On Tuesday, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration announced that "Greenhouse gases likely accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year."
Yet, NOAA ignored the fact that the primary GHG global warming alarmists point to as the cause for rising temperatures, carbon dioxide emissions, actually declined in 2006.
How did they miss that little detail?
Regardless, let's first look at the announcement from NOAA (emphasis added):
Greenhouse gases likely accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year, according to a new study by four scientists at NOAA's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. Last year's average temperature was the second highest since record-keeping began in 1895. The team found that it was very unlikely that the 2006 El Niño played any role, though other natural factors likely contributed to the unusual warmth. The findings will appear September 5 in the Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
[...]
The NOAA team also found that the probability of U.S. temperatures breaking a record in 2006 had increased 15-fold compared to pre-industrial times because of greenhouse gas increases in Earth's atmosphere.
Before we look at the CO2 emissions, isn't it interesting that a naturally occurring El Niño, which many climatologists view as key to warming cycles in the northern hemisphere, was discounted as the culprit?
Moreover, I guess NOAA hasn't gotten the changes from NASA about 2006 and 1998 now being cooler in the U.S. than 1934. Or am I splitting hairs?
Yet, most important is how NOAA ignored the May 2007 report from the Energy Information Association concerning CO2 emissions for 2006 (emphasis added throughout):
- U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions declined in absolute terms -from 5,955 million metric tons (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2in 2006, a 1.3 percent decrease
- Emissions from natural gas and petroleum fell 1.7 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, while coal emissions declined 0.9 percent
- Energy intensity (energy consumed per $ real GDP) fell by over 4.0 percent, as total energy demand declined 0.9 percent while the economy grew by 3.3 percent
- The total carbon intensity of the economy (CO2 per$ real GDP) fell by 4.5 percent, as the carbon intensity of the energy supply (CO2 per Btu of energy) fell in addition to the decline in the energy intensity
- The 2006 decline in carbon intensity is the largest since 1990 and the 4th largest since 1949
Pretty delicious, wouldn't you agree? But there's more:
Factors that helped the Energy-CO2 Emissions Decline
- Weather conditions were favorable for emission reductions in 2006 as both heating degree-days and cooling degree-days were lower than in 2005
- As 2006 enjoyed a mild winter, heating degree-days were down 7.4 percent
- In addition, the summer of 2006 was cooler than the summer of 2005 and cooling degree-days declined almost 1 percent
So explain to me if rising CO2 is responsible for rising temperatures, and CO2 emissions declined in 2006, how could 2006 be hotter than 2005, and how could it be caused by CO2?
I'd love the folks at NOAA to explain that, wouldn't you?
*****Update: The NOAA conclusions likely demonstrate the flaw of using climate models. For instance (emphasis added):
To assess the role of greenhouse gases in the 2006 warmth, the NOAA team analyzed 42 simulations of Earth's climate from 18 climate models provided for the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The models included greenhouse gas emissions and airborne particles in Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century and computed their influence on average temperatures through 2006. The results of the analysis showed that greenhouse gases produced warmth over the entire United States in the model projections, much like the warming pattern that was observed last year across the country.
For a final check, the scientists compared the observed 2006 pattern of abnormal surface temperatures to the projected effects of greenhouse-gas warming and El Niño temperature responses. The U.S. temperature pattern of widespread warming was completely inconsistent with the pattern expected from El Niño, but it closely matched the expected effects of greenhouse warming.
By using GHG data since the late 19th century, the model might have missed the fact that CO2 emissions declined in 2006. As the EIA report indicated, there's been a one percent average increase in CO2 emissions in this country since 1990. As such, the model that NOAA created might have thoroughly ignored the actual 1.3 percent decline in CO2 emissions for 2006 when it determined a correlation.
Therefore, it is conceivable that if the actual observed CO2 emissions for 2006 were entered into the equation rather than a model using over 100 years of data, the correlation might have been much weaker or even made moot. NOAA at that point might have been forced to conclude that El Niño had a much larger role in the 2006 temperatures in America than this report currently suggests.
Any comments?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Noel...
August 30, 2007 - 13:00 ET by LionKingNoel, you as, "How did they miss that little detail?"
It kinda falls into the same category as GW causes more hurricanes except when there are actually fewer hurricanes than expected.
It should make perfect sense now...well, maybe not...you have to be an AGW cultist for that to make sense.
Thats a start LionKing
August 30, 2007 - 13:12 ET by VT Con ManDon't forget- Less hurricanes, global warming, more hurricanes, global warming. Higher temps, global warming, lower temps, global warming. More rain, global warming, less rain, global warming. Tornados, global warming, no tornados, global warming. Active volcanos, global warming, inactive volcanos, global warming. Earth quakes, global warming, no earth quakes, global warming. Hunger, well you get the drift... ; )
We must espouse the teachings of the almighty GW ala soon to be Dr Algore
CO2 is Eternal
August 30, 2007 - 13:40 ET by scamoramaAccording to AGW orthodoxy, once CO2 gets into the atmosphere, it stays there for billions and billions of years. So, 2006 got the effect of previous discharges, and it doesn't matter if emissions were lower.
Even if we somehow cut emissions to zero, it would take hundreds of years to get the levels back to "pre-industrial".
So sayeth the Goreacle.
The Sun does not Produce Gas it Explodes it
August 30, 2007 - 13:04 ET by Lame CherrySince earth does not have plastic wrap around it like a greenhouse, there can be no green house effect. Clouds if one notices makes the day cooler and even when retaining heat at night, clouds without solar heat still have a drop of 30 degrees in a few hours and retain nothing for the following day and temperature drops more.
Venus is hot not because of gases, but because it is close to the sun.
The earth is warmer due to the sun exploding gases in it's nuclear bomb factory as all stars operate under. It happens to be an increase bandwidth heat that affects liquids. Yellow Dwarfs like our sun are notorious for these fluctuations.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Greenhouse gases, Noel. It
August 30, 2007 - 13:07 ET by bassndudeGreenhouse gases, Noel. It was the increase in the population of cows that did it. Its that cursed methane from the cows. We need to start a new movement to eat more steak and hamburger to save the earth.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Look....
August 30, 2007 - 13:10 ET by heldmywJust because your tax dollars are being wasted on tripe and junk science agenda being published by an agency of the federal government, there is no reason to go pulling "facts" and stuff out!
That's just mean.
It's getting to the point
August 30, 2007 - 13:10 ET by rightsideIt's getting to the point that they are just manufacturing news now, because they know most people who vote democrat will never question or challenge their assertions.
Day after day, month after month, year after year, they pound on Bush in the drive-by media, and then point to his 30% approval ratings. I'm no longer a fan of Bush, but no one can survive that kind of onslaught politically.
Contrast that with how a dhimmicrat is handled by them.
Thanks for that piece, NS
Yes! Have some.
Goose or Gander?
August 30, 2007 - 13:21 ET by mattmWhat's good for the goose.....
NOAA is just another government agency with its hand out. Without a crisis, they can't justify the funding they want, so they must blame supposedly warmer than normal temperatures on something they can pretend to be able to do something about...
So why is it only the big bad oil companies get accused of having a financial motive in the APGW debate???
You can call me a
August 30, 2007 - 13:37 ET by third eyeYou can call me a denier
You can call me a liar,
but that doesnt change the fact
This religion is on crack.
To Noel:
August 30, 2007 - 13:37 ET by jay_1975Noel, I emailed the NOAA about their temperature records being different from GISS and here is what they said:
My general comment is that there's an
"error bar" within which all of these numbers and trends fall. When
there are tiny differences in the yearly averages, you can end up with
slightly different "records." I believe there are also questions of
definition that can produce differing results.
So I guess no one truely knows what the temperature is. Now that's some good science.
What a gas
August 30, 2007 - 13:37 ET by acumenGreat point Noel.
Something in the NOAA statement caught my eye:
"Greenhouse gases likely accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year."
"Likely?!?!?" Does it just feel right to these scientists? Alrighty then.
Coudn't the officials at NOAA simply gotten straight to the point? More tax dollars for global warming please.
It doesn't feel like anything.
August 31, 2007 - 00:23 ET by cleverpig"Likely" because the conclusion is reached by comparing observed data to models with certain assumptions. The model that most closely matches the observed data "likely" contains the assumptions that actually hold true.
Within most scientific disciplines, the accepted level of "likelihood" is a 5% chance for error.
There is nothing vague or intuitive about the way these conclusions are reached. In this case, "likely" is the layman's term for a mathematical calculation of possible error.
So what exactly is the harm
August 30, 2007 - 13:54 ET by RepublicandoSo what exactly is the harm of believing that global warming is man-made? Enlighten me.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Wow!
August 30, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Mica the MagnificentYou MUST be new here!
Well...
August 30, 2007 - 14:01 ET by scamoramaThe harm is that taking the egocentric view that humans have caused global warming leads one to think that humans can reverse it.
But, in order to do that, we must allow further erosions of property rights and individual liberties, placing ourselves and our economies under central planners.
Just look at the former Eastern Bloc countries to see what central planning does for the environment.
And liberty.
And private property.
Please explain how global
August 30, 2007 - 14:22 ET by RepublicandoPlease explain how global warming affects property rights and individual liberties, and placing ourselves and our economies under central planners?
Or are you just made that you can't be as wasteful as you want to be?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Reader?
August 31, 2007 - 00:00 ET by scamoramaYou don't read very well, do you? I didn't say that "global warming affects property rights and individual liberties", I said that the responses that AGW fans are trying to stampede people into will affect them.
And there is no call for insulting remarks such as "Or are you just made(sic) that you can't be as wasteful as you want to be?"
You have no idea of my lifestyle, but because I don't jump on your bandwagon, you'll attempt a cheap smear.
}}---> Republicando
August 30, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Cool ArrowThink of Man-made Global Warming as a confidence scheme. It is exactly that!
Here, let me hold your money and I'll invest it in paying for the error of your ways. That way your children won't suffer for the evil you've done.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
That did not answer my
August 30, 2007 - 14:22 ET by RepublicandoThat did not answer my question.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
"Enlighten me"??? Hahaha!
August 30, 2007 - 14:02 ET by RJIf you're serious, you might want to start with looking around on this site, where there is extensive information on the subject.
Then, you might be able to ask an intelligent, serious question.
That did not answer my
August 30, 2007 - 14:23 ET by RepublicandoThat did not answer my question.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Your "question" was devoid of intelligence, Rebuplicando
August 30, 2007 - 14:32 ET by RJCertainly, no one will go broke underestimating you.
The harm?
August 30, 2007 - 14:02 ET by jay_1975The harm is when the government starts laying new taxes and regulations for a theory that is deteriorating every day. NASA says that there will be more tornados because of "global warming". How did they come to this conclusion? They created a new computer model. Evey time the current weather doesn't match their predictions, they find new "data" and create a new model to support what is observed. Sounds pretty shoddy.
Please enlighten me about
August 30, 2007 - 14:24 ET by RepublicandoPlease enlighten me about these taxes and regulations? Please provide your proof.
Are you sure you are not just mad that you won't be able to be as wasteful as you want to be?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Enlightenment
August 30, 2007 - 14:48 ET by jay_1975Here is what is being propsed in D.C.:
$100 tax per ton of CO2 produced, $0.50 per gallon of gas tax, end the mortgage tax deduction on all homes larger than 3,000 square feet.
The U.S. Energy Information Agency recently released an assessment of a Senate cap-and-trade proposal, which found it would cost the economy $533 billion.
It would also raise gasoline prices by about 41 cents per gallon, and electricity prices by more than 21 percent.
If you want proof, do some research rather just saying a bunch of nonsense.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14909
Good! America needs to
August 30, 2007 - 15:14 ET by RepublicandoGood! America needs to address it's dependence on foreign oil. It needs to start looking into alternative fuels. Getting people to stop driving wasteful vehicles just to compensate for their lack of manhood is a start. The world's oil wasn't put there just for Americans, although all you religious freaks probably think it was. Oil is going to evetually run out. Whatever people can do to save and protect this planet is worth any tax!
105 million acres of melted ice in 15 years, and you're telling me this is natural?
Get your heads out of the sands! Stop thinking about your wallet! This is bigger than your wallet!
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
105 million acres of melted ice in 15 years.........?
August 30, 2007 - 15:23 ET by JayTeeRepublicondom........105 million acres ain't nothing....take a look at the Great Lakes, created by melting Glaciers, and estimate that acreage........
By the way, it's August.......summer in the North, winter coming in the South...Northern Ice usually melts at the Peak of Summer..do NOT be alarmed.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
lol JayTee
August 30, 2007 - 18:35 ET by SportPoliticsI noticed that in the last alarmists whines where some dimblebutted demodumbs travelled on a jet to the northern ice and to their shock found sunlight and melting ice. I didn't want to respond and say it's the warmest part of the season, and head back up there when the sun don't shine for 6 months.
LOL - Man I'm telling you.
I want to see pictures of the congressional libs in 6 months of darkness looking for Santa between tending to their frostbitten extremities.
" The Russians have 6 minisubs up there planting the flag ! They never used to be able to get there, but the ice has melted! " the libs shrieked as sun shown in the heat of northern summer.
Gee, Sporty, Why don't
August 30, 2007 - 20:02 ET by BlondeGee, Sporty,
Why don't you tell it like it really is?
That was funny, guy.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The ice is melting
August 31, 2007 - 00:28 ET by cleverpigThe ice is melting more.
Each summer, compared to other summers.
No one is up there with a government grant comparing summer ice cover to winter ice cover, trust me.
You can think we're wrong, but you aren't going to convince anyone by claiming we're that stupid!
grants and GW
August 31, 2007 - 02:08 ET by mastersofdeceitI always picture the guy "up there" with a government grant
doing his work next to the guy with a private grant. : )
I like to picture both sides...
August 31, 2007 - 02:13 ET by sarcasmoWith each saying the other's money-source magically makes that money into evil, manipulative stuff that creates motivations ordinary money can't cause in normally good hearted scientists.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yeah Sarc agree, I just get
August 31, 2007 - 02:22 ET by mastersofdeceitYeah Sarc agree, I just get tired of hearing about how so-and-so took government money so their findings are completely null. It's a weak argument and a two way street.
Yeah
August 31, 2007 - 02:35 ET by sarcasmoSubstitute hysterical accusations that I'm on Mobil's payroll (but for the umpteenth time, "where's my check??" And now I'm on the Idaho Statesman's payroll sans-check, too!) whenever I express opinions about inconvenient stuff like global warming on Mars for the other way of that street.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
If you want us to stop
August 30, 2007 - 15:36 ET by NewsbusterbrownIf you want us to stop using oil, fine. I just wish your side would be honest about it and not have to use global warming as the excuse.
Do your part, Republicando!!
August 30, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Mica the MagnificentEverytime you post, Republicando, I flush a toilet for no reason(wasting natural resources) and shake a can of soda, releasing CO2's into the air.
Stop posting and save the planet - do your part!
Supreme Court "enlightenment"
August 30, 2007 - 15:18 ET by JayTeeOK, want proof you can understand, and it has to be BRIEF as you don't connect to web links requiring heavy reading....
The Supreme court ruled the Govt. Agency EPA has the right to regulate CO2 emissions.
Why did this issue go all the way to the Supreme Court ?
What does this Ruling mean ?
Answer those two questions, take two Carbon Credits(rectally), and call me in the morning.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Supreme Court of Climatology
August 30, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Repeal 16-17A majority of the Supreme Nine has ruled that (1)Global Warming is real and (2)humanity caused it. That's it, end of discussion. Whatever the Supreme Nine rules is law and must be obeyed.
You want proof or do you
August 30, 2007 - 15:36 ET by dscottYou want proof or do you just want a confirmation of what you already believe?
Do not read anything on these websites as it may not confirm your belief in AGW.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/sc_nm/climate_un_dc_1;_ylt=ApD_DReP1VrAVJ9rqhe_cssE1vAI What would a 50% cut in CO2 do to the US economy? Answer honestly, would you have a job? Would you be driving a car? Do you deny a major reduction in the standard of living given the proposal?
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=jetpollute19&date=20070819&query=must+we+stop+flying+to+save+the+planet Let's forget about flying too.
http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=25018 Pelosi's energy bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070828/sc_afp/austriaunclimate;_ylt=AgNuj509CDtr6m1XtlUTODFpl88F "more than 200 billion dollars will be needed by 2030 just to keep greenhouse gas emissions at today's levels, according to a UN climate change report presented Tuesday in Vienna." Where do you think that money is going to come from?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
No warming since 1998, in fact a negative trend for almost 9 years. Has CO2 gone down since 1998? NO, it has gone up.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2007/08/no-evidence-of-global-warming-in.html If there is no warming in the Southern Hemisphere, how can there be "Global" Warming?
Of course if you really don't like the questions raised on those sites you certainly shouldn't educate yourself on these sites run by scientists. Your faith in AGW will be shaken not stirred.
www.sepp.org Fred Singer, father of the US weather satellite program, what does he know anyway?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/ Anthony Watts
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ Prof. R.A. Pielke, The reading is much too heavy for you, don't strain your brain besides non scientific people shouldn't read science literature, they might become confused and come to faulty conclusions.
http://www.climateaudit.org/ Steve McIntyre, you definitely shouldn't read the works of this heritic scientist, he's the one who debunked the Mann hockey stick chart.
http://www.surfacestations.org/ Don't look at this site either since this documents the conditions under which NOAA obtains the temperature data. Just bury your head in the sand or better yet, stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalalala I can't hear you, lalalalalala
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ And if you don't like the ones above you certainlty shouldn't read this one either. It's run by people like Robert M. Carter, Ph.D They are way too smart for you so anything they write will be above your head, yes, you should get all your information distilled from Al Gore and the MSM, it's so much simpler and concise.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp Don't bother, you won't like the information they have to present either.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
DSoctt......one can only hope
August 30, 2007 - 15:48 ET by JayTeeOn can only hope, you still have an Audience in Republocondom...It will be 3 days before we hear from him again, if he/she/it does all their mandatory reading.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Oh, so do you think it is
August 30, 2007 - 16:16 ET by dscottOh, so do you think it is overkill to add?
http://icecap.us/index.php Joe D'Aleo's site with all those other meteorologists and such.
Hmmmm, I guess it is too much for a novice to catch up and to walk into the middle of a group of people who have been reading up on this issue for years, he doesn't have the knowledge base. JayTee you have point, the dude will never be able to chew on steak with us when he is used to only drinking milk. Republico, don't read anything, you are too far behind on the issue, I mean it's not like you are as inquisitive as the 15 year old girl who discovered the problem with the weather stations anyway. You know youngsters these days are just so computer literate. Besides after the bottom drops out on AGW, the MSM will give you something else to believe, so what's the point?
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
I recently read a comment
August 30, 2007 - 16:23 ET by danboI recently read a comment on our little 15 year old. She's developing into a great inquiring mind. And has a thirst to find the real answers. She'll be a real scientist. There go her chances of ever getting a job at NASA.
"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
Republicando, I'm sorry it doesn't matter...
August 30, 2007 - 18:41 ET by SportPoliticsWe have already been informed that the point of no return will be upon us in less than a decade by Al Gore, and the warming trends will escalate into an unstoppable worldwide heatwave that Al Gore has said will exterminate the human race. His spokespeople on C-Span agreed and told me there will be a global extinction of humans like the events that wiped out the dinosaurs.
All we can do now is enjoy the little time we have left, but at least I can thank Al Gore for helping me to understand what is to befall all of us, and the fact that a global scientific consensus agrees makes certain our fate is sealed.
( I hope I didn't upset you to the point of tears, but the truth should not be hidden from the public )
Apparently, you haven't
August 30, 2007 - 14:05 ET by dscottApparently, you haven't been paying attention to what the so called solutions are which do little if anything to solve it. Unless you like blindly doing what other people say and have no problem reducing your standard of living to comply with their demands?
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Enlighten me.
August 30, 2007 - 14:07 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Who are these privileged?
August 30, 2007 - 14:28 ET by RepublicandoWho are these privileged? Would you not consider the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rove's, etc part of this group?
Have taxes been raised? Are you sure you are not just being scared by the rightwing media?
So you are a scientist, and you have proof that global warming will not be stopped because it is a natural cycle of the earth related to the sun and not caused by mankind?
Why is this a liberal agenda? Doesn't this affect us all equally? Or are you upset that you can not be as wasteful as you want to be?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Al gore comes to mind,
August 30, 2007 - 14:43 ET by MightyMouthAl gore comes to mind, George Bush comes to mind.
Yes taxes have and will be raised. Do you buy gasoline or use energy in any way?
Rightwing media??
As others have said, do a little research here and you will see the arguments both ways.
It's a liberal agenda when the government wants to take money from me and flush it down the AGW toilet. Yes that's a liberal agenda to me.
Oh, I just saw this little gem from you:
"Or are you upset that you can not be as wasteful as you want to be?"
You know it's strange, I can't really afford to be wasteful. I would rather keep my money then waste it. How about you? (or Al Gore?)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Republicando: a proposal
August 30, 2007 - 15:55 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhen your girlfriend, John Edwards, sells his mansion and moves into a one bedroom condo (to save the planet), I'll consider selling my gas guzzling SUV.
Until then . . .VROOOOOOM!!
Fair enough??
troll débutante...read this about AGW
August 30, 2007 - 14:13 ET by LionKingHere is some educational materail for you.
Republicando...answers to AGW await
August 30, 2007 - 14:34 ET by LionKingPrevious post has your answers and much, much, more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
August 30, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Republicandohttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/ here is some educational material for you http://www.ipcc.ch/
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
troll débutante...wrong again
August 30, 2007 - 14:44 ET by LionKingIt is obvious from your post that you were being insincere. You are not interested in learning the facts on AGW, you already subscribe to the cult of AGW.
[ I regret wasting my time on yet another TROLL. ]
No, you need to have people
August 30, 2007 - 15:17 ET by RepublicandoNo, you need to have people agree with you to make you feel good. Sorry, I don't agree with everything you say, so I guess you will have to call me names. You make Americans look baqd throughout this world.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
troll débutante...wrong again
August 30, 2007 - 15:21 ET by LionKingAnother bad assumption. While it is true in principle that I am in agreement with others, I have had prolonged disagreements with others such as RJ and unsane. We have not always been as nice as we should, but in the end, we at least agreed to disagree.
You are just ignorant and lazy.
Look at the SCIENCE not
August 30, 2007 - 14:48 ET by MightyMouthLook at the SCIENCE not Newsweek! Don't be one of the sheeple! Think for yourself man, do your research before you blindly follow the MSM. And remember we are talking AGW here not global warming.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Here is the science
August 30, 2007 - 15:08 ET by RepublicandoHere is the science www.ipcc.ch/ LOOK AT IT!
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Could Republicando be Al Gore himself?
August 30, 2007 - 15:14 ET by vrwc13Inquirying minds want to know.
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
From your own link
August 30, 2007 - 15:15 ET by MightyMouth"The IPCC does not
carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data
or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly
on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature"
Read the evidence done by other "peer reviewed" scientists posted throughout this thread and others. YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK ENOUGH TO COME HERE AND DEBATE WITH AUTHORITY!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Peered reviewed? From
August 30, 2007 - 15:19 ET by RepublicandoPeered reviewed? From this crowd that means they must be scientists who don't belive in evolution and sorry, but those are no scientists in my eyes.
And no, you read the IPCC report. The facts are there. Why can you not stop being so wasteful?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
The facts are there.
August 30, 2007 - 15:24 ET by MightyMouthWhat "facts" are there? The truth is you haven't done anything here except insult people and post a link to a report you haven't read.
And how am I being "so wasteful"?
You lost credibility very early on bumpkin.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Step away from your global warming computer Republicando
August 30, 2007 - 19:14 ET by SportPoliticsYou don't need to be on the internet wasting electricity. Turn off your computer and never be wasteful by posting here ever again, you non-caring global warming harmful person.
IPCC
August 31, 2007 - 10:14 ET by acadia1755http://sciencepolicy...
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to
view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having
become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the
IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis
for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the
IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around
the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and
how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I
had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a
Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment
Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes
and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more
generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I
was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author -
Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes.
As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was
to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is
happening with our climate.
NEWSWEEK...Educational ? ?
August 30, 2007 - 15:10 ET by JayTeeI think this "Enlightenment" might be an uphill battle.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Wow! This is something I've
August 30, 2007 - 14:51 ET by nixonWow! This is something I've rarely been able to see, the coming out of a TROLL ! :)
}}---> T'is the season, nixon
August 30, 2007 - 14:53 ET by Cool ArrowThis one's in the pupa stage
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Sort of a trolletus or
August 30, 2007 - 15:02 ET by MightyMouthSort of a trolletus or maybe further back... a trollzygote. Or how about eight Jack & Cokes and a broken condom.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Morons, I guess if someone
August 30, 2007 - 15:05 ET by RepublicandoMorons, I guess if someone does not agree with you they are a troll. You folks are sickening, you all just preach to the choir. It's you who are making Americans look bad. Get up off your fat asses and go to work!
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Hey, you're the one who
August 30, 2007 - 15:10 ET by MightyMouthHey, you're the one who started making with the insults. Your questions have been answered without response from you. That is a TROLL !!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sorry, but your definition
August 30, 2007 - 15:21 ET by RepublicandoSorry, but your definition of insult must be pretty vague. Please show me where I started with the insults. I bet you can't. But then again you will believe what you want to believe - or actually what they want you to believe - that's why you're a republican.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public."
-H.L. Mencken
Your second post on the
August 30, 2007 - 15:28 ET by MightyMouthYour second post on the thread:
"Or are you just made[sic] that you can't be as wasteful as you want to be?"
Nice way to elicit a response to understand another point of view.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"Sorry, but your definition
August 30, 2007 - 16:02 ET by ckc1227"Sorry, but your definition of insult must be pretty vague."
Actually, it's pretty specific: you insult us with your stupidity.
Pa-ree must know!
August 30, 2007 - 16:01 ET by Mica the Magnificent"Get up off your fat asses and go to work!"
I will notify the french authorities of your comment.
Sorry, numbskull, but the
August 30, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Republicando