The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but now that some of that ice is actually increasing, scientists claim, without a trace of irony, it is normal for temperatures and ice sheets to fluctuate.
Greenland's Sermitsiak reported, “The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.” Denmark's Meteorological Institute used satellite images to track the southward expansion of the ice and when the paper asked how these findings “fit in with” continual reports of Arctic ice “melting at a record rate due to increasing temperatures,” global warming was, of course, affirmed (map) (bold mine throughout):
If it's up to meteorologists from Denmark's Meteorological Institute, there is not anything inherently contradictory that extreme cold is replaced by higher temperatures than average. Or that melting sea ice occasionally is replaced by expanding ice sheets.
'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to [no first name given] Henriksen.
To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off. In the meanwhile, western Greenlanders will have to accept that the cold weather continues for some time. At least until next Tuesday when milder weather could be on the way, according to Polarfronten online.
Well, isn't that what some “skeptics” have been saying about the recent temperature spikes? That climate changes over time, and it has been warming since the Little Ice Age?
Interestingly, Sermitsiak published an article the same day, reporting scientists are “almost certain,” based on satellite data, Greenland is “sweating” and has “lost twice as much ice last year as it did three years ago.” Of course, there are no admonitions that this decrease in overall Greenland ice could just be part of weather's “phenomenon which changes from year to year” and “next year the situation can look completely different.”
There was no mention of the increasing Western Greenland ice in this second piece, even though it was updated the day after both articles were published. But to be fair, once published, articles are rarely edited in a way that alters the original slant, and in the paper's favor, most of the other media ignored the story altogether. At the end of the article about a melting Greenland, the qualification that the scientists are “almost certain” about the Arctic island's ice melt was buried at the bottom with the expected standard superfluous global warming alarmism:
If all the inland ice on Greenland was lost, the oceans would rise about seven metres. Antarctica contains about ten times as much ice.
Global warming skeptics wouldn't be so skeptical if these double standards weren't employed to support a popular theory. It's hard to believe in global warming when warm weather and shrinking ice is certain evidence of global warming, but cold weather and ice growth is either dismissed or chalked up to the all-encompassing “climate change.”
**Update 22:00--As far as I can tell, no one in the major media reported this.
Lynn contributes to NewsBusters and can be reached with tips or even complaints at tvisgoodforyou2—at-y a h o o-dot-c o m
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Really?
February 16, 2008 - 22:14 ET by DEVILDOCMOMThere is fluctuation? Why I'm shocked I tell you, shocked! You do not suppose this new "fluctuation" idea could go over years or even decades, do you? No, I guess not...too radical a thought, isn't it?
BTW, lots of snow on the mountains around Tucson...real pretty.
Yeah that is pretty radical
February 17, 2008 - 05:55 ET by DCC1Yeah that is pretty radical to the brainwashed losers!
"The rank and file are usually
much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be
essentially simple and repetitious." - Joseph Goebbels -- Nazi Minister of
Propaganda
hmmm, that sounds kinda like Al....nah he would never do that!
"The most brilliant propagandist
technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in
mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them
over and over." - Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda
Yeah what was I thinking, the debate is over, the debate is over, the debate is over....
Unbelieavable. All of
February 16, 2008 - 22:15 ET by bigtimerUnbelieavable.
All of this has become unbelievable.
Reality means zilch and they hope the rest of the sheeple will go along with this money making power grab of an agenda...
Repeat an obvious lie often enough...who ya' going to trust...me or your own lying eyes...on and on we go.
Greenland is Fine
February 16, 2008 - 22:19 ET by PopularTechGreenland - Deep Freeze in Western Greenland (2008) (Sermitsiaq, Greenland)
Greenland - ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
Greenland - Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (Science Daily)
Greenland - Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)
Greenland - Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather (The New York Times)
Greenland - Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes (Science Daily)
Greenland - Greenland Temperatures Coldest in 60 Years (The Heartland Institute)
Greenland - Is Greenland really melting? (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Greenland - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Greenland - Letter to the Editor: Greenland Ice Gain Since World War II (The Heartland Institute)
Greenland - Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation (American Geophysical Union)
Greenland - Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing (CO2 Science)
Greenland - The Cold Truth about Greenland (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Greenland - Dramatic Ice loss in the Greenland seas in 1817 (A History of the Royal Society Archive)
Greenland - Current Melting of Greenland's Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event (Science Daily)
Greenland - Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (Science Daily)
Greenland - Magma may be melting Greenland Ice (MSNBC)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nothing to see; move along...
February 16, 2008 - 22:21 ET by scamoramaNope, no matter what happens with climate, it's all "climate change" caused by "global warming", caused by capitalists.
The thermal content of the oceans, manifested through cycles such as the PDO and AMO, has nothing to do with it - except when it does.
And the Sun has absolutely nothing to do with it, even though William Herschel was able to forecast grain harvests by counting sunspots.
Move along, folks, move along....
Notice the wording is
February 16, 2008 - 23:38 ET by GregENotice the wording is beginning to morph. What used to be called only "global warming" is now often called "global climate change." Both terms are used right now. Give it a little time and you'll not hear "global warming" anymore. "Global climate change" is easier to work the magic with. Cold, hot, wet, dry, etc, etc, etc......global climate change. Of course, regardless of terms, we evil humans are causing it. As far as THAT part goes..........."the debate is over."
GregE... Exactly. Simple
February 16, 2008 - 23:41 ET by bigtimerGregE...
Exactly.
Simple as that.
They have achieved their goals one way or the other.
Just like abortion is now a
February 17, 2008 - 07:48 ET by motherbeltJust like abortion is now a "reproductive health issue."
Cool, huh?
Why is it that people think
February 16, 2008 - 23:42 ET by Clear thinkerWhy is it that people think that Global Climate Change has only happened in the last 100 years or so. Didn't anyone get the memo? You know, the one that proves the earth is about 4.5 BILLION years old and has had a climate for most of those years.
Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/
"....the one that proves
February 16, 2008 - 23:46 ET by GregE"....the one that proves the earth is about 4.5 BILLION years old and has had a climate for most of those years"
hahahahahah, most. Awesome! LOL
another inconvenient truth
February 16, 2008 - 22:46 ET by needleBTW, according to the experts who started alarming us about global warming decades ago, a certain noticeable percentage of Florida should be under water by now.
I am having trouble finding out what that percentage was supposed to be, but it is apparent that that part of the “inconvenient truth” seems to be inconveniently behind schedule.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
hysteria
February 16, 2008 - 23:10 ET by soosanplease pass the kool-aid.
But of course, that's just
February 16, 2008 - 23:40 ET by GregEBut of course, that's just the unpredictability of what global warming can bring ya know. Don't believe me? Ask Al, I'm sure he's got an answer for everything regarding this topic.
I also remember hearing from
February 17, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Seabeach4348I also remember hearing from the "experts" in the late 1970s that "the world" would run out of petroleum by 1990 and that there would be worldwide famines, United States included, if we didn't "do something" NOW!
Forget the rise in water, I
February 18, 2008 - 14:58 ET by ZayneForget the rise in water, I would just pay attention to Rush's End of the World Count Down. That's the real scare... on day "-1" I'll be all alone in a world of liberal zombies. The battle will be fierce… I'll post a NB update on day "-2". Wish me luck!
The warmers do have
February 16, 2008 - 23:09 ET by danboThe warmers do have problems. they have this station. It was moved to this location in late 2000 from what was reportedly a park like environment. So GISS/NASA adjusts the reading.
So how do they adjust it? The blue is raw data. Red is adjusted. Here. They accept the reading since 2000 and lower the data from older recordings. Source.
Wonderful science these warmers have.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Impact of an Ice-Diminishing
February 16, 2008 - 23:13 ET by lotrImpact of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic on Naval and Maritime Operations
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/IceSymposium.php
"According to satellite records available since late 1978, an overall downward trend in the extent of Arctic sea ice is present. This trend seems to have been accelerating during the last decade."
The Arctic is Fine
February 16, 2008 - 23:20 ET by PopularTechArctic - Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
Arctic - Arctic Atmosphere Very Clean This Year (2007) (Science Daily)
Arctic - Arctic Ocean Circulation Does An About-Face (Science Daily)
Arctic - Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace (The Daily Green)
Arctic - Dirty Snow May Warm Arctic As Much As Greenhouse Gases (Science Daily)
Arctic - North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability (Science Daily)
Arctic - Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History (NewsBusters)
Arctic - Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (Science)
Arctic - Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT - you should consolidate
February 16, 2008 - 23:31 ET by Free StinkerPT - you should consolidate all of these fine links into a single forum post.
It would be a usefull reference for us all.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
PT It's probably due to the
February 16, 2008 - 23:34 ET by danboPT It's probably due to the shift in the PDO in the 70's and then the NAO. But warmers ignore everything but CO2.
Being the PDO shifted back to cold recently, it'll be interesting to watch the crawfishing. (My fingers are crossed that this isn't a false shift in the PDO.)
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
PopTech,
February 16, 2008 - 23:49 ET by lotrPopTech, considering each of these links one at a time:
The first link did not "animate" (at least not on Windows Media Player).
The second link has to do with the quantity of atmospheric aerosols (particulates) in the arctic -- apparently it was cleaner than normal during 2007 (again, "clean" means "low turbidity", not "low greenhouse gases").
The third link discusses recent findings in a Geophysical Research Letters paper, none of which contradict the observed decrease in Arctic sea ice extent.
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.
The fourth link has to do with a seasonal variation (a rapid refreeze this particular winter), not a decadal one.
The fifth link discusses an interesting hypothesis about a reduced albedo in the arctic causing a warming there -- the reduced albedo being the result of increased anthropogenic aerosols.
The sixth link has the following exerpt:
However, the researchers also noted that this study should not be viewed in isolation. Given reported heat content gains in other oceans basins, and rising air temperatures, the authors surmised that other parts of the world's ocean systems may have taken up the excess heat produced by global warming.
"But in the North Atlantic, any anthropogenic (human-caused) warming would presently be masked by such strong natural variability," they wrote.
The seventh link is a link to a NB blog.
The eighth link provides a one paragraph exerpt, and I don't have a subscription to read the full article. I suspect they may be discussing recent shrinkage, not decadal change.
The last link has the following:
Just because warming temperatures may not be the key reason for declines in ice extent that doesn't mean greenhouse gases and warming are not contributing factors, Rigor says.
"The Arctic Oscillation has been in a primarily moderate to high phase during the last decade or more, and the only way to reproduce this tendency in the oscillation using a numerical climate model is if you include the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the model."
The link I provided is one of many showing what scientists in agencies like NOAA are finding.
Dishonest Propaganda
February 17, 2008 - 00:39 ET by PopularTechThe first link requires Quicktime and works fine
The second link is clearly about climate change:
"Scientists from nine countries will examine the Arctic atmosphere, specifically small suspended particles, so-called aerosols, and clouds in order to improve our understanding of the radiation dynamics in the atmosphere, and their impact on climate. Aerosols represent minute airborne substances which, through absorption or reflection of solar radiation have a direct influence on the climate."
The third link clearly says I repeat:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison"
The fourth link clearly shows that the ice refreezes and is doing so at a record pace clearly a record that is longer than one season.
The fifth link clearly talks about factors other than CO2 as the cause of the Arctic melting and clearly says:
"The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions, but scientists at UC Irvine have determined that a lesser-known mechanism – dirty snow – can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases."
The sixth link clearly says the following:
"This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)"
The seventh link talks about historic accounts of arctic melting and they are fully sourced.
The eight link clearly says:
"A study presented at the meeting suggests that a natural, temporary shift in the wind may have been largely to blame for the recent shrinkage of the Arctic ice pack."
The last link clearly says the following:
"Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s -- and not warmer temperatures of recent years -- are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say."
It is nice of you to try and cherry pick the content of my links to mislead what they are really about and to further propagandize your position. Try no to be so dishonest next time.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I picked content intending
February 17, 2008 - 11:42 ET by lotrI picked content intending to illustrate that not one of these links refute the information found at (the NOAA National Ice Center):
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/IceSymposium.php
Some of the links are very clear to indicate that their findings in no way shape or form refute the greenhouse effect, nor the reduction in Arctic sea ice. One of the links poses another anthropogenic warming mechanism hypothesis -- namely decreased albedo of ice due to enhanced anthropogenic aerosols -- one that may exist in addition to CO2.
Again, I did intend to provide my own commentary, but rather direct folks to what the actual specialists (in this particular instance, the National Ice Center) are saying.
Cherry Picked
February 17, 2008 - 15:58 ET by PopularTechYou cherry picked out of context quotes in an attempt to discredit the studies.
Your link includes non confirmed claims which is any Arctic Sea Ice trend prior to 1978, before Satellites were used for observation. The reports include bogus "Forcings" which are non-measurable made up figures. Nothing from your source proves the Arctic Ice loss is caused by Man. While the sources I provided show evidence of natural causes.
Since the sources I linked to were not studying the alleged greenhouse effect, their disclaimer does not change the results of their studies or their conclusions of predominantly natural causes of the current Arctic sea ice decline.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Huh?
February 17, 2008 - 16:51 ET by lotrCherry picked? You provided the links, dude. No one here is denying that there are no natural forcings involved (re-read my postings). I am just pointing out what the satellite measurements show -- nothing more. I quoted from your links to provide illustration here that none of them refute that there has been an observed decrease in Arctic sea ice from satellites, and none of them refute AWG.
The link I provided is to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA). It's what they are saying. They know more than I do on this topic. It is a colloquial site, I'll admit, aiming more at a public audience, but that's what most of us are here. I am beginning to wonder if I am dealing with a conspiracy theorist like those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. "NOAA, NASA, the CIA, FBI, etc. are all a part of the vast Left-wing conspiracy, bent on taking away my SUV and getting Al Gore elected..."
For what it's worth, I used to be a skeptic of AGW (back in the 90s, when it was still not clear whether the observed trend was anthropogenic). But I've read too much, been to too many professional conferences, to outright deny it now. Does that mean that I believe "it's doomsday"? Nope; we don't even know with certainty whether the observed trends will continue, quite frankly. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any observed trends.
Now you are arguing with yourself - "dude"
February 19, 2008 - 08:31 ET by PopularTechI made no claims that they refute a negative trend in the arctic summer ice minimum extent. What I provided was evidence that this is not year round and is due to natural causes.
Arctic - Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
Again none of the studies were studying AGW so that is an irrelevant argument.
Oh please don't start with the goddamn bullshit about conspiracies. I don't believe in ANY of the moronic 911 Truthers, JFK ect... Ignorant comments like those are dishonest.
There is no conspiracy that radical environmentalists are anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. That is documented and proveable. They will even admit to it if you ask them.
There is no proof via the scientific method that man-made CO2 is causing climate change period. You seem to have a hard time verifying data and separating science from religion.
Observing a trend does not confirm the cause of the "trend". Just because something is happening is not proof of the cause. And you call yourself a scientist? I am not surprised as many so called scientists are absolutely ignorant on how computer work.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Radical
February 19, 2008 - 10:53 ET by lotr"Radical environmentalists"? Who's talking about them? I provided a link to NOAA -- are you saying they are all "radical environmentalists" there? Of course, you would also have to lump into the mix the scientists at NASA as well, and the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Union. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Sorry, I don't think I'm the one who's ignorant here -- I am only providing access to what the scientists themselves (in this case, the National Ice Center) are saying. The citations you gave said nothing, other than identifying natural forces at play in Greenland ice behavior, something nobody to my knowledge has taken issue with. The citations you provided are very careful to insinuate that their findings do not refute anthropogenic forcings, and one of them provides another anthropogenic forcing (increased aerosols) in addition to CO2. The reason I am very careful to continue repeating myself about observations is the fact that you discredit the physical models, and I am making it plain that the observations agree with our models.
I don't call myself a scientist -- I am a scientist, paid to study this stuff for a living. I don't like to make a big deal of this, though -- someone else asked, so I responded truthfully. On matters of science, I am totally open minded -- if a smoking gun manifested itself to prove that the observed warming trends were due soley to natural causes, well then I'm onboard -- I have no vested interest either way, only in the truth.
One final thing: You do need to chill out (no pun intended) -- I will not continue a discussion when one party continues to employ ad hominem attacks on the other.
Stupid Arguments From a Computer Illiterate
February 19, 2008 - 14:23 ET by PopularTechAre you mentall challenged? I made no claim to NOAA being radical environmentalists. Please stop making things up.
Do you have proof of the positions of all members of the AMS and AGU? If not then the positions of those who wrote their position statements stands at 10-20 Scientists.
The citations I gave give natural reasons for the reduced summer ice minimum since 1978 and show that it is not a year round trend. Those sources DID NOT STUDY AGW - what part of this do you not understand? Thus if they state they cannot refute AGW, they are merely being honest because it had nothing to do with their work.
Please stop lying the models do not agree with observations. You computer illiterates don't get it. Even if they did it is irrelevant if a model agrees with observations since it is impossible to prove if the processes and data used to get to the result represent the real world. That is the way computers work, computers cannot fill in the blanks like Nature does when you do an experiment in the real world. In Nature all the climate physics are already "programmed in" and this must be programmed into the computer model 100% accurately to get meaningful results. There is no way to confirm this which is why weather predictions are so bad. Climate Modeling is a joke that sucker natural scientists who don't understand computers buy into. Only reproduceable experiments in the real world can confirm science, it is impossible to do this on a computer. Computers can assist with experiments by analyzing the data obtained from them but they CANNOT do the real world experiments. That is what idiot climate modelers are trying to do. You can program a computer to do whatever you want and get whatever results you want like Mann did with his propaganda hockey stick temperature graph.
You call yourself a scientist but are ignorant of computers and how they work and what they are capable of.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
As this "debate" is getting
February 19, 2008 - 14:47 ET by lotrAs this "debate" is getting nowhere, I am done with this conversation.
-
February 17, 2008 - 03:52 ET by dahliatraversHello. You are a fan of AGW?
I am a big fan of science, as are most AGW sceptics. That's actually the basis of our scepticism. I assume you also are a fan of science? Please explain how AGW can be anything other than an interesting but unproven hypothesis when the computer models which are supposedly the sacred proof of it exclude both clouds and the effects of the sun?
dahliatravers,
February 17, 2008 - 11:30 ET by lotrI am a research atmospheric scientist, if truth be told. Not a climate specialist, but I've had the basics, both undergraduate and graduate level, and I know a thing or two about satellite data. Being a "fan" has nothing to with it. The links provided by PopTech, while numerous, do not in any way shape or form refute what the link to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA) site was discussing, namely a satellite-observed decadal-scale decrease in Arctic ice extent. Note I made no comments of my own -- I am just providing access to what the actual scientists out there are saying. It has no bearing on what I "feel" about it -- the data speak for themselves.
What are you talking about? This Post is about GREENLAND
February 17, 2008 - 16:04 ET by PopularTechI made no such claim about refuting a since 1978 decrease in Arctic Sea Ice extent. What I provided was sources that show this is due to natural factors. I also provided clear evidence that this trend is ONLY noticeable in the summer, since it is being propagandized that this is a year round trend. Actually the media is cherry picking the absolute summer minimum to further exaggerate the situation.
You clearly for no reason posted a link to Arctic Sea Ice when this post is about GREENLAND. I can only guess at the reasons why.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
OK, that's a valid point
February 17, 2008 - 17:14 ET by lotrOK, that's a valid point (you are considering only Greenland, whereas I was considering the Arctic in general); but it wasn't for "no reason." Greenland is in the Arctic, which I first cued in on, but also, the blog starts off in the first sentence with:
"The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but..." (emphasis mine) And then: “The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.” Ice between Canada and Greenland would be over ocean, not land.
So I provided the NOAA link that discusses the observed decrease in Arctic sea ice. To which you provide nine links, to which I scanned all of them and found nothing to the contrary. That doesn't mean I was denying the validity of the articles in terms of what they were reporting on, or that there aren't natural factors at play.
Being 15 years ago we
February 18, 2008 - 14:02 ET by danboBeing 15 years ago we were just coming out of what was probably a cold cycle. Ice in the arctic is no big deal.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Jedi Mind Trick
February 17, 2008 - 00:35 ET by Founding_Father<Jedi Mind Trick, small wave of the hand>
You did not read this article.
Climate change is real.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
</Jedi Mind Trick>
Okay...on your way.
February 17, 2008 - 08:35 ET by sentforth5"Let them through, we did not read that article. Climate change is real.
These aren't the droids we're looking for."
---The Sheeple
You can quote me on
February 17, 2008 - 00:43 ET by clarkfkYou can quote me on this:
"The biggest proponents for man-made global warming are those who are the biggest offenders of its ideals." -Frank Clark, 2/16/2008
Wait, does this mean
February 17, 2008 - 01:02 ET by CJK51Wait, does this mean semi-mountainous areas on the East Coast WON'T be beachfront property in a few years? Great, now what am I supposed to do with the penguin perserve I've been building in my backyard?
I just wish the global warming yahoos would make up their minds on when we're doomed so I can plan accordingly.
-
February 17, 2008 - 03:57 ET by dahliatraversAccording to "them", sea level rise will be 3.5 - 35 inches. Sorry, pal.
How about importing some of those occasionally melting glaciers for your penguin preserve?
http://www.greenfact...
→ Penguins
February 17, 2008 - 03:59 ET by Cool ArrowActually the Antarctic is growing. Penguins do not inhabit the Arctic.
♣ a seal
OK. Again I ask
February 17, 2008 - 01:34 ET by JoggerNotJust what is the ideal temp. of the earth? And why ? Would a little warming really hurt? Or a little cooling? Me thinks this is a farce, a trick, a skullduggery, by the elected, and non elected scum that only want my (and your) money. My best fickled finger of fate salute to all you suckers that take this seriously..
"BTW, according to the
February 17, 2008 - 03:03 ET by ckc1227"BTW, according to the experts who started alarming us about global warming decades ago, a certain noticeable percentage of Florida should be under water by now."
According
to a lot of those same "experts", the planet is also supposed to be out of
room by now, with no food or water, in the grips of an ice age, and,
worst of all, no computer access of any kind due to y2k.
Fear not though, they've got THIS catastrophe right. It's nothing a good ol' tax increase can't fix.
The Tax Increase is Coming!
February 17, 2008 - 03:17 ET by PopularTechThe Candidates Want Change: Climate Change (Video)
Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills (The Heritage Foundation)
Cap and Trade - Cap and Charade (The Wall Street Journal)
Cap and Trade - Cap and Trade: A Bad Trade-off for the Economy and Company Earnings (Free Enterprise Education Institute)
Cap and Trade - Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income (US Newswire)
Cap and Trade - Cap-and-Trade Scheme Would Deepen Economic Downturn (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Cap and Trade - Stop 'Cap and Trade' (Human Events)
Cap and Trade - Greenspan Has 'Grave Doubts' about 'So-Called Cap-and-Trade System on CO2 Emissions' (Business and Media Institute)
Cap and Trade - Industry warns EU on CO2 proposals (Financial Times, UK)
Cap and Trade - Trading Hot Air? (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We should`nt get our hopes
February 17, 2008 - 10:05 ET by chessplayerWe should`nt get our hopes up by this. This won`t cause the warmist alarmists to skip a step. They`ve already said the record ice extent in Antarctica is a result of global warming, and have said the cold in China and India is a result of global warming. They will also blame global warming for any growing ice in Greenland and the Arctic. They`ve thought this scam though perfectly, and have all the bases covered.
soon glob warms will steal credit in these reports
February 17, 2008 - 10:06 ET by lunaticcringeradioonce the global warming loonies learn how to steal the "good news" stories like the media will report this as good news to reinforce the global warming crowds political stance.
soon they will use these instances as proof that their socialist agendas and actions are saving the planet over the evil capitalistic corporations.
no different than the way the media reports guns are responsible for killing people they will turn these results to favor them and you will see these stories reported in the msm and in a manner that credits the glob warms.
lunaticcringeradio
The data is speaking, but
February 17, 2008 - 11:09 ET by NonanonThe data is speaking, but are they hearing what it actually is saying?
It looks like there is only one view taken into consideration in this. They state nothing else could be the cause of this climate situation, that it IS mankind doing it. That is so unscientific and political. They are so wishy-washy on so many things but all of a sudden they come out with such certainty on something that may have several other causes, none of which may actually be mankind.
It is the same pattern concerning evolution, the evidence is what it is, and it is how you interpret that produces your conclusion. They want climate change to be caused by mankind just as they don't want to admit there is a Creator that produced us. If their conclusions are true, then that sets up the ability to control people and their actions, which is their ultimate goal.
Climate "change"
February 17, 2008 - 13:00 ET by CobraManHas anyone else noticed that the same political party that claims to promote "change" is the first party that does everything it can to keep change from occurring?
Democratic Change Theory:
The Climate is changing? We must stop it!
The Economy is changing? We must stop it!
Market Trends are changing? We must stop it!
Labor Trends are changing? We must stop it!
Demographics are changing? We must stop it!
National and World Politics are changing? We must stop it!
The list goes on and on and on. One would think that the "party of change" would actually enjoy a change when it occurs, but, of course, one would be wrong. The Democrats only want "change" if it brings them more power, and that continual quest for power NEVER changes!