesn't disprove the theory.
Also, I do remember "that whole cover-up a few months back", which is why I referred to it in my original post:
"I know most of you are probably screaming at this point, "But, what about Climategate?!?!" Well, it turns out that the Climategate scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing, repeatedly, and that their conclusions are not undermined and are still valid."
I suppose you didn't get that far, or just forgot about that part. Either way, I find it amusing to be told to "inform yourself why don't you" from someone who's been a Sarah Palin fan for almost 4 years now.
→ Well . . . case closed, then
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:11pm.
Free Stinker likes Sarah Palin. Ergo, Free Stinker is stupid.
Wow Garlock! Your grasp of the rules of logic are formidable.
You're not paying attention..
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:24pm.
#2 The glaciers aren't in retreat, they are going back for more rocks. Pay attention already!
Source?
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:47pm.
Yeeeeeowng!!
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:58pm.
Right over yer head! Figures...
Ruk, I'm guessing Garlock here is still spending time on his...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:05pm.
...back deck, high-powered binoculars in hand, scanning the skies for a swarm of killer bees.
You know, the same killer bees that were going to swarm up from Mexico and kill us all, if the next ice age they were all so sure was nigh didn't get us first.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Killer bees
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:06pm.
Maybe the acid rain got them. ; )
Ruk,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:27pm.
LOL - Either that, or it was the sun's radiation burning through the ozone hole.
You know, the one we created back in the 60s and 70s spraying all those aerosols around.
Heck, maybe it was a combination of both.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
→ Of course
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:03pm.
He's keeping his head down. Must be with a client.
Cool,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:24pm.
ROFL. Damn, that was cold.
:-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Cold?
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:32pm.
Well there ya go! Global warming!
Rukus, Yeeeowng------
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:59pm.
h/t "Peanut". Too funny!What's interesting isn't just
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:54pm.
What's interesting isn't just what's been said but what's not said.
While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
"Accelerating since the mid 70s". Maybe. But not by much. Using their chart. It's about even.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif
But then there's the problem the problem with N. A total of 228. But not for the whole period. With a whole 11 going all the way back to the 60's and earlier. So there was some iffy evidence that glaciers glaciers were retreating since the 60's. Wow. I'm surprise. Glaciers retreated since the 70's when we were last in a known cool period? How can that be?
Though it's hard to tell, due to the N problem with any confidence. But in the 40's the glaciers may have been retreating as fast as 1995-2005. Maybe faster.
This may come as news to the professionals. Or ignored by them. But glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. Sometimes faster. Sometimes slower. And what's equally interesting. As glaciers retreat things are found under retreating glaciers. As medeval silver mines. Artifacts from the Roman era. Organics in Greenland and the Andies that can be carbon dated. From prior periods where we were told this didn't happen.
It could be this was an old blog. But I'm also curious what's happend since 2005. It ended in 2005. Now that we seem to have cycled into a cold cycle. Unless we use Hanson's highly adjusted 2010 as warm as 2005. Of course the other 3 say different. But if we want to chicken little there's Hansen.
Have fun everyone.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
It's usually a surprise to
Submitted by dbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:34pm.
It's usually a surprise to warmers to hear that glaciers melt during an interglacial. The rate of glacier melt is miniscule as compared to 8,000 years ago. Modern day glacial retreat depends on ocean circulation which is why some glaciers are growing and some receding.
100-year mass changes in the Swiss Alps linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Hi dbo. Yep normal is a mile
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:20pm.
Hi dbo. Yep normal is a mile thick sheet of ice over much of north America and Europe.
They can't even enjoy the nice weather.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Garlock
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:01pm.
Even for someone such as yourself who buys - hook line and sinker - the lie that CO2 is causing global warming, let's do some math.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. Multiply that by the 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually that Humans can claim responsibility for, and you get a huge 0.2856% of global wrming that is human related. Got that? Even if we ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998, worse case is that humans only are responsible for 0.3%
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Remember "Climategate" ???
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:01pm.
In case you missed the discussion earlier, the problem with the official numbers is that they have been cooked, so to speak. Hide the decline!
It's not science that is doubted, but the ambitions of those who have placed themselves as the faces of science. Hundreds of academics have made their careers off public funds being poured into studying AGW.
Now back to "just because it's cold here..." The last two years, during southern hemisphere winters, extreme cold has killed wild life all over the place. The Antarctic ice sheet has grown. And in the northern hemisphere glaciers have grown. Record cold winters have been reported. Yes, it's been cold across Asia, Europe, and North America.
Science is only as good as the data it is based on. When the results don't match the predictions, the theories are supposed to be discarded. The data and "predictions" are not supposed to be modified to match the results.
Yes, I do remember "Climategate"
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:11pm.
Which is why I referred to it in my original post:
"I know most of you are probably screaming at this point, "But, what about Climategate?!?!" Well, it turns out that the Climategate scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing, repeatedly, and that their conclusions are not undermined and are still valid."
But I suppose, like Free Stinker, you just didn't read that far before you started your response.
And as for your glaciers argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm
As for the record cold winters argument, I understand that some areas have seen record cold, but again that can be attributed partly to weather volatility from climate change.
Why did they "hide the
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:23pm.
Why did they "hide the decline"? Must have missed that chapter during my college days.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ What???
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:29pm.
And let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good boondoggle?
Garlock shed many a tear over that polar bear floating on that little sliver of ice. Never mind that the photographer was standing on the greater mass.
Don't tell Garlock, he still prays to the soul of that poor bear.
"Cleared"?
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:39pm.
"Cleared"? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. Sorry. I'll stop laughing in a second. Yep those wonderful white washes cleared them.
Let's forget that himalaya gate came about because there were caught. Not just being wrong. But as Joe Wilson says below.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Damn, you must have broken the useful idiot mold when you...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:52pm.
...popped out of it, and they had to scramble to replace it.
They were "cleared" by like-minded, fellow-traveling climate commies.
That's like having 12 foxes on the jury when the defendant fox is on trial for invading the hen house, and no chickens are allowed to testify.
The outcome of that so-called "investigation" was never in doubt. Birds of a feather, if you will.
The only people who are still pushing the now totally discredited idea that mankind's activities can actually affect the Earth's climate are either government-educated/indoctrinated (same thing) morons, or are dyed-in-the-wool commies that see this scam as their last-ditch chance to bring about the wonderful utopia of tyrannical, murderous global communism.
Which category do you fall in?
I'm guessing it's a lot of both.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:59pm.
It wasn't just the Penn State investigation, there were multiple independent investigations as well, along with a UK Parliament report that "concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against the UEA scientists are misleading."
And you're a fool if you believe that the majority of the world who believes in the vast majority of climate scientists' research are either morons or "dyed-in-the-wool commies that see this scam as their last-ditch chance to bring about the wonderful utopia of tyrannical, murderous global communism." I'm sorry to tell you that the world is not split cleanly between NewsBusters members and Communists.
Your noy helping your cause by spinning common sense
Submitted by dbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:31pm.
I wonder if any of the "insevtigations" were a whitewash? Rhetorical question.
We have to take a self-critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet.
Some of the inquiries – like in the UK – did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust.
Hans von Storch, Professor of Climatology, 2 August 2010
Garlock, I have an exclusive heads-up for ya, but...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:06pm.
...you have to pay attention and act quickly, as you are going to want to get in on the ground floor of the next big government scare (scam) before it really gets up and rolling.
It's going to center around foodborne illness.
The government is going to soon use all of the food contamination stories they can to scare the American sheeple into supporting the recent passage of the Food "Safety" Act.
Nevermind that this will soon lead to a government takeover of this nation's food supply (see Communist Manifesto) and the federal inspectors hired will no doubt be functionally illiterate rejects from the TSA.
But that's okay because, as we all know, only government knows best.
Right?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I'm a Virginian, not a Mayan.
Submitted by pockets64 on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 9:52am.
The Virginia Commonwealth's Attorney General Cuccinelli didn't seem to get the memo that all were cleared.
In fact, Mann's cronies trying to shield Virginia academics from fraud laws must not have gotten the memo.
The only reason to hide something is if you have something to hide, except for private property privacy reasons. However, if my memory serves from my time working for a state university, anything and everything I did on the state's equipment or with the state's resources belonged to the state.
Now, we're back to the climategate e-mails. Why did it take a disgruntled insider to post data that had been hidden, but was legally required by law to be provided in response to a valid FOI request?
Someone was hiding something. Maybe the decline??
As others have said, the foxes were cleared by a jury of foxes. Some of those foxes stand to loose large amounts of public money as AGW research is defunded. So please excuse me if I don't give two hoots about the supposed clearing of those frauds.
Now, on to your argument by authority. I don't care how many learned scholars sign on to the theory that the earth is flat, or cutting out men's hearts will ensure a good harvest, or what have you. Others have posted equally astounding lists of people (these folks actually specialize in climate studies) contradicting AGW.
AGW is a theory that made certain predictions. Not only have those predictions not come true, but the opposite has come true. Now, the AGW folks are changing their "predictions" after the fact. With that, you no longer have science. You have Mayans on top of a pyramid, stacking up bodies at the bottom.
Do you keep this post in
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:01pm.
Do you keep this post in Notepad and paste it in every time this subject comes up? Just curious, because it seems word for word with one you posted here not too long ago and then couldn't defend. Please reconcile your claim with Arctic sea ice with this side-by-side comparison from Cryosphere Today's website: more and denser ice on Christmas Eve than five years previously. Please explain the need to exclude 75% of the Russian weather stations from the IEA weather reporting. If I exclude the weather conditions from every state in the US except Florida in a report on US Winter weather conditions, do you think people in Minneapolis are going to able to start wearing speedos in January? My report will show average temperatures in the 70's. GIGO. You're probably going to ignore this post because the political affliation of a scientist and their political beliefs must hold more weight for you than cold, hard, unmanipulated data and scientific testing. I can take every one of your links and tie them back to money to be made off of AGW bs.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ Garlock
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:07pm.
Garlock is an avid follower of "consensus"
"Bleeding" sick people used to be the "consensus" treatment among doctors.
Garlock doesn't care that there are NO government grants available to the detractors of Global Warming theory. Never has been.
Given enough money, I'd make a fool of myself just like Garlock does, only I'd at least get paid for it.
Publish or perish takes on a
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:21pm.
Publish or perish takes on a death wish connotation when only consensus with standard views goes to press.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ Fast track to tenure
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:24pm.
Garlock doesn't believe politics is involved in the tenure process at America's institutions.
Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. -- Leslie Gore (aka Garlock)
In the last 10 years, Mann
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:44pm.
In the last 10 years, Mann has brought in $6 million to PSU. When they asked him in their review if he'd ever manipulated data to influence the outcome of his research, he said "No". They said, "Good enough for us." Poor bastard, what a grueling review. Anyone seen a good hockey stick laying around anywhere?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ No Hunter
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:54pm.
But the next graph will likely resemble Tiger Woods' 9-iron.
Actually
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:41pm.
I don't have it saved in Notepad, but that's a good idea. I'm not sure what other similar post on here that you're talking about, but I'd like to see it.
Arctic sea ice reconciliation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm
As for the Russian weather stations, I'm not sure. But since when does "probably tampered with Russian-climate data" mean "definitely tampered with Russian-climate data"? Besides, the Climategate scientists have been cleared of any wrong doing, repeatedly, and that their conclusions are not undermined and are still valid.
Political affiliations/beliefs do not hold more weight for me than cold, hard, unmanipulated data and scientific testing. I have a healthy respect and understanding of science, which is something that is definitely lacking among most conservatives/Republicans today (though 1-2 generations ago it was a different story), and I do think it says something that not even 1/10 of scientists are conservative.
As for funding for AGW research, why shouldn't the government be funding research into an issue that could and probably will have major consequences for the planet as a whole? I agree that the government could and should provide funding for skepticism research and shouldn't discriminate in that regard, but skepticism research already receives a lot of funding - from fossil fuels companies and other similar organizations. Who should we trust more? The government who is interested in doing something to avert a potentially large crisis? Or corporations who have a vested interest (profit motive) in seeing no actions get taken?
→ So Garlock
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:46pm.
If we come to a "consensus" that you are wrong, does that make it so?
We are Galileo. You and your ilk are a worshipful juggernaut ensuring ignorance abounds.
If you come to a "consensus"
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:00pm.
using valid scientific data instead of your usual conservative circle-jerk, then yes it would make it so.
→ They're your jerks
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:07pm.
They were too busy jerking refutational information out of their findings and sending it to the trash heap.
Your faith is great, but that doesn't make it so.
And I refuted all of their refutations
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:17pm.
So now we're back at square one? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see who's right, since nobody will believe the other side. And by that point it will undoubtedly be too late to do much if AGW does turn out to be true. Gee, I thought even conservatives were in favor of preventative care.
... not when I have to
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:38pm.
... not when I have to abandon the standard of living I've worked for all my life and algore doesn't.
Can't play anymore tonight. See ya.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
I'm looking for the right word...
Submitted by pockets64 on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:21am.
But "idiot" is the only one that comes to mind. But somehow, I don't think that word covers all the bases. Also, that's border line ad hominem. I don't care to go there with you.
Science is not ruled by concensus. You keep insulting conservatives who do not agree with the AGW concensus.
Now, you keep using Pascal's wager. Do you realize that is a religious justification, not a scientific one? "We gotta believe it, just in case it's true!"
Sacrificing our economy and millions of lives for the sake of a theory that does not live up to its own predictions is worse than stacking bodies at the bottom of a Mayan pyramid.
Garlock
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:21pm.
A little over a hundred years ago, just about every scientist on the planet believed, base on everything they knew about waves, that the speed of light was relative to the luminiferous aether.
You might say there was a consensus based on valid scientific data.
That still didn't prevent them all from being wrong about it.
"using valid scientific data
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:55pm.
"using valid scientific data instead of your usual" liberal "circle-jerk".
The same applies to you. Don't you read your own links? Do you understand what you read? Serious questions with that link? Half truths? N questions?
I've only seen one other person use the term, "circle jerk". So mature. He was given a pass on it by Noel. Then whinned when he was kicked out for not proving he was quoting someone correct.
Ahhhhh.
Hi.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Almost makes me wish...
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:03pm.
We could give PopTech a temporary reprieve, just to deal with this one. : )
→ I was thinking the same.
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:10pm.
Poptech could outspam Garlock in a heartbeat.
Where is PT. I haven't seen
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:53pm.
Where is PT. I haven't seen him in a heck of a long time. I hope he's still around. I'd like to say hi.
But if you haven't; look at a few of his links. They're far from slam dunk. Actually point to some of the warmer inconveniences.
There are more inconvenient truths in AGWing than they want to admit.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
danbo, PT went into full Sarah Palin hater mode and got canned
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:58pm.
...more than once.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I remember that. But I liked
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:20pm.
I remember that. But I liked PT and agreed with him a lot more than disagreed. Though we disagreed on SP.
I was hoping he'd come back home. I kind of miss him.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
danbo,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:36pm.
Yeah, and it was rather sad, as PT was once among the most respected posters here - particularly on Noel's notable AGW threads from way back in the day.
It's unfortunate that he threw all that away by reinforcing his backyard fort for the He-Man Women Haters Club.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:46pm.
Same here.
I remember he had a technical background and contributing to the discussion of AGW.
My last recollection of PT was him going over the top on a discussion about folks who smoke pot.
It wasn't just a disagreement about whether it should be legal or not - it was over the top unhinged hatred of it folks who do.
Deep end.
Ouch Dave.... "way back in the day", gulp I was here before him
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 1:32pm.
PT was linked to in this very thread!
dang NB jumping thread, another link here
He sometines posts over on WUWT
BTW one of the best climate/weather sites on this planet.
PT's.. Good with science, very bad with people.
You Didn't Build That.
~Banned
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:58pm.
He had a terminal case of PDS.
Garlock, Do you really think
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:54pm.
Garlock, Do you really think a peer-level review done in-house at any institution of higher learning is worth the paper it was published on?
"Yes, we discovered that the people you've been giving grant money to for the last 20 years have been lying about their research, publishing shoddy reports, and partying till the cows come home instead of using the scientific method to prove or disprove the conjecture you provided the money to support. Please keep that money flowing, becasue without it, their salaries and, more importantly, my salary cannot continue."
If you read the full report of the East Anglia review, they asked a lot of questions initially that they then wave off and ignored in their final report. One of the more critical was where is the original, un-manipulated data from their research and why can't any missing data be recreated or substantiated with futher testing?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
"My department head did not lie or fudge the facts"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:05pm.
Garlock is enamored of academia.
And as we all know, there are no credible "scientists" outside of academia.
I don't know why they waved it off
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:12pm.
Maybe they determined by the end that they had the answer, or that it wasn't worth asking? Beats me.
Didn't fit the "nothing funny
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:29pm.
Didn't fit the "nothing funny going on here" scenario. The Muir Russel independent review wasn't, by the way. One of that panel's members had already declared everyone accused of wrong-doing innocent six months before he was seated on the panel. The PSU peer review of Mann was a joke. The y asked him if he'd deleted emails and he said he hadn't, but he'd already typed that he did:
Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."
Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."
From the PSU inquiry:
On January 12,2010, the Inquiry Committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met
with Dr. Mann. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against him
and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the Inquiry Committee had
compiled. In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the
questions and follow-up questions. A recording was made of the interview and was later
transcribed. The Inquiry Committee members asked occasional follow-up questions. Dr.
Mann answered each question carefully:
• He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which the Inquiry Committee inquired;
• He stated that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
• He stated that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
• He stated that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
• He stated that he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.
Mann lied somewhere.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
An Inconveniet Truth
Submitted by dbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:41pm.
Here's a complete documented version of the questions they "forgot" to ask. (60 page pdf)
Warmers say the funniest
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:19pm.
Warmers say the funniest things.
The world knows they have no clothes. But still arrogant.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Missed this one on the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:40pm.
I documented his 40 lies to date. Many of them came from his idiot A few things comment here. Most of the studies/polls/articles he linked to are complete lies.
The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.
15. Claims 95-97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and caused by man-made activity. - LIE. ...close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW.
16. .Claims ..rising global temperatures has an effect on weather volatility/unpredictability.. --- LIE - Noel Sheppard already debunk that Newsweek article.
17. Claims ...the news has recently come out that 2010 was the hottest year on record... --- LIE - ...NASA’s chief temperature trickster, James Hansen, issued a press release... ... If they relied solely on satellite data, which accurately covers the entire planet, 2010 would not top the list.
18. Quotes from the Economist that says the 12 hottest years have been since 1997. --- Guess who is using the same bogus data from James Hansen. Awww. How did you know?
19. Claims the Climategate scientist have been cleared. -- MRC - ClimateGate 'Whitewash' Helps 'Clear' Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim
20. Claims only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican and 9% as Conservative --- Does that pass the smell test boys and girls? IT DOESN''T. --- ...important fine print -- specifically that the scientists that it surveyed were all members of the AAAS. I do not have detailed demographics information, but based on my experience I would guess that AAAS membership is dominated by university and government scientists. The opinion poll thus does not tell us much about US scientists as a whole, but rather something about one scientific institution -- AAAS. And the poll indicates that AAAS is largely an association that does not include Republicans.
21. Cut & Paste While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s. --- So, to sum, glaciers are, overall retreating. However, laying that on climate change exclusively would be inaccurate. That makes it encouraging, because it implies that there are manageable ways to halt the retreat of glaciers. --- Danbo schools the liar.
21. Nonresponse. Free Stinker schools the liar on Global Warming.
22. Doubles down on his claim Climategate scientists were cleared. --- dbo schools him - I wonder if any of the "investigations" were a whitewash? Rhetorical question.
23. ..respect and understanding of science, which is something that is definitely lacking among most conservatives/Republicans today... --- And yet those same conservative/Republicans factcheck the SLGT time after time.
24. Insult ...conservative circle-jerk...
25. Scientist that disagree with AGW usually hold less expertise and have fewer credentials. --- That study he links to? ...piece of twaddle... -...one of the most meaningless papers I have ever seen... - Farce - ...poorly done...
A few more things
Submitted by phryingphish on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 5:53pm.
Garlock,
Here are but a few of the PEER REVIEDWED papers that have been produced to refute every claim you just made.
850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) AlarmAnd as for your "Survey"
Useless on-line survey of climate scientistsPeer Reviewed refutations
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:19pm.
I never said there weren't any papers refuting global warming, nor that they weren't peer-reviewed. All I said were that those scientists usually hold less expertise and have fewer credentials. Moreover, "skepticism" doesn't itself disprove the theory.
Also, I'm not sure what "survey" you're talking about as mine. My first link reported a survey done of scientists that is different than the one you linked to. Moreover, your "useless survey" link clearly states that a survey that purported to show increased levels of skepticism among scientists used a flimsy methodolgy and should be dismissed, so I'm not sure what you were trying to get at.
→ The medium is the message
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:30pm.
Obama tried the same thing when he passed out lab coats at his photo-op with doctors on the White House lawn.
Who's going to turn down a perfectly good lab coat?
Er
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:42pm.
I'm not sure what your point is here, or how it relates to my comment above.
→ So what?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 7:53pm.
You refuse to recognize there is a lot of grant money up for grabs for the "scientist" willing to sell out for it.
Jeff Immelt certainly knows the game. And he's not a scientist. But he will buy 12,000 Chevy Volts in response to President Obama's fawning love for him.
Do you honestly think that without the TARP and Stimulus money directed to GE that he'd authorize the purchase of 12,000 Chevy Volts?
It's a shell game. Winning the hearts and (what's left of) the minds of America.
Do you drive a hybrid, Garlock? Of course you do. You're no hypocrite, are you?
I don't drive a hybrid
Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:14pm.
I can't afford one right now, but I'll probably get one in a few years.
And I'm sure GE's purchase of the Volt had nothing to do with it's multiple awards from various car associations, and had everything to do with how him and Obama are lovers.
→ Right, Garlock
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:31pm.
And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.
But alas, you really could be that wide-eyed with wonderment.
And don't you think it's about time you took out a $41,000 loan to buy that Chevy Volt? Never mind the price of the HAZMAT handling if you ever have to replace the batteries.
Never mind that you hate Mexicans because they are making all those mercury-laden fluorescent bulbs (wouldn't want to pollute here, would we?). Don't believe for a minute that automated process couldn't be accomplished just as easily here.
Garlock is---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:11pm.
a fookin' mook. (signed) A LurkerTru Dat MD
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 10:58pm.
He couldn't bring himself to admit he hates Mexicans and wants them to die of mercury poisoning.
But he couldn't bring himself to denying it either.
All I did was help him understand his smug (not in my backyard) elitism.
Skepticism may not disprove a theory,
Submitted by pockets64 on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:28am.
but the predictions made by the theory do. NONE of the models or preditions regarding AGW allow for the past few years' winters in either hemisphere.
Oops. With that simple analysis, concensus building no longer matters. Insulting the AGW non-believers is about your only recourse at this point.
Basically the survey itself
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 2:30pm.
Basically the survey itself was unscientific and open to intentional and unintentional fraud.
What's especially funny about
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:21pm.
What's especially funny about this is that the left has been fearmongering for years that Global Warming will bring...... warming! Winter will be a thing of the past! In fact just last week I watched Big Bang Theory (guilty pleasure - Sheldon is the best) and the cast was at a science convention somewhere and a character ran into someone from her past. He was presenting a presentation on Global Warming entitled something along the lines of "Remembering Snow - A Look Back".
Now remember; this aired last week. Half the country has been brutalized by snow and much was currently under the white stuff. This is also the third brutal winter in a row. "Remembering Snow" - Can you imagine how duped those Global Warming believers were when they heard this character say that?
Even though the general uninformed American was gullible enough to vote for Obama, I don't think the general uninformed American who has had to dig their car out of the show 5 times this winter will swallow the idea that Global Warming brings global cooling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Is that an Idiocracy
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:33pm.
Is that an Idiocracy reference I see? "I like Money."
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
→ Here's a secret
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:20pm.
For all those kids who slept through 3rd grade science class (cough . . . Garlock), The teacher called it Carbon Dioxide that was an essential building block of plant life, but understanding the ignorance of the uneducated masses (cough Garlock), scientists started calling it CO2 and labelled it a "greenhouse gas".
Who the heck doesn't want "greenhouse gases"? Well, that kid who slept through 3rd grade science class, for one.
Earth to Garlock. CARBON DIOXIDE IS CO2
Personally, I'm glad we have that greenhouse gas (CO2). It helps the farmer grow corn, that distills into ethanol, that propels the car, that spells starvation to the 3rd world, while Garlock feels quite smug about his hatred of poor children.
40% of America's corn now goes into the gas tanks of hateful scientist worshipers.
Another of Professor Enak's grad students
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:15pm.
.
→ Thank you SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:18pm.
I was racking my brain trying to remember Prof Enak.
Cool: The good Professor has a new nom de plume now
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:24pm.
Same old stuff though.
Guess he had to do it.
→ Thanks SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:31pm.
I'll be on the lookout for el riot.
If he had any sense he would know that CO2 is the product of efficient burning, and not a by-product.
CO2 is a highly prized commodity in the plant world. Without it, they'd have no need to fight among each other for access to sunlight for photosynthesis.
Enak and Garlock. Hell, all we need now is for Dave high...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:40pm.
...to show up, and we can have ourselve's a real down home, old time NB reunion. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
→ That would be great
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:43pm.
I'll be four years old @ NewsBusters this week.
It also goes good in beer and
Submitted by danbo on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:22pm.
It also goes good in beer and champagne.
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
2010 was cold where I live
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 8:56pm.
2010 was cold where I live and from the reports of unusual snow and cold weather from points all over the globe I was pretty confident that 2010 was colder than normal. So naturally a couple weeks after the new year I thought "When are we going to get reports about 2010 being the warmest year on record?"
I wasn't one week before I saw that article. It was on the Weather Channel, a channel known for global warmongering, and I read the article and I noticed that they tweaked it to account for reality. Even thought the title said warmest year ever, the article said it was tied for the warmest year on record. I guess they could only stretch their crediblity so far!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Carol Browner leaving the White House
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:24pm.
I wonder how ABC will spin Carol Browner's departure from the Climate Change Swindler job in the White House...
Global Warming - has left the building
Submitted by Charles Higley on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 11:39pm.
What everybody appears to ignore is that we have not warmed since 1995 (Phil Jones), have cooled slowly since 2002, and cooled rapidly since 2006. With two ocean cycles flipped to cooling in 2006 (right on schedule) and the latest sun spot cycle going beyond a Dalton Minimum to a Maunder Minimum, cooling is real and will be sustained for 20-30 years.
Enjoy the ride. This has nothing to do with CO2 which is impotent to affect our climate.
The recent record low in Minnesota is a good example of the problem. When you have an inversion layer, very dry air, no vertical mixing, cloudless sky, and more CO2 (they claim) than in the last 1000 years, CO2 is alone to have its big effect, which here was to allow a significantly record low temperature. In other words, even Viagra would not make CO2 up to causing warming.
CO2 has been much higher than now during three periods in the last 200 years, above 440 ppm (390 ppm now) and even up to 550 ppm at times. The IPCC specifically ignores all direct CO2 chemical data as it does not support their need for CO2 to have been historically low until 1950. The latest high was in the 1940s and temperatures crashed while CO2 was high.
CO2 is a trace gas and a valuable plant food. It is greening our planet's land and seas. Corals love it - acidification by CO2 is a strawman and harmless.
The global warming scam has nothing to do with saving the planet. It's all about creating a crisis and a case for a Draconian highjacking of our energy sources and global control of our energy, economies, and every aspect of our lives. The goal is to create a one-world government which would have to be totalitarian and socialist. This is not a conspiracy as they have publicly stated their goals, even most recently as in the Cancun Climate Conference.
It's all about oppressing undeveloped countries and throwing the developed world into a permanent depression in which the nations would be nanny nations and a few individuals, banks, and governments would reap huge riches. Look up the activities of Maurice Strong and the political body he set up the further his goals - the IPCC - their mission is to show global warming's effects regardless of whether we are warming or not. They cannot admit to ANY cooling as their mission and reason for being would cease to exist.
As a political body, the upper levels feel no compunction not to alter the temperature data and edit the mostly honest science from the lower levels to meet the requirements of their agenda. Thus, the draft text would read that they were unable to detect any footprint of man's activities on climate and the upper level final editors change this to read that they are 95% confident that the observed (fabricated) warming is due to man. The IPCC cannot be trusted to do anything but push their agenda. NO science supports them so they have to use non-peer-reviewed material and activist opinion brochures to support their case.