CNN's Lou Dobbs opened this segment by saying this was a CNN exclusive, something you wouldn't see anywhere else. And unfortunately, he was right for the most.
The Jan. 13 broadcast of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" explored the possibility that earth isn't warming, but is, in fact, cooling.
Dobbs cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data dating back to 1880 which showed a spike in mean temperature over land and ocean. However, Joseph D'Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) questioned that data by comparing it to more modern reliable satellite data, when ask if he "quibbled" with the NOAA data's representation.
"Yes, I do," D'Aleo replied. "In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe - 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn't jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set."
D'Aleo's organization, ICECAP, is one of 33 groups co-sponsoring The Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10. D'Aleo also appeared on Dobbs' program on Jan. 5 and said that a lot of the research promoting the theory of anthropogenic or manmade climate change is too short-sighted.
According to D'Aleo, the spike in NOAA climate data is a result of location changes where the data is recorded. He contended that with the proportional increase of urban data used versus rural data, the overall effect was a warming trend.
"Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-third of the globe's stations dropped out in 1990," D'Aleo added. "Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, your people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it's a lot colder in rural areas than it is in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting, that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set."
Another factor contributing to the global cooling period is the decline in sunspot activity according to Jay Lehr, a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute.
"[I] think more importantly it is to look at the sun's output, and in recent years, we've seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely - in my mind - not only in a cooling period, we're going to be staying in it for a couple decades," Lehr said.
Lehr said the cooling trend was a positive and hoped it would have and impact on legislators to resist the temptation to pass and sort of climate change regulation that could further hurt the U.S. economy.
"And I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it, I'm hopeful that this change in the sun's output will put some common sense into the legislature - not to pass any dramatic cap-and-trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole," Lehr added. "I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to two years. But, I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession is going to last quite a few more years and we'll come out of it with a lower standard of living as a result on very tenuous scientific grounds."
Lehr pointed out the "silliness" of not including the sun's impact on the earth's climate - a factor often neglected by many of the global climate change alarmist. He also cited CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, who said the theory of manmade global warming was "arrogant" on Dec. 18, 2008.
"It just seems silly to not recognize that the earth's climate is driven by the sun," Lehr said. "Your Chad Myers about a month ago pointed out it's really arrogant for mankind to think he controls the climate or the universe. Only 4 percent of our greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Ninety percent is water vapor which we have no impact over."
Lehr told Dobbs it would be a mistake to enact policy that was intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as Obama's Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on Jan. 13 in her confirmation hearing that the incoming Obama administration intended to do.
"And, if we were to try to reduce greenhouse gases with China and India controlling way more than we do and they have boldly said they are not going to cripple their economy by following suit, our impact would have no change in temperature at all," Lehr added. "In Europe they started carbon cap and trade in 2005. They've had no reduction in greenhouse gases, but a 5 percent to 10 percent increase in the [cost of] standard of living. We don't want to go that route."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
'70s fashion trends have
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 08:20 ET by HockeyKid'70s fashion trends have been back in for a while now--it was only a matter of time before we got back to '70s enviro-scares.
I agree with the "coming ice age" theory, but what the "journalists" never mention is that "coming soon" in geologic terms means about 5 thousand years from now. Better buy extra coats now!
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Full Circle
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 08:32 ET by Red JeepWe have gone full a full circle on impending doom. Could bell bottoms become a retro fashion trend now?
Electric cars were all the
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:14 ET by SpaceManSpiffElectric cars were all the rage, too. And just as much a joke then as now. Try selling an electric car to anyone who lives where it gets cold! Don't turn the heater on because you'll likely run out of juice before you get to your destination! Oh my, what will happen to all the electric cars in this impending ice age? I suppose we'll all have to start driving reindeer.
The Sun controls the Earth's climate
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 08:35 ET by PopularTechTo think that man controls the earth's climate is just arrogant and laughable. The man-made global warming theory is like returning to the incorrect assumption that the earth was the center of the universe.
The Sun controls the Earth's climate
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The earth is NOT the center
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 08:44 ET by HockeyKidThe earth is NOT the center of the universe, and it's ALL OUR FAULT! We need to build some great big rockets and push it back to its rightful place OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! Send your donations to Me@CopernicusWasWrong.com.
And stay tuned--we'll have those Gravity Offset Credits available on the site in the very near future. Now everyone can do their part to SAVE EARTH!
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Research tip: I think you
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:25 ET by Hunter12Research tip: I think you can adapted the rays from Karl Rove's Weather Control machine into a tractor beam. Why re-invent the wheel?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Not only that
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 08:45 ET by 10ksnookerSince October 2005 when the Sun's Average Planetary Index (Ap) dropped suddenly, the sun has been in a funk. It began to get cold in our solar system, and has continued to do so ever since. Most real solar scientists say the solar trend of lower output will continue for the foreseeable future.
No one knows what is going on, except the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant and does not comtrol Earth'c climate no matter how much bleating the leftards do.
Ever heard of carbon based life forms? Yes that's us and all the other living things on our plant, and CO2 is the stuff of life. Look up photosynthesis and cellular respiration to see how it all works.
While you are at it, reseaerch the lies told about DDT, and how many millions have died of malaria because of another hoax of the left. The legacy of Rachel Carson, the deaths of 30+ millions based on a lie.
It's all for Gaia, so it's OK to lie.
CO2 causes Solarbonite
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:31 ET by Hunter12CO2 causes Solarbonite levels to increase. This is what's causing the sun's output levels to drop
"If you have the solarbonite, you have nothing!" - Eros
Correct...
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 15:52 ET byPopularTech,
I don't see anyone in the scientific community debating the Sun's effects on our planet, aka Solar Forcing. The issues of increasing temperatures in our climate are a concern.
Here's a few questions...
With current computers at our fingertips, Localized weather forecasting is somewhat accurate up to 3 days in the future. Climate change should be described as average weather for the planet and is based upon the average trends of the past and present in order to forecast average weather in the years to come. The confusion begins when people get wrapped up in terminology of the science and hype what they want to hear. It seems the discussion is more about the financial costs of going green with an attack on the science of climate change. So, if we can't afford to solve a problem...say so. If the problem can be solved with minimal costs...shouldn't we try? Science continues to show a problem in the Climate of the planet...cut funding and the problem goes away? I have read a number of articles by global warming skeptics, the problem occurs when the data they base their skepticism upon falls apart or is debunked or they've been funded by gas & oil industry companies to keep people confused and distracted from the real science.
First posting...glad to be part of the discussion.
Odd Job
Global Warming Propaganda - AGW is not proven and not science
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 21:16 ET by PopularTechThe Skeptics have not been debunked and they are not funded by gas and oil companies which is irrelevant to their argument regardless. Your computer illiteracy is the reason you fall for the global warming propaganda. Climate models are not remotely accurate and prove absolutely nothing thus AGW is not remotely proven and not science:
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Interestin' reply...
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 14:44 ET byPopularTech,
Skeptics have been debunked. Some skeptics may lean this way or that way depending on whether or not it serves their best interest. The problem lies in the fact when they try to publish opinion papers and are sent home with their tails between their legs when their peers debunk them. The propaganda of the oil & gas industries in trying to fight the scientific research which is showing increased temperature changes in the climate are following the same patterns and tactics as the tobacco industry. They can buy off a scientist or two to disseminate lies and falsehoods and distract the public long enough to secure long term profitability for their companies. Funding is relevant. If you say it is not, you must give up the attack towards the otherside's funding...i.e. Gore's ability to create more wealth for himself by propagating his line of green products. It is relevant.
As for computer illiteracy, I'll assume you are well versed in computer programming from your own self-promotion on the subject..."I am a computer analyst and can program a computer model to do whatever I want." The amount of cut & pasting you do on this site...it takes my breath away. It would take someone years of research and study to get to where you are in today's technological dependent world. Since you are not a climate scientist, where did you get your information? Who fed you the information for you to cut and paste so well. It's as if you are some kind of wunderkind on AGW. To think computer models, from your link, should be thrown out for their irrelevancy and errors speaks volumes on your inability to understand how to use computer modeling as a tool to explain complex structures and systems. For example, why fund and train US Air Force pilots in flight simulators since it's obvious there are flaws in the computer modeling of the flight simulators? The amount of money saved, not to say lives, by the US Air Force on computer modeling for their flight simulators is a well known fact. Or do you disagree? Are you to say that all climatologists are computer illiterate and may only depend on the computer programmers like yourself? You're right "garbage in, garbage out"...but, what if, the computer models are correctly following nature or nature is following the computer model...still garbage out? Your broad assumptions are...well...shall we say, skewed?
With my limited computer ability and lack of critical thinking, I was only able to link once to your website and respond to you with real words and sentences configured in a way you might understand...or maybe not.
I think Sarah Palin is a better topic...at least we can poke fun at her "qualifications"! Got any lists on Palin?!?
Odd Job
Good evening OddJob
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 15:01 ET by cocodrieYour statement that skeptics have been debunked reveals your prejudice and ignorance. This is totally untrue.
You are obviously not a climate scientist and lacking in critical thinking, Your computer is guilty of garbage in and garbage out. Your broad misrepresentations are...well...shall we say skewed?
Jesus Loves You.
I lack a lot of things...
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 18:09 ET byReally...? That's it.
I'm biased and prejudiced therefore ignorant? You're not? Am I to assume you are a climate scientist or climatologist?
I would describe myself as an analytical thinker to accurately define my way of thinking. By all means, you have formed your own opinion or shall I say repeated phrases from the regurgitation of what you've been told and now want to believe. By all means, enlighten and educate me for I am a sponge in your pool of funny thoughts.
Odd Job
Your an alarmist pushing propaganda
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:44 ET by PopularTechAll of your claims are the same alarmist talking points, long ago debunked by skeptics.
I would describe you as confused.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Don't get me wrong...
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 15:55 ET byPopularTech,
If it weren't for Skeptics, we'd still be in the Dark Ages! Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Copernicus...
It's good to have Skeptics...it's the deniers that need to be shown the door...or the edge of the Earth where they'll fall off. Debunking is part of Science. Hypothesis, Experimentation, New Hypothesis is what Science is all about in simple terms. Though at one point, you must change your hypothesis when the data proves something different. The Earth was flat and the Earth was the center of the Universe...well...at some point...those ideas were left behind in the dustbin of history. The hype, as I have said in the past, is overblown on both sides...the Real Scientists with real scientific backgrounds and the nutjob deniers...oops, sorry...I meant the "Skeptics of Climate Science". If you need to know who those "Skeptics of Climate Science", Imhofe made a list of about 400 of them.
Odd Job
Then please prove AGW
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 20:19 ET by PopularTechUsing the scientific method.
And there are more than 400 Skeptics...
31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Petition Project)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the 'Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship' (Cornwall Allliance)
1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Petition Project...
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 11:59 ET byPopularTech,
Time to delist again...here's a link, another link, and another.
Golly, you make it easy and fun all at the same time.
What about the "Climate Wars!"?
"The first is that a lot of the scientists who study climate change
are in a state of suppressed panic these days. Things seem to be moving
much faster than their models predicted.
The second thing is that the military strategists are right. Global warming is
going to cause wars, because some countries will suffer a lot more than
others. That will make dealing with the global problem of climate
change a lot harder.
The third is that
we are probably not going to meet the deadlines. The world's countries
will probably not cut their greenhouse gas emissions enough, in time,
to keep the warming from going past 2 degrees celsius. That is very
serious.
And the fourth thing is that
it may be possible to cheat on the deadlines. I think we will need a
way to cheat, at least for a while, in order to avoid a global disaster." Gwynne Dyer
Damn, the sky is really falling!
Time to stop listening to the Asshatters who deny Global Warming!
Odd Job
OJ , WELL THEN Why are you still here, with comments like this?
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 16:19 ET by upcountrywaterTime to stop listening to the Asshatters who deny Global Warming!
here is a photo of another denier, your buddy?
FREEDOM
(D)
Yep, getting colder!
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 16:25 ET by CobraMan"The first is that a lot of the scientists who study climate change are in a state of suppressed panic these days."
Yep, the climate is getting a LOT colder than the models predicted,correct? It's no wonder they're in a panic, Mother Nature is proving that they're vaunted models are WRONG!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
The Petition Project is completely legitimate
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 20:05 ET by PopularTechYour weak ass research is pathetic...
Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
Art Robinson: A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator)
Qualifications of Signers (OISM)
You really cannot get your sources straight. Sourcewatch is as worthless as Wikipedia:
Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
"SourceWatch seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working "on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]
...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources."
The global warming causes wars myth has been debunked:
No Connection Between Environmental Crises And Armed Conflict, New Study Argues (Science Daily)
No the sky is not falling.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Classic pissin' match...
Sun, 01/18/2009 - 12:01 ET byPopularTech,
Debater#1..."My sources are better than your sources."
Debater#2..."No, they're not."
D#1..."Yes, they are!"
D#2..."No, they're not!" [sticks out tongue]
D#1...[sticks out tongue] "You're a poopie head"
D#2..."No, I'm not, you're a poopie head!"[again sticks out tongue]
D#1...[walks away...sticking out tongue]
D#2...[says to himself..."I won that battle!"]
Odd Job
Debunking your nonsense
Mon, 01/19/2009 - 07:34 ET by PopularTechI debunked your propaganda smears against Professor Art Robinson and the Petition Project which is 100% legitimate. I have proven that Sourcewatch is no more relevant than Wikipedia. These are documented facts, unlike the jouvenile behavior you have demonstrated.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
OJ, follow your own arguments
Sat, 01/17/2009 - 16:44 ET by CobraMan"Though at one point, you must change your hypothesis when the data proves something different."
OJ, the DATA shows that we're in a period of Global Cooling, and that this cooling is due to the La Niña that we are experiencing, correct? That period may be short term or long term, but that doesn't change the fact that, despite the predictions of the "climate scientists" who INSISTS that we are experiencing Global Warming, we are, IN FACT, experiencing Global Cooling.
Now, by your own argument, doesn't this mean that the hypothesis of Global Warming is WRONG and that you, and all the other Global Warming proponents, MUST change your hypothesis as to how the climate changes and what is causing that change?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Good evening Oddjob
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:11 ET by cocodrieYes I am ignorant about a lot of things, that's why I and most posters on this site appreciate disscussions with folks above our "pay-grade".
Come back when you no longer know everything and maybe you can learn a few things. You forgot "juvenile" in the definition of your way of thinking.
Humor is one of the most valuable things in life. Learn to use some in yours.
Jesus Loves You>
OddJob, I find it
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 15:34 ET by hydrodynDMOddJob,
I find it interesting that you lecture someone on their understanding of the use of computer models and then use an example which, to me at least, makes it clear that you don't understand how these models are used.
You ask:
The difference between models which simulate flight and those that simulate the Earth's long term atmospheric evolution is that the former have been tested against empirical data and pilot experience.
It will take decades or centuries to test the accuracy of global atmospheric models.
See the difference?
If I create a computer model of some physical system that can be readily tested or checked, I can assess the accuracy of my model. If I can't, then the predictions of my model are just educated guesses until the time comes when I (or someone else) can check its predictions.
You also say:
Well, how do you know they are "following nature" until you can gather the empirical evidence to verify that?
And to suggest that "nature is following the computer model" (assuming it wasn't a tongue-in-cheek comment) makes me question your understanding of how science and reality work.
Tongue in cheek, yep.
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 18:02 ET byDo you seriously think this is the proper forum to discuss serious scientific findings with a bunch of anonymous people with different educational backgrounds?!? Let's face facts...It's interesting to see the switching back and forth from the humorous to the sublime to the dead serious all in one thread. You've got the idiots, like myself, who enjoy a little tit for tat and then the crazies who think this site is the last vessel for conservative thought on the planet. Christ, who really cares in the long run...it's not as if anyone will remember what's said in a few days anyways. So, if you don't mind, I'll observe and comment as we go along...unless you want to get into an ad hominem attack or some other fallacious argument.
Is life imitating art or art imitating life? Relevant? Yes.
Theoretical physics...mathematics...sciences...somehow become reality. Are you to say the computer modeling of the next generation of thermonuclear devices is worthless? They can't test them and for all intents and purposes exist only in the computer based upon old designs and theoretical equations. Yeah, empirical data with a little spice added to the mix...
Explain ion propulsion becoming reality when it was a figment of one's imagination from science fiction...
As for the climate, lots of hype on both sides...the sad fact is we can survive on only one planet...and I would like to leave this planet to the next generation better than how I received it. That's wrong? Oh well...stupid me!
Odd Job
OddJob, So just to get
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 18:57 ET by hydrodynDMOddJob,
So just to get things straight - you post two lengthy comments on the use of computer models in science and when someone points out an obvious error in your reasoning, suddenly this isn't the place for that kind of discussion.
Got it.
And yes, a few days from now I will remember that you were the person who couldn't simply admit that they were wrong.
If there's an error in my reasoning, you sure haven't pointed it out. How about you get back to me on that one.
Again, I can't tell if you're just being flippant. Reality is reality. Science and math attempt to describe it.
Point out to me where in my post I said or even suggested that untested computer models are "worthless". An untested design is just that - an untested design.
How is this even relevant to this discussion? As an "analytical thinker", maybe you could clarify that for me.
Again, point out to me where I suggested that this was wrong.
With regard to "fallacious" arguments, you might want to look up "straw man".
What's your beef?
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:05 ET byHydro,
KISS..."keep it simple, stupid!" is a great starting point for me. The issue was how computer modeling for climate change is full of errors and should not be used in predicting future trends. I had to scratch my head, pick my nose and gaze at my navel to come up with some of my answers. I guess I should start throwing monkey poop and glaring at the plastic wrapped computer screen waiting for a magical response from a host of bloggers like you and PopularTech. Yeah, I'm stoopid when it comes to science and all those important things you adults know...tell me, Mr. Science, how I should think...wait let me put the USB port into my ass first...go ahead...
Odd Job
as you said odd job
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:15 ET by botgYou've got the idiots, like myself, --- Oddjob
we can agree on that you truly are
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Should we give you a bit more time?
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:43 ET by general companyMr. Science, how I should think...wait let me put the USB port into my ass first...go ahead...
You sure it will fit? Or should we give you a little time to pull your head out.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
OddJob's "Science" speaks nonsense
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:52 ET by PopularTechWe were waiting for your talking points (I mean science) to run out. Looks like it has.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
OddJob, Wow. It took all
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:35 ET by hydrodynDMOddJob,
Wow. It took all of two posts for you to degenerate into juvenile, sarcastic self-deprecation.
Thanks for letting me know what the issue was about. How about addressing my criticism of your argument?
Nope?
OK. I'm sure posting a childish rant instead will show us all just how much of an "analytical thinker" you are.
Regarding the proposal in your last "sentence" - I'd only try that if your ass was 3.0 compatible.
Brilliant logic you have going there, KnobJob.
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:49 ET by R D HelmKeep it up, cause when you graduate from high school in six years, just maybe mom and dad will buy you that spiffy Camaro, oops, I mean Prius, that you have pictures of plastered all over your room.
:-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
I guess I should start
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:45 ET by Free StinkerI guess I should start throwing monkey poop
Perhaps you should first ask for your parents permission before using their computer.
I must have suffered Brain Rot...
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:11 ET by...or a Brain Fart...the amount of flies I drew to the discussion was incredible.
Thanks to all those who participated...
[swat]...[swat]...[splat!]
Wow...it must be the stench that attracts!
Odd Job
Good evening Oddjob
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:17 ET by cocodrieIt will nice after you complete grammer school and are capable of intelligent discussion. pay attention and try to learn something. Come back after you are granulated.
Jesus Loves You
Granulated...?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 18:43 ET bycocodrie,
Alrighty then...
Odd Job
OddJob, Despite your
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 18:35 ET by hydrodynDMOddJob,
Despite your sarcastic little responses, the fact is that you haven't offered a substantive response to my criticisms.
So please - keep being all cutesy and clever. I'm sure no one will notice that all you seem to have to offer are links to other people's ideas and scatological references.
To quote Blonde - We need a better class of troll.
Again...What's your beef?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:10 ET byhydro,
[hands folded under my chin]
Are we back to computer modeling and my simple examples...really?
Science is never exact, is it? It was fascinating to watch how posters took off like a shot on the reference to flight simulators. You even took a shot. Let me see...computer-based modeling of systems are used in a variety of ways. They help offer an insight into trends of the past, present, and future and much more depending on the application. Garbage in, garbage out...sure...and the same can be said for the flip side of the argument. I don't mind your criticisms of my assertions or statements. I will try to answer them if I'm capable. Will you support my statements if they are deemed correct? Only a true scientist would say yes...
Odd Job
OddJob, I'll address
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:45 ET by hydrodynDMOddJob,
I'll address each of your comments.
I never left this topic. You did.
Um. OK. Not sure what you mean by this or how this is relevant to the discussion. Since science depends an empirical observation to support (or refute) its models and since all empirical observations have some degree of uncertainty or error, then I guess so. Are you commenting on something deeper?
I really don't care what other posters had to say about your example. I pointed out an obvious error with it and you never responded to that criticism.
I agree with this, since it's an obvious statement of fact.
Not sure what the "flip side of the argument" is. Maybe you can elaborate?
And yet you haven't. How about this: "Yes, you are correct. There is a difference between models that can be readily tested (like flight sim models) and those that can't (like global atmospheric models). So my example was a bad one." Go ahead. Try it out.
Yes. See above.
To borrow a move from your sarcastic playbook - Gee whiz. Thanks for telling me what a "true" scientist would do. I'll be sure to write that down somewhere.
Deemed correct by who?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:55 ET by PopularTechYou? LMAO! Only a true scientist would be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Theoretical vs Public Policy
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:49 ET by PopularTechBasing public policy on unproven (I know to be 100% wrong) climate models is laughably ignorant. There is a reason those models are called "theoretical".
Why not prepare for the coming alien invasion? Your blind faith in something that has not been proven to be science shows your acceptance to religious indoctrination.
Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Environmentalism as a Religion (Video) (4min) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Environmentalism Is the New Religion (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Computer Illiterates push the AGW Scam
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:02 ET by PopularTechSkeptics have not been debunked, outside of computer illiterates such as yoursefl declaring it so. There has been plenty of papers published that dispute the alarmist propaganda. Such as:
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides
...and many more.
Understanding what Peer Review really is - which is nothing more then getting your buddies to sign off on your work is hardly objective.
Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. - Nature Magazine: "Peer to Peer")
The constant propaganda that oil and gas companies want to kill off their hundreds of thousands of workers and families for profit is laughable beyond all logic. The reason they are attacked is they are the industry that will be most effected by your socialist eco-laws and they have a right to see that propaganda is not used in the name of science to destroy their business. Propagandists like yourself must marginalize them to further your agenda. Absolutely none of your claims regarding this are substantiated.
Your computer illiteracy speaks volumes in your inane post. Computers cannot explain what is not programmed into them. The fact that you think otherwise is typical of a computer illiterate. Flight simulators are based on known physics and have absolutely nothing to do with climate models. Are you really this ignorant?
Yes most climatologists are computer illiterate in the computer science and engineering areas. Being able to "use" a computer, even plugging in math equations and getting them to compile in Fortran does not make someone have any remote understanding of how computer systems work. This scam has gone on long enough.
Computer Science 101 - if a Computer Model includes merely one approximation for what latter dependent calculations or data are derived from then the output of the model is useless.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Computer Science 101
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 21:57 ET by CobraManComputer Science 101: Garbage In = Garbage Out. I learned that back in the early 80's when I taught myself Basic. (Man, I miss the 8088 processor!)
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, My first
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:01 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
My first computer was a Hyudai brand PC compatible with an 8088 processor.
Man, that brings back memories of staying up late playing computer games.
TI-94A
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:02 ET by PopularTechTI-94A, nothing like using your TV as a monitor.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Timex Sinclair 1000
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:14 ET by CobraManMy first computer was the Timex Sinclair 1000 (which I called the first disposable computer). And, yes, I had the cassette-tape data/program storage device. This is what I learned Basic on. It had the real advantage of one-key command "look ahead" feature, so I didn't have to type in the whole word, like Goto, just the first key. It seems that this feature was WAY ahead of it's time.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
The Good Old Days!
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:36 ET by CobraManAhh, the Good Old Days! Here's what Popular Science had to say about the 1000: ""The 1000 is for people who want to learn computers but don't want to spend a lot of money," says Ross. "For $150 you get a 16K system - that's a lot of computer for a first- time user.""
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Ummm...
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:35 ET byPopularTech,
Once one of your reports is debunked(additional references, here, and here)...will you continue to list it?
Odd Job
OJ
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:03 ET by upcountrywaterDEbunk this
FREEDOM
(D)
The Sun?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:13 ET byUpcountrywater,
Your point...?
Odd Job
OJ, That's a photo of TODAYS sun, NO SPOTS
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:28 ET by upcountrywaterHere is a bit of DATA on the climate past & future predictions
FREEDOM
(D)
The Sun
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:25 ET by botgToday, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa-solar-cycle-may-cause-dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
The Sun Controls the Earth's Climate
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 22:12 ET by PopularTechUnstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (PDF) (The Danish National Space Center)
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Dartmouth College)
Breathing Cycles in Earth's Upper Atmosphere Linked to Solar Wind Disturbances (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (University of Florida)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (University of New York)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (University of Maine)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (Swedish Institute of Space Physics)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (NASA)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Long Island University)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (CERN)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (University Of Illinois)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (University of Colorado)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Duke University)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations (University of New England, Australia)
Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (University of Alberta, Canada)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (University of Washington)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (NASA)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
well that's obvious
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 22:18 ET by botgjust giving you a new link
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I know
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 22:51 ET by PopularTechI was just giving you more ammunition.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You've got to be kidding me!!!
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:31 ET by RESTLESS 1From your post:
"Research published by this group indicates that there is no
fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical
temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large)
uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in
estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent
claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to
a statistically significant extent”. This claim was based on the
application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older
observational datasets."
One of the main arguments of skeptics is that the observational data is skewed or faulty. The application of past temps. into the models is in question as well. This is why the model can't be trusted, especially with billions - trillions on the line.
C'mon, Hansen has use skewed, or just plain fraudulent data to support his hypothesis, and that is all that it is, ad nauseum. From juxtaposing cooler months for warmer ones, to just plain "adjusting" the data, his whole argument falls to the wayside. He has absolutely no credibility with me and should not be trusted.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Alarmist authors refuse to release their data - LMAO!
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:18 ET by PopularTechI hardly consider my listed paper debunked based on another paper where the authors refuse to release their data for independent analysis. LMAO!
Santer et al 2008 (Climate Audit, October 16th, 2008)
Replicating Santer Tables 1 and 3 (Climate Audit, October 22th, 2008)
Does the Endpoint of Santer H2 "Matter"? (Climate Audit, October 23th, 2008)
This Gets Even More Amusing (Climate Audit, October 25th, 2008)
Santer Refuses Data Request (Climate Audit, November 10th, 2008)
Santer and the 4 NOAA Coauthors (Climate Audit, November 10th, 2008)
Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology (Climate Audit, December 28th, 2008)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
oddslob... You Ecos are
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:23 ET by Clear thinkeroddslob...
You Ecos are losing the war and I have proof... Ecofascists Losing War
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:40 ET byWill this be delisted by you?
There's a problem with it.
Odd Job
OJ , Next winter will be COLDER, as the history shows..screw co2
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:12 ET by upcountrywaterIce age
FREEDOM
(D)
Huhhh?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:15 ET byupcountrywater,
you're making some kind of point...
Odd Job
OJ, A million mile diameter fire ball, controls earths weather.
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:36 ET by upcountrywaterWhen solar cycles start to delay, we get COLDER Weather (climate)
See data 2
FREEDOM
(D)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:39 ET by PopularTechThe author of your link is clueless, the paper was published in a peer-review journal:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Here is the most recent publication:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate...
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:50 ET byPopularTech,
This topic will need to be delisted for it's debunking, correct?
Odd Job
Rebuttal Refuted
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 21:31 ET by PopularTechWhy would I delist a paper published in a Peer Review Journal based on a rebuttal that has been refuted?
- Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of "On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?" by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June, 2008)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Computer models aren't up to long range predictions
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:12 ET by nkviking75"For example, why fund and train US Air Force pilots in flight simulators since it's obvious there are flaws in the computer modeling of the flight simulators?"
It's one thing to develop simulators to approximate the situations pilots face. It's another to develop computer models that can predict the weather for years, decades, even a century into the future. There are far too many variables for that.
I live in tornado alley. NOAA can tell me when conditions are favorable for the development of tornados in a broad area, but they can't tell me if they will hit, when they will hit, or where they will hit until they are seen by a human eye or indicated by wind patterns detected by Doppler radar.
When a hurricane is out in the Atlantic, go to wunderground.com's hurricane page and look at the map of the hurricane tracks predicted by the various weather models. They can vary widely.
Computer models have not progressed far enough to put faith in long term predictions.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
Do you have Life Insurance?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 16:30 ET byLife expectancy and Actuarial science are interesting subjects, don't cha think?
Golly, to use those computers to crunch them numbers and spit out a form for you to calculate how much you're going to spend on your life insurance...golly...computers are smart!
Odd Job
Actuarial tables.
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:27 ET by CobraManI hate to burst your bubble there, buddy, but actuarial tables are FAR older than computers. Life expectancy tables were calculated by hand, with pencil and paper. How do you think life insurance policies was formulated 100 years ago? By reading tea leaves?
Proof
Doesn't it suck when reality keeps getting in the way of your defense of computer simulations?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
You mean they still use paper & pencil where you are?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:34 ET byCobraman,
It's a science! I'm willing to bet you dollars to donuts that they're using them fancy computin' machines!!!
Odd Job
It's a sciene, yes
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:40 ET by CobraManIt's a science, yes, and it PREDATES computers! Just like any other science, it uses computers as a tool, but it is NOT reliant upon computers to create or defend that science. It doesn't really need computers to perform the work that has been performed for over 100 years. It's just a lot quicker and easier to use computers, or even a simple calculator than to do the calculations manually. The calculations themselves were created over 100 years ago, LONG BEFORE computers even existed. There were NO computer simulation when this science was developed. Do you understand?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
BTW
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:50 ET by CobraManBTW
Mathematics predates computers too. So what the hell does that have to do with defending the faulty climate simulations? You may as well defend a flat tire by claiming that the wheel existed 3,000 years ago.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Actuary Programs can predict my death?
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 22:06 ET by PopularTechCan you tell me exactly when this will be?
OddJob you seem confused about computers, computer science, computer engineering and computer modeling.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
If you're really interested
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 19:35 ET by CobraManBTW OddJob,
If you're really interested, this site has some very good references for you. I suggest you pay close attention to the references about the 1800's.
Here;s a sample of what the site offers:
"The History of Actuarial Science is the first collection of its kind. This edition covers the key period in the history of actuarial science from the mid-seventeenth century to the early nineteenth century. It gives an essential insight into how actuarial principles have developed throughout history. In 110 texts, the most important progressions in actuarial thought are preserved, with scholarly annotation placing the pieces in historical context."
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Real flights
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:22 ET by CobraMan"For example, why fund and train US Air Force pilots in flight simulators since it's obvious there are flaws in the computer modeling of the flight simulators?"
You may not be aware of this, but ALL pilots, whether military or civilian, require ACTUAL flights to become certified. There is not a single pilot in the world that would be allowed to fly based solely on the results of thier simulator experience.
If we don't allow our pilots, even "private" civilian pilots, to fly based solely on their simulator experience, why are we contemplating regulating the entire energy and manufacturing industries based solely on the results computer simulations? That makes as much sense as allowing your teen-age son to fly a jet simply because he plays with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Alarmists always quote the IPCC propaganda report
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 21:46 ET by PopularTechIt is interesting that all alarmists can do is quote the politically biased and innaccurate IPCC report.
Digging up the roots of the IPCC (Spiked, UK)
Papers:
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Fraser Institute)
Inadequacies and criticisms of the IPCC (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of scrutiny in the UN's Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
What is Wrong with the IPCC? (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Why the IPCC should be disbanded (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
IPCC
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 22:07 ET by dboPielke Sr. added this one yesterday,
There are no independent climate assessments of the IPCC report...that have been funded and sanctioned by the NSF, NASA or the NRC.
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/13/protecting-the-ipcc-turf/
Ther's no "problem" to solve.
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 20:50 ET by CobraMan"So, if we can't afford to solve a problem...say so."
You're making the same mistake Al Gore is. You're assuming that we, somehow, are impacting the global climate when, in fact, we doing nothing of the kind..
You have to understand that there's no "problem" to solve. The only thing necessary is to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is NOT static. It is dynamic and it changes over the short term AND the long term. We have absolutely no way to influence the global climate, short of covering the entire globe with heat absorbent materials like asphalt, something that would be impossible.
No matter how hard we try (and we've been trying to thousands of years), not matter what crazy scheme we employ (and there's been thousands of crazy, and not so crazy, schemes), we can't even control, or even slightly mitigate, LOCAL weather patterns. If we are unable to control LOCAL weather patterns, how can we control GLOBAL weather patterns? That control of global weather patterns would be necessary to affect global climate, correct?
It's time to face reality here: Mankind is NOT omnipotent and we have very little impact on a system as large, and dynamic, as the atmosphere. Look at it in perceptive: It took BILLIONS of years for photo-synthetic lifeforms to absorb atmospheric CO2, metabolize it , and, as a by-product, increase the O2 content of the atmosphere, even though those lifeforms VASTLY out numbered, and out-massed, mankind AND our technology. If it took BILLIONS of years for them to affect the global atmosphere, what makes you think WE'RE going to have any impact in just a few thousand years?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Err on the side of caution?
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:45 ET by garyganuIt is common for AGW proponents to recommend cutting worldwide CO2 emissions "just in-case" AGW is true. After all, they say that the consequences of Anthropogenic Global Warming could be so disastrous, it would be prudent to play it safe and cut greenhouse gasses now, while we still have the chance.
However, if we do not even know if the climate is warming or cooling, how can we know what action is necessary to safeguard healthy living conditions for all of humanity?
It is a fact that colder temperatures would be far more harmful to humanity than warmer temperatures. Colder temperatures would result in less land that is suitable for farming, less land suitable for habitation, more deaths due to freezing temperatures and increased disease due to more frequent winter conditions.
Let's suppose that CO2 emissions are actually causing the Earth's climate to warm. This would have a positive effect on life on earth, if we were entering an "ice age".
Also, humanity's reliance on fossil fuels has enabled the world population to grow to over 6 billion. This population explosion was made possible because of the advances that a reliance on fossil fuels has brought about. These advances include: mechanized farming techniques, refrigeration, air, ground and sea transportation of food and other vital goods, home heating and air conditioning, the availability of speedy emergency services, the availability of modern medicine, the availability of fresh drinking water, the availability of water for irrigation, the availability of indoor plumbing, etc.
If we dramatically reduced or eliminated the use of fossil fuels before finding a suitable, safe and environmentally safer substitute, we would reduce the worlds limit to sustain human life, and billions would die unnecessarily.
This is why we should not rush into any global solutions "half-cocked". There may be unforeseen negative consequences.
The Most Terrifying (global warming) Video That You Will Ever See
They ignore the history of Mankind
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 22:05 ET by CobraManThe "Global Warming" believers always seem to ignore the history of mankind and they completely dismiss the fact that ALL of the advances in human society occurred DURING periods of "Global Warming," when the natural climate was warmer, and, therefor, better suited to agriculture. It is during periods of Global Cooling that mankind suffers, and suffers greatly, to the detriment of human civilization itself.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I was reading an
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:44 ET by celatorI was reading an anthroplogy paper awhile back (what a lonely life I have :=]), and the writer suggested that warming climates in the past seemed to foster the growth and success of pre-historic river valley human settlements (where humans first thrived) in China, the Middle East (Euphrates area), South America, Africa and Europe.
These climate warming periods seemed to see amazing growth of population and culture, inventions, trading and science, partly due to longer agricultural growing periods, less need for trees to burn to keep warm, etc.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Let's do our part...
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:42 ET by Full MonteI for one am going to whatever I can to stop Global Cooling. If CO2 is keeping us warm, I'm going to go out buy the biggest gas guzzling SUV I can.
The whiz kids at NBC must have seen this coming when they organized that outdoor air conditioning at the 08 Olympics for their broadcast team. If it ever warms up again I think I'll employ the same strategy.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone's not thinking - Gen George S. Patton Jr.
Global cooling? Not a
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:52 ET by ckc1227Global cooling? Not a problem, just tell people it's necessary to increase taxes so that we'll magically aquire the ability to regulate the sun's solar output, then we can just turn the heat up.
Or they could just let Obama handle it. He's the messiah you know. Shouldn't take him more than a few minutes.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
Gee what will the
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:54 ET by midnight cowboyGee what will the libtardenvirofacistcommies think of next.
THE COMING MODERATE TEMPERATURE AGE
Moderating temperatures will bring doom to the human existance as we know it. With summers not too hot and winters not too cold people will be tempted to engage in more recreational activities thus putting a strain on the world's health care system.More people will suffer heart attacks and broken bones due to increased physical exertion. The nation's shorelines will suffer greatly since the summer beach season will be extended and current infrastructure won't be able to handle the extra demand, where municipalities have to spend more on police, and maintennance. Utilities are to be hardest hit. Oil and natural gas companies will be squeezed out of existence for the lack of extreme cold. In the summer, our nation's power grid will see a greatly reduced demand for electricity since air conditioners will not be needed as much. This can cause a domino effect with our energy producers whereby they will need to turn to government to subsidize their losses.
LMAO!!
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:16 ET by Full MonteLMAO!!
The game ender...
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:12 ET by unkeeafThe left is so married to climate change that they are completely unwilling to consider alternate explanations. I believe the vast majority of these lefty dolts know that climate change is complete BS, but they stick with it for the purposes political expediency.
It all ties back to the research that came out three months ago that showed liberals were 3 times more likely to lie than conservatives. This issue certainly requires them to do so.
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
"they are completely
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 17:49 ET by celator"they are completely unwilling to consider alternate explanations. "
If seven choirs of angels, led by Gabriel, appeared to the libs to tell them that they had been hoaxed by the "we are all going to die because of man made global warming" hucksters, the libs would say the angels are conservative whack jobs.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
They are going
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 10:57 ET by Hanoverfistto strip the gears out of the MSM if they shift into reverse while going full tilt forward like that.
If they shift
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 11:13 ET by Hanoverfistthe MSM into reverse on "Climate Change" going forward that fast,they'll rip the gears out of it.
20th Century Theory Gone Bye-Bye
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 11:15 ET by dboWould the last person believing in the man made global warming theory please turn off the (CFL) lights.
Everyone's missing it:
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:02 ET by mattmEveryone's missing it: This whole thing, the cold wave, the resurgence of arctic ice, the statistics showing a possible coming ice age, are all simply manifestations of Mother Earth correcting herself as a response to the election of The One.
And Back on Planet Earth....
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:39 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistIn other news, the American Meteorological Society---which unlike the Heartland Institute, has credibility in the scientific community---just awarded NASA's James Hansen its highest honor, the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal "for outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."
Great
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:56 ET by general companyLets hope it give off heat, so he wont freeze while enjoying it
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
AMS giving out propaganda medals?
Wed, 01/14/2009 - 21:17 ET by PopularTechI had no idea.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
And on planet Venus, A-G
Thu, 01/15/2009 - 23:56 ET by contraryAnd on planet Venus, A-G gets the "favorite son" award for Methane venting with his latest post.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Someone hand me some duct tape.
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 00:19 ET by RESTLESS 1Let's see. Hansen creates the models, then he defines the forcings, then he weights the forcings, then he loads faulty data, then he hides the true data, then he uses wrong data, then he adjusts the results, then he adjusts again to make sure the cooling trend we are in does not upset his results, then he fails to include water vapor in the data, and comes up with- Ta da! Global Warming!!! Then he hides the models so that real climatologists can't review his work, and the AMS gives him an award for makng "contibutions" to climate modeling and understanding of climate change???
No wonder my brain is so addled tonight. I'm going to bed, if I can stay warm enough to sleep.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008