Lib Radio Host: Record Snows and Cold Caused By Global Warming

Lib Radio Host: Record Snows and Cold Caused By Global Warming

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
December 20, 2008 - 17:28 ET

The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me.

Our nation is experiencing record snows and cold spells, and Air America host Thom Hartmann actually told his audience Friday:

What we are seeing in this cold, that has me trapped in my house here today, is that, what we are seeing is a symptom of global warming. But you wouldn't know that from the crazies on the right.

Speaking of lunacy, Hartmann was so proud of this moment in broadcast history that he created an mp3 of his explanation as to why global warming is making us all freeze to death, and not only posted it at Air America's website, but also included an embed feature if folks wanted to share his astounding stupidity with others.

As you might imagine, I do (audio embedded below the fold, h/t Tom Nelson, readers are cautioned to stow all potables and combustibles before proceeding further):

Now, I don't know what "science piece" Hartmann was referring to. I've done a Google news search, and found a NewScientist article discussing the recently released data from the World Meteorological Organization concerning world ice levels.

However, neither suggested that evaporated ice is adding moisture to the atmosphere that's causing the recent snows and cold spells. Frankly, I haven't been able to find any published work stating that.

Maybe Thom will do us a favor and shoot us a link so that we can examine this fabulous theory in greater detail.

Stay tuned.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

I guess he missed the memo,

December 20, 2008 - 17:39 ET by MrSnuggles

I guess he missed the memo, its not "global warming" anymore because that does not hold up with reality, its now called "climate change". Or, what we used to call it, SEASONS.

It's not seasons...

December 20, 2008 - 19:25 ET by motherbelt

You have to understand that the climate of earth has been the same for countless millenia, and now, in the past 30 years, it's "changing."

After countless warming and cooling cycles, I don't know what it's changing to now, but apparently it's "changing" and it's our fault.

\sarc off

I know I've mentioned this before but the synopsis of the film "The Day After Tomorrow" says Global warming triggers a new ice age.

I'm still waiting for someone somewhere to explain how that works!

Here's the runaround Neil Cavuto got when he asked about it.

Bring duct tape.

motherbelt,I guess once

December 20, 2008 - 19:37 ET by Chris Norman

motherbelt,

I guess once the enviro-socialists realized reality wouldn't bear out their old shrill predictions that we'd soon be living on top of mountains of garbage, or the rivers would all burn from the toxins, or we'd soon have to colonize space to store the surplus population, they'd have try something - anything - else. If Global Warming doesn't get them to the government control they want, they'll come up with "time distortion" or something else equally nebulous.

going back to the source

December 20, 2008 - 19:48 ET by nathanbforrest

so, what kind of a guy spells his name THOM ?? .. sounds as if he needs to quit flapping his wrists and cowboy up ..

never look a gift skunk in the tail

It's obvious what the

December 20, 2008 - 20:40 ET by mostlymoderate

It's obvious what the left-wing has in mind: it is GLOBAL WARMING in the summer-time and GLOBAL CHILLING in the wintertime. Consider this your talking-points.

Oh Susannah!

December 20, 2008 - 17:50 ET by MidAmerica

When I was a kid and had to learn this song I thought it was nonsensical. Now I realize it was just ahead of it's time.

Stephen Foster wrote the original lyrics in 1847.

I come from Alabama
With my banjo on my knee
I'm going to Louisiana,
My true love for to see

It rained all night
The day I left
The weather it was dry
The sun so hot,
I froze to death
Susanna, don't you cry

MidAmerica

December 20, 2008 - 17:56 ET by littlemissmuffin

Now THAT brings back some memories.

Very appropos.

"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"

Same here! Excellent

December 20, 2008 - 18:13 ET by bigtimer

Same here!

Excellent MA...it does say it all...hehehee, I love it.

Now I'm humming that song I learned as younster as I post.

Thanks.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

One of the things I like

December 20, 2008 - 18:23 ET by MidAmerica

One of the things I like about NB is the fact that no matter how meaningless the stuff is that is packed away in your head some day it is just the right fit for the discussion.

Outstanding!

December 20, 2008 - 18:44 ET by Wilbur747

Who'd ever thunk that those spritley lyrics would come back into our imagination?

Those lyrics exemplify the total confusion of the AGW theorists!

We're all going to die of global warming...cooling...flodding...more ice caps...wait, I know this...lack of sunspots...hold on...too many conservatives...

GW

December 20, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Forbus

If it snows...it's global warming. If we have no snow...global warming. Floods...global warming. Drought...global warming. Hurricanes...global warming. Few hurricanes...GW.

Apparently, until Al Gore made his movie we had no weather.

...dont forget tsunami's

December 20, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Kevroy

...dont forget tsunami's

Pretty soon on late night

December 20, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Dan The Man 2

Pretty soon on late night TV, they will have a pill to sell you for GW just like any other ailment.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I hope so

December 20, 2008 - 19:43 ET by general company

I will buy them by the ton if it will shut up a few libtards.

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

GW smart pills

December 20, 2008 - 19:51 ET by nathanbforrest

i already got tons ready to go .. out in my goat shed ..

never look a gift skunk in the tail

This is the most cogent

December 20, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Jack Bauer

This is the most cogent dissection of the logical fallacy used by crazy liberals who are crazier than a Cow Mad crazy. And that's way out there crazy. This is also the definitive REFUTATION of the illogic deployed by the Warmists.

From today's American Thinker:

Climate Crisis = Logic Crisis
By Larrey Anderson

Al Gore is right! Sort of. The current debate over climate change is over. At least, it is over in terms of a logical and unbiased inquiry.

The debate over "climate change" is no longer a matter of science. In the past forty years, the proponents of "climate change" have written and rewritten their hypotheses to fit the empirical facts. In logic this is sometimes called "The fallacy of saving the hypothesis." There is no honest discussion when the topic of a debate is constantly controlled, and occasionally altered, by the proponents of one side of the argument. Climate change proponents have been doing this for years.

I distinctly remember the first time I had an argument with someone about "climate change." It was a warm spring day in April of 1975. I was walking across the campus at Harvard headed for lunch. A fellow classmate (we were both juniors) ran up to me. He was really excited. He hollered out:

"Have you heard? The ice age is coming. They've proven it with computer studies at MIT."

"How did they prove that there is an ice age coming with computers?" I asked my friend.

"The planet is getting colder. They have the data. And it is going to keep getting colder. They have these computer models --"

I stopped him right there. I knew enough about computers to understand that they were not up to accurately predicting short-term weather patterns -- let alone an ice age.

"No way. Computers aren't that powerful. "

"But they have the data and they have computers!"

"I know they do. But computers spit out whatever they are programmed to spit out. Load a computer with the data that the world has been getting colder; ask it what the weather will be tomorrow, and what do you think the computer is going to tell you? The world is getting hotter? If it does you'd better get a better computer. You hungry?" I replied and I continued on my way to lunch.

The original "climate change" hypothesis was that the planet was getting colder and that it would continue getting colder. That was a very simple hypothesis and was easily proven or refuted. Planet keeps getting colder = hypothesis correct. Planet gets warmer = hypothesis incorrect.

The world got warmer instead of colder. The "climate change" hypothesis was rewritten. This time the planet was facing a catastrophic meltdown. The world was not only getting warmer -- it was going to keep getting warmer at an ever increasing and life-threatening rate.

I remember this hypothesis too. It was scary. Computers were fed information that the world was now heating up and asked, again, "what will the weather be tomorrow?" This time the computers spit out: "hotter." Good computers.

The computers said it would be even hotter the day after tomorrow. Hotter still next week, and next month. And in a few years? Forget about it.

The hypothesis predicted, and the computers affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. Al Gore's famous (and refuted) "hockey stick graph" proved it. In other words, the earth would heat fast, then faster, then faster still. Man made global warming was predicted to be a run away train on a steep downhill incline that had to be stopped and stopped immediately.

That was the hypothesis. It was simple. And it was just as easily proved or refuted as the global cooling hypothesis. World gets steadily and increasingly warmer = hypothesis correct. Planet gets colder = hypothesis incorrect.

But while concentrations of CO2, the culprit behind man made global warming, continued to rise -- the temperature did not. The empirical data refused to cooperate with the hypothesis. In the last few years the earth's temperature has leveled off. It may be dropping.

Oops. Another hypothesis bites the dust. Not to worry. The hypothesis has been rewritten, once again. Now we have a "climate crisis." Long term global warming is causing short term global cooling that will, eventually, result in long term global warming. Really. That is the new hypothesis.

The official reason being given is that the "weather is not the climate." For those readers not skilled in dialectical huckstering, the argument seems to be that the weather can get colder while the climate gets warmer.

Proponents of global warming finally have an irrefutable, because incoherent, theory guaranteed to win any debate. This hypothesis cannot be refuted. If the "weather" cools it proves that the "climate" is getting warmer. If the weather gets warmer then the climate gets warmer. As the barker shouts out at the carnival, "Winner! Winner! Winner!"

This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense.

Yes. Climate science has come to this: We are now being told, in effect, to ignore the data and believe the hypothesis. I have recently written that global warming is not a science -- it is a religion. I take it back. Global warming, aka climate crisis, is now a crisis of logic. In other words, it is insanity.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

Jack Bauer

December 20, 2008 - 18:03 ET by littlemissmuffin

Thanks for posting that article.

If the facts don't fit the hypothesis, change the facts!

"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"

Great article, but

December 21, 2008 - 08:13 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt

I think he overlooked one more bit of lunacy, the final logical step in the Liberal's theory. Which is:

"See, all the efforts that we've been making towards using less energy, conserving resources, electric cars and such have WORKED! The climate has stabilized!!! WE WERE RIGHT!!!"

As completely unproveable and non-sensical as every step so far in their theory, but no doubt it's coming. If you doubt that they will use that argument, just look at the Great Society. As an utter failure as it was to combat poverty, they always say, "Yes, well imagine how bad off we would be now if we hadn't had helped those millions with our tax dollars. We'd have tens of millions of more people lost to poverty."

You can't logically debate any subject with an individual who does not understand logic.

At one time, he would have

December 20, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Chris Norman

At one time, he would have blamed the god of the sun, Apollo (his chariot must be too far away from earth this winter) - now it's their new god, "Global Warming"...

This has been the latest

December 20, 2008 - 18:01 ET by bigtimer

This has been the latest talking points from the insane lemmings with the crazy rant from the leftist loons lately...they have to have an excuse for the plain fact that their is NO SUCH THING as Global Warming....

Period...

It is all about world-wide control and $$$...period.

We are so forked with this upcoming congress, O leading the way, with McC and other RINOs reaching out, touching you, touching me...right in our pocket-books we aren't going to see an end to this for years to come, if the damage can even be undone by these enemies within....and elsewhere.

Greenpeace anyone?

Smile...be happy!

By the way...it's 0 degrees here....I love the global warming stuff...we have come up 17 degrees since early this morning.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Funny you mention Greenpeace

December 20, 2008 - 18:05 ET by littlemissmuffin

One of my favorite movie scenes is from Armageddon where Bruce Willis is lobbing golf balls onto the greenpeace ship. So funny!

"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"

Global warming? On

December 20, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Lord Elicani

Global warming? On Wednesday, December 10th, as you might have heard, the city of Houston, Texas recieved it's frist recorded snowfall since 1994. More often than not, the temperatures here are staying below 40 - where as normal winter temperatures here are closer to 70.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

- Ronald Reagan

Liberal blather...

December 20, 2008 - 18:11 ET by JPR1

to the Nth degree. Raised to a high art.

He didn't read any stinkin' article in any "scientific magazine". He needed some incoherent babble for his program and sat at his breakfast table with his latte this morning and made the whole thing up.

Probably real proud of himself to. What a moron.

That's funny, I thought

December 20, 2008 - 20:35 ET by andophiroxia

That's funny, I thought snow was the result of the air cooling enough to freeze the water droplets in the air into ice crystals and the surrounding area, thereby making it snow.

Wouldn't you need cold weather for that?

So, if it feels colder everywhere else and it's snowing in a lot of places that don't normally get snow, and all over the world is reporting a record low or record low in weather, wouldn't that be global cooling?

As someone said in this thread, I'll put some beers in the oven to chill. Or I'll do what they did in Mythbusters where they buried the beer in some sand, poured gasoline on it and lit it on fire in order to make it colder. That totally cooled the beer.

Actually... it really warmed the beer. So guess what, this myth is busted!

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

CO2 FARCING

December 20, 2008 - 18:42 ET by upcountrywater

FREEDOM

(D)

"Global warming" is a

December 20, 2008 - 19:10 ET by rbosque

"Global warming" is a perfect cloak for liberals to impose their agendas to an ignorant populace. And it can be conveniently defended even if the temperature takes a nose dive. Global warming is the cause of everything. I'm sure it's even the cause of insanity in Air-America "journalists and broadcasters".

To Quote Ann Coulter

December 20, 2008 - 19:35 ET by Lord Erond

"According to liberals, warmer temperatures indicate global warming. Also, cooler temperatures indicate global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman"

(or something like that)

"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-

Square off with Hartmann.

December 20, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Agrarian-Decentralist

Hartmann makes a regular practice of debating prominent conservatives on his show. For example, he's scheduled Marc Morano a number of times to discuss climate change. I suggest that Sheppard offer to go on the show for a similar face-off. But be warned: Hartmann is a gentleman, but he's also one of the smartest guys in talk radio---a skilled debater who is well-versed on this and many other topics.

An Idiot Speaks: "What we

December 20, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Jack Bauer

An Idiot Speaks: "What we are seeing in this cold, that has me trapped in my house here today, is that, what we are seeing is a symptom of global warming. But you wouldn't know that from the crazies on the right."

The Actual Truth: "This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense."

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

Exactly right

December 20, 2008 - 20:25 ET by bigtimer

Exactly right Jack...

Just more spoon-fed pablum for the leftist lemmings to lap-up...the very critters the powers that be with their agenda depend upon.

Anybody with an IQ of room-temperature knows the difference.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Let's say this, if global

December 20, 2008 - 20:30 ET by andophiroxia

Let's say this, if global warming was truly a danger...then why haven't they deduced what is the ideal surface to air temperature of the earth?

Anyone? We've got to have a range in which to determine the danger of global warming! Anyone!?

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

Anybody with an IQ of

December 20, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Jack Bauer

Anybody with an IQ of room-temperature knows the difference.

And that room temperature is DROPPING.

In a 100 years, intelligent people are going to look at these anti-science dolts the same way we do at the Salem Witch Trials. And all those primitive people who sacrificed people to stop drought, improve crops.

But those folks had an excuse. They didn't know any better.

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

I agree

December 20, 2008 - 20:43 ET by bigtimer

I agree Jack...

Unfortunately, in the mean-time... we all are going to be paying for this farce through the nose, world-wide...in more ways than one.

Cap and Trade...Carbon Credits anyone?

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Anybody with an IQ of

December 20, 2008 - 23:30 ET by Jer

Anybody with an IQ of room-temperature knows the difference.

Precisely the reason I keep my thermostat set at 180 degrees, bt.

Jer

Jer... Cute by

December 20, 2008 - 23:37 ET by bigtimer

Jer...

Cute by half.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Just don't hate me because

December 20, 2008 - 23:46 ET by Jer

Just don't hate me because I'm cute.

Jer

Just don't hate me because

December 21, 2008 - 02:45 ET by Dan The Man 2

Just don't hate me because I'm cute - We could do that then we would love you without question becuase it is opposite of hate.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan

December 21, 2008 - 02:53 ET by RESTLESS 1

Hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is.

But I really don't care. ;>)

"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

By half Jer...by half. Do

December 21, 2008 - 02:53 ET by bigtimer

By half Jer...by half.

Do you good to remember that...or doesn't your partner remind you of that enough? ;-)

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt...I thought the "half"

December 21, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Jer

I thought the "half" part was referring to my I. Q. instead of my "cuteness". :-)

Jer

Gavin Schmidt and Richard

December 20, 2008 - 20:38 ET by NL207

Gavin Schmidt and Richard Sommerville didn't do so well against Richard Lindzen and Phil Stott on this topic on a neutral ground.

Let's get Hartmann on a neutral ground, not on his show against Noel,. How do you expect Hartmann would do any better against Noel? It isn't going to matter how skilled and smart Hartmann is, he will lose because the only time the Alarmists win this argument is when they control the venue and can tilt the table.

Smooth, classy and skilled?

December 20, 2008 - 20:47 ET by dbo

Hartmann is a gentleman, but he's also one of the smartest guys in talk radio---a skilled debater

In a debate last July, Hartman referred to esteemed scientist Dr. Roy Spencer as a "bozo". Now there's debating skills.

http://co2sceptics.c...

IN-REPLY

December 20, 2008 - 21:37 ET by jerseydevel

Agrarian,

"..., but he's also one of the smartest guys in talk radio --- a skilled debater who is well-versed on this and many other topics."

Perhaps you're simply the messenger, but you may wish to reconsider the statement you just put out there.

Irregardless, this is, what we that are residents in the camp of "logical thought" call, an oxymoron. Hartmann speaks with forked tongue. His definition of Climate change is:

(1) It's so warm temps are rising... Why? It's AGW!

(2) "It's snowing and temps are falling (interim)... Why? Viola! It's AGW!"

I can argue: 1+1=2 AND 1+1=11.

"Ah hah! I'm right! You loose!"

Well? Which is it? I wouldn't exactly label such conclusions as those coming from "one of the smartest..."

Well versed...

December 20, 2008 - 23:46 ET by JPR1

...but not well versed enough to have the name of the scientific magazine (or an author) at hand.

I've changed my mind. It isn't liberal blather. It's prevaracation. Thery're afraid this whole issue is going to slip through their hands.

Here I thought when moisture

December 20, 2008 - 20:05 ET by jcrapes4

Here I thought when moisture was added to the air it raised the humidity not lowered the air temperature.

Global Warming Theories

December 20, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JJoujan

Perhaps Hartman is merely getting his geography confused. I spent a year in the Arctic where it doesn't snow much after November because it is too cold. So, if the Arctic started getting more snow, we could blame it on global warming. However, snow in Las Vegas? Not global warming.

Vegas Snow

December 20, 2008 - 20:27 ET by DoktorFranken

I was in Vegas (about 10 years ago or so) for Comdex and it snowed the day I left. It was November and it was the coldest week I ever experienced at Comdex in many years. I had to wear a heavy jacket all week and during the cab ride to McCarran airport it started to flurry a bit.

Now, to this meathead's rant - I never listen to, or read anything from, Air America (what an inappropriate title for their 'station' - it should be Braking Wind America). So any link to it will go totally unclicked as far as I'm concerned. However, I do appreciate the offer of the original material. I will just have to trust you, Noel, to relay the information correctly (as I always have).

Plus, 'AGW' is stinkier than a Gore turd. Oh, wait, it is a Gore turd.

Noel. You're just an old

December 20, 2008 - 20:23 ET by danbo

Noel. You're just an old foggie holding on to ancient scientific methods. Where, when observations vary from the hypothised prediction by several standard deviantions, you just start questioning the hypothesis.

You have to get with the new, hip, liberated, modern scientific method of consensus science. Where once you claim consensus. Everything proves the hypothesis correct.

Excuse me. I'm gonna go put a few beers in the oven to chill.

Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

scientific methods

December 20, 2008 - 22:22 ET by jerseydevel

I'm so sorry Noel, but I gotta side with Danbo on this one. You're just an old foggie!!! Indeed! As every one knows, it's common knowledge, that it was the "vast scientific conspiracy" running NASA (I'm sooo glad Hillary exposed those heretic scientific types for the frauds they really are). The truth be told, scientists & engineers be damned, libs the brainiacs and truthers that they are, why they simply "willed" the Mercury, Apollo, and the shuttle craft into space!!! "We don't need no stinking science!!!" Come on dude, it's not rocket science here! (um... er, well) What were you thinking??? And here we all had the 'audacity of hope' to think it could have possibly been that burning, seething mass of energy spewing nuclear fury. What the hell were WE thinking!!!

Obama's science advisor

December 20, 2008 - 22:32 ET by ThisnThat

Obama has selected John P. Holdren as his science advisor. Holdren is a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. Here's his position on Global warming, as stated in a Boston Globe article in August: "The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again."

In other words, Obama has selected someone who wants to crush all scientific discussion regarding climate -- as his science advisor. Is this preposterous, or what?

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Cronism Co-op

December 20, 2008 - 22:42 ET by jerseydevel

"We are the Bloom-BORG, you WILL be assimilated..."

TnT... Preposterous...not

December 20, 2008 - 22:49 ET by bigtimer

TnT...

Preposterous...not just yes...but hell yes!

Isn't going to matter one wit though...we are forked out here in the real world...and we are going to be paying for it...for a very long time.

There really ought to be a law for those qualified to vote, illegal of course, but otherwise...mainly.

Of course that will be when pigs fly.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I like your style

December 21, 2008 - 07:11 ET by richb313

Keep it up. I like your style. Maybe one day the rest of the uneducated, but well indoctroninated masses will agree. I myself am not holding my breath. Simple, I want to keep living for some reason that has not been properly instruced. I am certain I am being recruited for the re-education camps.

I must now make a tribute before the chosen one as penance.

Believing lies

December 20, 2008 - 20:26 ET by Nonanon

This is too much! It must be such a strain to live in such a state as liberals do. Nothing is real or solid. Everything changes to fit whatever they feel at the time, no matter how wacky it sounds or how against reality it is. They constantly claim they are using science, but it is really anti-science they are following. Facts mean nothing to them and are routinely discarded and it seems many people can't tell the difference. I wonder how many of these AGW/ACC believers are also believers in evolution? It seems to me that if you can get people to believe evolution is a fact, you can get them to believe any lie. There is no debate with them either. They instantly jump to insults are name-calling, showing they have nothing to actually base their positions on.

You're right. I'm sure

December 20, 2008 - 23:08 ET by GregE

You're right. I'm sure you've noticed that if you are against something that liberals are for, they don't just accept that with civility. No, instead they get testy.

Mention you are pro-life to an abortion advocate and they get mad, though all you're doing is giving your opinion. Mention that a baby is not part of the womans body, but her arm is and cutting off her own arm is alot different than aborting a baby, and they'll not simply disagree, but seethe and wish they could abort you on the spot.

Mention you think global warming is a hoax, pointing out things that have been pushed on us that they've accepted regardless of any scientists that say otherwise or say there's just not enough evidence to go one way or the other, and they'll just call you a denier and remain very happy to continue to pay their income to a highly suspect theory.

Mention that you would like the option of opting out of Social Security and that it's government forcing you to give money that is then given to someone else, against your will, and they tell you you want to take Social Security away from people and starve them.

Mention that tax cuts create a greater tax influx into the government, and they'll miss out on what capitalism is, and say that's just crazy, tax cuts mean less taxes and you're not being logical.

Mention America's founding fathers intent when speaking of the Constitution, and they'll ask you if you are saying you want us to go back to allowing slavery, as was legal in the days of the founding fathers, instead of having rational discussion.

Mention that the government takes too much of our money, and wastes it, and they'll gleefully announce that they always get a check from the government each April 15th, money that they think is a gift from their sugar daddy.

We are probably about to

December 20, 2008 - 20:37 ET by GregE

We are probably about to get more of a daily dose of in-your-face global warming BS than ever before, beginning January 21st. And more than ever before, "climate change" will be the term, "global warming" is going to get pushed away. Words matter, and Obama knows it and uses them. It's already being used more than "global warming" but we've seen nothing yet. The Obama presidential talking points haven't become official, and when they do, it's "everyone line up and do what the Obama says." And Obama has brought on a couple of huge global warming supporting scientists into his administration.

I fear greater taxation everywhere to support the so-called "fight." The only thing that is going to put it on hold is the economy, so we're between a rock and hard place. Economy tanks, global warming taxation gets on the back burner. Economy begins to make its way back, global warming taxation is again front & center.

Bend over America.

Grab a shovel, Thom.

December 20, 2008 - 21:09 ET by CobraMan

Thom Hartmann can come here and shovel off my sidewalk the 8 inches of "global warming" we're going to get over the next two or three days here in Minnesota.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Shovel???

December 20, 2008 - 22:05 ET by jerseydevel

I suggest a good set of thick-skinned, liquid (and BS) impentatrable waders! Hey! It's piled waaayyy to high for just a shovel...

There must be a way

December 20, 2008 - 21:10 ET by JoggerNot

To combat this tombama foolary.

Any lawers have a clue?

Global Cooling is Here

December 20, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PopularTech

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Thank you!

December 20, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Wilbur747

All I can say is thank you PopT!

What would we ever do without you?

Thx for all the links, I'm too old and lazy to research them myself.

Thanks again PopT!

One more question...any links on restoring a 100 year old player piano???

No Problem, more to come

December 21, 2008 - 01:36 ET by PopularTech

I just got started on this one again.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

He's only just

December 21, 2008 - 01:52 ET by bigtimer

He's only just begun....(I'm thinking of the Carpenters Song.)

LOL...can't help it, that is funny PT.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

It Must Be Kismet!

December 21, 2008 - 02:00 ET by Asian Con

Now you got that song in MY head! Did you see 1408? I was watching that the other night. Remember the radio in the hotel room?

"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"

Great! Thanks PT!

December 20, 2008 - 23:08 ET by GregE

Great! Thanks PT!

Another Link Opus

December 21, 2008 - 01:06 ET by nofate

Awesome, PT, as usual. Thanks. I check the NASA site Spaceweather.com every day for sunspot activity, and they get breathless every time a lonely sunspot crosses. There have been very few in '08.

"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

So True, The Sun controls the Earth's climate

December 21, 2008 - 01:36 ET by PopularTech

The Sun controls the Earth's climate

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Well, I think his theory

December 20, 2008 - 21:59 ET by ThatDude

Well, I think his theory actually works on a small scale. In order to melt, the glaciers must be drawing warmth from either the air, ground, or sun. If done quickly enough, I suppose it could cause cooler temperatures and more moisture in the immediate vicinity. However, his thesis fails otherwise because he fails to understand area of effect and nature's tendency to move towards equilibrium.

Heat draw from ice, not air

December 20, 2008 - 22:19 ET by CobraMan

"Well, I think his theory actually works on a small scale. In order to melt, the glaciers must be drawing warmth from either the air, ground, or sun."

His theory doesn't work at all. As water evaporates from the ice, the heat would be drawn from the ice, not the air (but the sun drives the engine of heat transfer as it's solar heat that is adding heat energy to the ice).

The air temps should actually increase, both locally and over any given distance, due to that evaporation effect. You need to remember that heat must be released from water vapor for rain, snow, or even clouds, to form.That heat was taken from the warming ice, not from the surrounding air.

In other words, the evaporation effect acts as a conduit for that excess heat to be transferred from the ice to the air. This would warm up the air, not cool it.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Say What?

December 20, 2008 - 22:33 ET by jerseydevel

Hey! Cobraman,

Scientific thought is not allowed here! This is the new America of Change! "We are the Bloom-BORG (cronies). You will be assimilated..."

Say What?

December 20, 2008 - 22:33 ET by jerseydevel

Hey! Cobraman,

Scientific thought is not allowed here! This is the new America of Change! "We are the Bloom-BORG (cronies). You will be assimilated..."

Assimilate this

December 20, 2008 - 22:48 ET by CobraMan

Assimilate this. Heh.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Water Vapor

December 21, 2008 - 01:41 ET by richb313

More water vapor means more trapped heat. It is the best and most signifigant of the greenhouse gasses. So anything that releases water vapor into the atmosphere will mean a net gain in heat trapped. There are so many interactions and feedbacks in the climate system, both positive and negative, that all the computer models I know of use certain constants (best guesses)applied to the variables to make the math come out right. All this proves is the incomplete understanding of the system in question.

Weather verses Climate

December 20, 2008 - 22:48 ET by richb313

Weather is the result of nature moving towards equilibrium. Climate is the result of equilibrium being impossible to achieve. The earth can never achieve equilibrium because the inputs are constantly changing. The orbit around the sun is not circular but elliptical. The earth rotates on an axis that is tilted with respect to its orbit. The albedo (reflectivity) constantly changes. I will try and explain climate changes as I understand them.

1. The normal climate condition of this planet is what we call an Ice Age. Look back through the records and we see long periods of cold with shorter warm periods.

2. An Ice Age is Always proceeded by High concentrations of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide did not cause this directly. As the earth warms more things grow both animal and vegetable. Due to the increased bio-mass more CO2 is produced. This causes the albedo to increase because of higher portions of the planet being coverd by forests and the like. More energy is reflected away and not absorbed by the earth itself. Finally a tipping point is reached and the temperatures begin to plunge.

3. During the long Ice Age, which reflects even more energy away, the earth stores less and less energy in the heat banks of the earth. Remember snow and ice are highly relective.

4. Some mechanism not understood as of yet causes more energy to be released into the climate which begins to allow temperatures to rise. Water Vapor increases and more energy can be trapped in the atmosphere and the earth begins to recover from an Ice Age.

5. As the earth warms more bio-mass is created and the CO2 levels increase and we start the whole cycle again.

6. No one understands how this works. I repeat, NO ONE UNDERSTANDS HOW THIS WORKS. We have guesses. We know certain data points seem to increase and decrease in correspondence with these events. Were they cause or effect? We do not really know.

7. Water Vapor is the most important and most signifigant Green House Gas. We do not have a clue and it is not modeled in the computers the actions of clouds (Water Vapor) on climate change.

8. There are literally hundreds of variables that effect the energy input into the climate system. We are only beginning to have a handle (I think we still do not) on just a few.

9. Who seems to be talking science now and who is selling snake oil. By the Way, as a matter of full discloser I do not have a degree in anything. I am 57 years on this planet and would not waste my time with being indoctrinated by any body.

Thanks I will get off the Soap Box now.

I agree, except for this

December 20, 2008 - 22:56 ET by CobraMan

I agree with you, except for this: "This causes the albedo to increase because of higher portions of the planet being coverd by forests and the like. More energy is reflected away and not absorbed by the earth itself."

Plants absorb sunlight in the infrared and ultraviolet wavelength ranges, red and blue light. This actually DECREASES the albedo and not increases it.

Part of that absorbed solar energy is used for metabolism, but a good percentage is emitted as heat energy from the plants into the surrounding air through the process of evaporation of water and the process of convection. The ground, and air, below the plants may be cooler, but the air above the plants gets warmer.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

I might be wrong

December 20, 2008 - 22:59 ET by richb313

I might be wrong but I think the net effect is still more reflected away. Shiny verses dull. Shiny (green leaves) reflect more than dull. Dull absorbs more energy than shiny not matter how the books are cooked.

Rocks and sand are shiny

December 20, 2008 - 23:12 ET by CobraMan

Rocks and sand are shinier than plants as the high silica content contained within stone reflects light more than refracting or absorbing it. It's easier to see a denuded mountain range (bare rock) from a distance than a forested one as more light is reflected from bare rock than grasses, trees, bushes, etc.

There is an exception (isn't there always an exception?), and that's bare dirt versus bare rock. Normal "dirt," as we know it, has a lower albedo than bare rock because that dirt it is mixed with the remains of plant and animal life and it's this material that tends to decrease the earth's albedo.

If it wasn't for the plant and animal life that exists on Earth, our planetary albedo would be several times higher that it currently is. It would also be a hell of a lot colder.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Thanks

December 20, 2008 - 23:20 ET by richb313

Thanks for thr reply. I admit I cannot fully understand this. I am gratefull for your input. I am making my observations from thousands of hours of air travel as a result of my work. It always seemed to me that forested areas were always more higly relectective (brighter) than bare areas. I freely admit this is just from a casual observation.

You're welcome

December 20, 2008 - 23:30 ET by CobraMan

You're welcome. The next time you're flying, take a look at a sandy beach versus a forest or grassy area, You'll notice that the sand reflects a lot more light than the plants do. The same is true of bare rock.

BTW, a lot of that "shininess" you see is actually refracted light. Most plants have a waxy coating which helps hem to retain water. Some of light that travels through that waxy substance is refracted at angles greater than 180 degrees. In other words, it's being "reflected" into the atmosphere at oblique angles instead of being reflected directly back to the source or being absorbed by the plant. This mean that the "reflected" light actually travels through much more air than it normally would if those plants were not there. You don't notice this because you are unable to look directly below you as you fly. If you could, you would notice that light isn't reflect back into space as much as you thought.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Good to know

December 20, 2008 - 23:39 ET by richb313

Good to know. Another factoid to enter the mix. I will have to ponder on this a while and see if I can deduce a mechanism from what I know of physics and thermo dynamics to see how this effects the picture as a whole. I like to think things through for myself rather than depend of the expertise of others. I have been burned way too many times in the past.

Something else to consider.

December 20, 2008 - 23:51 ET by CobraMan

Here's something else to consider: It's a LOT easier to get a suntan on the areas of your skin that do not face the sun directly when you're laying on sand or stone as opposed to laying on grass. This is because that sand or stone is reflecting more sunlight (especially UV light) back onto your skin than grass does.

Also, you'll notice that it's cooler laying on grass than on sand or stone because the grass is absorbing the IR light in far greater quantities than the sand or stone. Instead of that solar IR light being reflected back to you and heating your skin, it is being absorb by the grass and is being used to facilitate metabolism.

These are two simple, and enjoyable, experiments to try the next time you're in a warm climate and have some time on your hands.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Excuse my ignorance

December 21, 2008 - 00:05 ET by richb313

Does not something that is cool have less energy than something that is warm? To me this would mean that the cool grass supports my reasoning, as does the warm sand. The land absorbs and stores heat and the leaves and grass cannot as efficiently. The dirt etc is a more compact and compressed media which can bank energy better? This to my eyes actually seems to confirm my reasoning.

Metabolism

December 21, 2008 - 00:14 ET by CobraMan

You're forgetting that metabolism requires energy. In plants, that energy comes from light. Instead of being reflected or emitted as heat, that light energy is being used to convert matter from one form to another. Overall, the energy levels remain the same. It's just the types of energy that is changing. In this case, from radiative energy (sunlight) into molecular energy (plant matter).

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Right On

December 21, 2008 - 00:35 ET by richb313

Yes but would this not also mean that we are removing heat and not storing it? Energy has been converted. When the tree finally falls or it is burned do we get back the heat or has that energy been changed to other forms in the growing of the tree. In other words do we get the same enrgy as heat back in the same efficencies as we do in the earths heat banks of rock, dirt and sand. I will not mention the largest bank in the oceans as this has nothing to do with this discussion. This is very interesting to me. I believe there is a net loss due to this metabolism due to converting energy to growth. Energy cannot be lost but can be converted to other types of energy that will have less direct effect on the heat budget. That is my reasoning anyway. Heat is always radiated as waste energy in any system I have worked with or have an even passing understanding of. Energy can be converted to work. Work usually removes net energy from any system as far as the total heat is concerned or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Work is accomplished when the tree grows. Gravity must be overcome. Earth must be pushed aside. Sunlight must be converted to sugars. Wind must be resisted. I find it hard in my mind to get all the possble heat producing energies back. What is your take?

Plants store energy in molecular structures

December 21, 2008 - 01:56 ET by CobraMan

We're not "removing" heat per say, we're changing energy from one form to another. Unlike stone, the radiate energy that the plants receive isn't transformed into heat or re-emitted as IR energy, it's transformed into molecular bonds. You can look at it storing energy in the plants instead using it to generate heat in the stone. A battery as compared to a light bulb.

Plants can absorb and store vast amounts of radiative energy. Stone, on the other hand, can not.

The plants uses sunlight to build complex molecules and arrange them into ever larger patterns. The sunlight energy is 'locked up" in those molecular structures as it takes MORE energy to create a large molecules than to break a large molecule into two or more smaller molecules. That larger molecule creates an energy demand, and the energy of that sunlight supplies that additional energy demand. It takes even MORE energy to transport those newly created molecules somewhere in the plant itself. This is what metabolism is, the process of creating large molecules out of small ones and moving them withing a system. That process itself requires energy, it doesn't generate it.

Stone doesn't metabolize, doesn't demand energy like a plant. The molecules of the stone itself can only "store" a VERY tiny amount of energy, the rest is ether converted into molecular motion, known as heat, is converted back into radiative energy, or the additional energy actually breaks the molecular bonds of the stone itself, which generate even more heat as the energy levels of the smaller molecules is LESS than the value of the larger molecule. Instead of being stored as complex molecules, the majority of that energy has simply been re-emitted as heat or IR energy.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Thanks Again

December 20, 2008 - 23:26 ET by richb313

By the Way Cobraman what do you do for a living? Until I had to go on disability I was a Supervisor for Oceaneering Intl Inc. I ran ROV's and the like. Electronics is my background but also have a working knowlege of sevearl technical trades that were important in my work. I could survey and the like in a pinch. Been at sea most of my adult life. Was a Submarine Sonarman on Fast Attacks in the 70's. So I understand a little about Oceanography and the physics of water.

Office Manager

December 20, 2008 - 23:32 ET by CobraMan

I'm an office manager for a national insurance company. I started there as a computer tech, and they found out I was good at organizing. Since the pay is better, I'm not complaining.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Go Figure

December 20, 2008 - 23:35 ET by richb313

The best discussion on topic in this thread is being conducted by non-scientists. Logical discorse trumps hystaria everytime.

I wonder

December 20, 2008 - 23:43 ET by CobraMan

I wonder if this is true because we, as non-scientist, have nothing to worry about when we're wrong, so there's nothing for us to loose. We have no scientific reputation to uphold, we have no pet theories to defend, our income isn't dependent on us being 100 percent correct, so we can discuses things in a larger context that a "normal" scientist would when discussing his or her "area of expertise."

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

A Rare Commodity

December 20, 2008 - 23:48 ET by richb313

You show wisdom CobraMan. That is a rare commodity these days. I am tired of Smart People ruining my life. I will take wisdom any day of the week.

What boat did you ride

December 21, 2008 - 02:41 ET by jackssn

As a retired boat ET I would love to know. I road from 63 thru 84.

USS Tunny SSN 682

December 21, 2008 - 07:01 ET by richb313

I was in Uncle Sams Canoe club from 73 to 79. Best job I ever had but unfortunately had to be in the Navy to do it. Service today much better. This was when Jimmy C. was in charge and Zummie was his accolyte. Need I say more?

One more thing

December 20, 2008 - 23:51 ET by richb313

One more thing I would like to add. The most important areas of the variables are between the 30th and the 60th degrees of longitude. Above the 60th the weather is usually colder and less energy can be abrobed because of the tilt of the axis of the earth. The albedo does change but essentialy remains in a narrow window. The same can be said of the areas below the 30th degree. These areas remain warm even in an ice age and the energy input remains relativly constant. This means that above the 30th and below the 60th is where most of the variability can occur. I know this is important. Do I understand the signifigance? Not really. I have my own guesses, but have no way to test them.

More crystal clear logic from Thom Hartmann

December 20, 2008 - 22:23 ET by Jeff Stone

He also brought the following brilliant hypotheses to his radio program:

Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash.
High income taxes correlate with economic growth.
Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.
Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.

These, too, were supported by the facts.

This Seems To Be The "Hot" Topic Of The Night. . .

December 21, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Asian Con

I agree with others on here that the weather has been wildly unstable for the better part of Earth's history. Shifting from ice ages to warming periods and back. It's only since the end of the last ice age (about 12,000 years ago) that we experienced some stability in the weather patterns. The industrial age has been around for about 150 years. It is insulting to think that the enviro-nazis want you to believe that in 150 years we totally destroyed the eco system of this planet.

On the History Channel, one of my fave channels BTW, there is an interesting piece about the Little Ice Age. Something Al Gore doesn't mention in his little "documentary". After the dark ages, we went through a period of warming called, "The Medieval Warming Period". This period lasted about 7 or 8 centuries in which the worlds population skyrocketed, prosperity rose, and life expectancy increased. Then something happened around the 12th or 13th century. No one knows for sure but, scientists theorize that due to sun spots and/or shifting of the Earth's axis, we started receiving less sunlight. It didn't send us into an ice age but, there was a significant shift in the climate hence, "The Little Ice Age". This led to the Bubonic Plague, which wiped out about a third of the world's population. There were also massive volcanic eruptions which contributed to the cooling factor that lasted until the late 19th century. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think cars, coal mines or aerosol sprays existed back then. Hope I didn't bore you all.

"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"

You are right my friend.

December 21, 2008 - 00:53 ET by richb313

I am having a blast in my discussions with CobraMan. I am learning new things but also thinking. Thinking is sorely lacking by most proponents of Man Made Global Warming. I do not mind the study of the effects of man to the climate. It is important. I think we should reduce our carbon output, not because of global warming but because by that reduction we will also put less soot in the air. It will get cleaner, which by the way could have a greater negative impact on the climate. I just want someone to admit they cannot possibly know what the climate will do 100 years from now by changing one variable when we cannot possibly know the full impact of any variable yet. We simply do not have even a rudimentary understanding of the climate system yet. It is too complex with literally thousands of poorly understood interactions. We do not even have a complete list of all the variables effecting the climate yet anyway. To assume we do is just too arrogant for me to take.

When any meteorologist can

December 21, 2008 - 01:02 ET by Trix Rabbit

When any meteorologist can successfully and flawlessly explain the upcoming weather for the next seven days is when I will believe the pseudo-scientists can correctly state what will happen to the earth's climate.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

Good morning Trix

December 21, 2008 - 01:08 ET by cocodrie

The only completely accurate weather prediction in history was when God told Noah it was going to rain.

Very true, Coco, and there

December 21, 2008 - 01:12 ET by Trix Rabbit

Very true, Coco, and there hasn't been one since that time.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

Down here

December 21, 2008 - 01:20 ET by cocodrie

the weather varies so much I think the weathermen use a dart board.

Heck Trix...I'd settle for

December 21, 2008 - 01:16 ET by bigtimer

Heck Trix...I'd settle for the three day forecast by the weather-guessers to be correct.

I think about one week ago or so was the first time I heard one out of three on our local stations say he was just wrong about the three day forecast, let alone the next day.

Yet we all listen to these guys/gals...we are just as well off as to stick our heads out our doors at times or feel/know our weather that is coming by experience naturally from the area we live in....

Or something like that.

I am also including the satellite pictures...that tells one a lot anyway.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I think we should reduce

December 21, 2008 - 06:46 ET by Jack Bauer

I think we should reduce our carbon output, not because of global warming but because by that reduction we will also put less soot in the air.

We are, of course, a carbon based life-form.

And Carbon Dioxide is actually a colorless, odorless gas commonly known as Dry Ice!

Unlike Carbon Monoxide which is not good for our health.

I have a theory that most people think that the Carbon Dioxide the Green Shirts have zeroed in on, is actually the noxious Carbon Monoxide so beloved as a Suicide device via a hose into your car.

I would love to conduct a multi-choice poll asking people what Carbon Dioxide is. I would bet that most would confuse Monoxide and Dioxide as the same.

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

Nah...

December 21, 2008 - 01:01 ET by andophiroxia

I remember i had some friends that read about the "Inconveinent Truth" or they watched it. They also mentioned that Gore conveinently "forgot" all the phytoplankton that exists in the Earth's oceans that comprise about 95% of the world's vegetation.

Whoops Gore.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

An Inconvenient Truth is Science Fiction

December 21, 2008 - 06:11 ET by PopularTech

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)

Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)

75 Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Book) (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Little Ice Age - Big Chill (History Channel)

December 21, 2008 - 06:04 ET by PopularTech

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

One More Comment

December 21, 2008 - 01:08 ET by richb313

I have one more comment and something for all you to chew on. Just because a person went to university and got an advanced science degree that does not make him or her a scientist. Science is a method of reasoning and testing for the truth. It is a way to remove the human tendency for error from the system. Science is the study and search for the truth using the scientific method. That method requiers that any theory should be able to be tested by any like minded scientist. If the tests or experiments yield the same results then the theory is considered valid. Remember this all it takes is one exception to invalidate any theory. Einstien was under a lot of flak from all the elder German Scientist especially in the 30's when the Nazi's were coming into power. The Nazi party rounded up all the top German Scientists and had them try and discredit Einstien. Einstien was asked by reporters of the time if he was worried that he was wrong. He replied he was not and that he was confident he was correct in his assertions, but he also added that no matter the opinions of all the pre-emminent scientists of the time all that would be needed was one of them to PROVE him wrong. They never could. Politics has no place in science and likewise science has no place in politics.

Very Astute, RichB

December 21, 2008 - 01:11 ET by Asian Con

Also, didn't Einstein spend the rest of his latter years trying to disprove his own theories?

"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"

I suppose he wanted to keep

December 21, 2008 - 01:20 ET by andophiroxia

I suppose he wanted to keep himself honest. However, I do not know much about Einstein's later life in terms of his scientific theories other than the obvious. However, if he wanted to disprove his theories, hey at least he wanted to make sure he was right and still accurate, instead of these retards that seemed to have wasted their money on degrees but somehow didn't learn the Scientific Method to just make up something with pseudoscience and to leave a legacy.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

E=MC2

December 21, 2008 - 01:26 ET by Asian Con

Einstein's story is very compelling, too. The History Channel, recently, had a good profile on him. He was a late developer. I don't think he even learned to talk until he was almost 10! The only person, I think, that compares to him right now is Stephen Hawking.

"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"

I miss the History Channel.

December 21, 2008 - 01:40 ET by andophiroxia

I miss the History Channel. :(

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

Hawking is hype

December 21, 2008 - 02:27 ET by RESTLESS 1

I'm not so sure that stevie hawk is all that bright. Seems even he can be blinded by the hype.

"Stephen Hawking is being quoted in a German paper as writing in an
upcoming book that the Earth may become uninhabitable thanks to high
temperatures within the next millennia. The paper quotes him as saying,
“I fear that the atmosphere becomes ever hotter than it is presently.
If this occurs, it may reach a Venus-like state of bubbling sulfuric
acid. I focus many of my concerns around the greenhouse effect.”
Assuming this isn’t a mistranslation, what is Hawking talking about?
Even the worst case global warming scenarios don’t support this sort of
absurdity. When originally proposed, the global warming hypothesis
maintained that additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by
human beings would warm the planet by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius over the
next 100 years. The most current models, which still have to leave out
the enormous complexities such as the role that clouds play in
regulating global temperatures, have cut the amount of warming in half
— based on current evidence, the climate is going to warm by anywhere
from 1.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Although infrequent, such warming has occurred several times within
recorded human history — a similar warming period was responsible for a
vast expansion in agriculture during the early medieval period.

But nobody is predicting we’re going to turn the Earth into
Venus. That’s something I’d expect from a third grader trying to
understand climate issues, not somebody with Hawking’s intelligence
(which just goes to show that even the brightest scientists are often
complete morons when they start talking about things outside their
field)."

"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

Mr. Hawking sometimes goes

December 21, 2008 - 07:55 ET by eaglewingz08

Mr. Hawking sometimes goes off his meds. We have to cut him a break now and then. It isn't easy to be Commander Pike without the beautiful women and head mutated beings creating new edens. He just got stuck into a malthusian worldview, and if we were in his body, perhaps that would be understandable.

At this point, I have to

December 21, 2008 - 14:12 ET by PeskyDane

At this point, I have to wonder just how much control he shares with his handlers over what is published in his name. For all his brilliance, isn't climatology outside his field? Also - isn't this the same man who once asserted that [paraphrase here] when we achieve a unified theory, then we will know the mind of God? Sort of a "conservative" statement, IMN2BHO.

Love the quote...

December 22, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Georgia Girl

Andophiroxia,

I love the Churchill quote...my son has a disability, and one of the quotes I put up on his bedroom door is one of Churchill's simple (but profound) pearls of wisdom: "Never, never, never, never give up." :)

He did not like quantum mechanics

December 21, 2008 - 01:21 ET by richb313

He helped invent quantum mechanics but could never come to terms with all it's implications. The Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle to name just one. A famous quote of his "God does not play dice." Eienstien was unsettled with any system that would rely on probabilities to make it work. He always felt that this just proved we did not understand the subject fully. I tend to side with him on that, but for now quantum mechanics works. The very computer and the internet itself (fiber optics) depend on it. He also tried to come up with a Unified Field Theory which would show the connections of all the forces,(Weak, Strong, Electro Magnetic, Gravity etc) He was working on it to his death but never could make the theory work.

"Eienstien was unsettled

December 21, 2008 - 02:35 ET by RESTLESS 1

"Eienstien was unsettled with any system that would rely on probabilities to make it work."

Isn't that exactly what AGW is? Is it not based entirely on "probabilities"? And isn't the weighting of forcings subjective as well, guarantying flawed results from models?

"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

Seriously

December 21, 2008 - 05:35 ET by Doodles93

I thought Global warming was the world getting hotter, not the world getting colder. Unless they meant global cooling,
lol.

Climate Change

December 21, 2008 - 06:55 ET by richb313

You didn't get the memo. Please refer to man made global warming in the future as climate change. Since the climate always changes they can never be wrong in the future. More power to the central planners, huurah. Everyone genuflect and prostate yourself before the chosen one.

Remember in the 70s the

December 21, 2008 - 07:51 ET by eaglewingz08

Remember in the 70s the Global Cooling fanatics who claimed an ice age was imminent, then temps started to heat up. Well, what if the media actually got behind them for thirty years and started saying that global warming was actually the result of global cooling, until thirty years later, 2004, temps started to cool, then all the global cooling fanatics could shout out, see we're right, global cooling caused warming and cooling, where's our Nobel Prizes? Unfortunately for the global warming fanatics, global cooling got there first and so no prizes go to those zanies on the left. Just get out your parkas and prepare for another three months or so of global climate change.

The Main problem with AGW or Climate Change

December 21, 2008 - 08:22 ET by ahusser

Or whatever movement (aside from it being a political movement with quasi-religious overtones) is that if the climate is getting warmer naturally then there is probably not much we can do about it. If the climate is warming through man made means then how much 'Greening' is necessary to 'control' it.

The dire pronouncements from the left are all over the map with the consequences you know 200 foot rise in sea levels to 6 inches, drought, cold, heat hurricanes you name it. So we are going to spend billions or more dollars and maybe destroy our economy on something that doesn't exist or even if it does exist how do we know we can even 'fix' whatever's wrong. How much fixing is necessary, how much money, how long will it take. I don't think these folks have these answers. Personally I think nature is much more powerful than man but at least if mother nature throws us a curve I know that it is just an act of nature without agendas, motives or maliciousness. I can't trust these hysterical pronouncements of doom from folks who's real agenda is hidden and politically motivated. I don't want to stake my and my children's standard of living on hysteria especially from folks who manufacture a different doom and gloom scenario every few years like some fashion show. IMO these folks seem to have some kind of delusional vision of a Socialist Utopia.

Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster

Let us Assume

December 21, 2008 - 09:39 ET by richb313

Let us Assume for the sake of argument that the predictions of the earth warming are correct. What makes more sense then to plan for the upcoming changes or to try and stop something that simply cannot be stopped no matter how much we try. A minor investment can be made and plans made and gradually implimented that would minimize the impact of upcoming events. Let me state it another way does it make more sense to get out of the way of a hurricane or should we put all our resources into trying to stop it.

You

December 21, 2008 - 10:44 ET by ahusser

Can plan all you want but until you know what actually the effect of such warming (if it even exists) is then planning is just BS. Again how much money or destruction of the economy can we tolerate for an ephemeral result. The earth's climate has changed hundreds if not thousands of times without our even being here. It is the height of arrogance to believe that we can have a real impact on climate. Nothing should be spent or done until the effects of any climate change (if any) is more clear. You talk of a minor investment but I submit most of the folks pushing this BS want radical change. No more coal fired industries for instance, no nuclear, less oil etc.

Until other energy sources have the ability to compete in cost and infrastructure with coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil then any restriction and/or taxation on their use will just be destructive. Look what 4 dollar oil did to the economy. I would rather risk mother nature's destruction than human folly based on some cultish/religious/political nature worship disguised as science. Most fixes for natures curveballs are practical and local in nature like levees and dikes in flood prone areas or earthquake resistant building codes etc. We just don't possess the technology or money to fix something that may or may not exist.

Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster

The circle-jerking of misinformation

December 21, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Giles Winterbourne

This has gotten too painful. The circle-jerking of misinformation, the
comradely backslapping, the willing acolytes, the malicious
maelstrom, the brainless sycophants....

A few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:

The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about
climate change (PDF)
- http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
- http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably
thorough debunking
- http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
Responses to common contrarian arguments
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
Climate change - the big picture
- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
Global Warming Myths and Facts
- http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274

Basic Science

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
or a bit more simplified:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/

For further reading:Also see

"Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who
want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all
evidence to the contrary."
- http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier
- http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/delay-phrases-script-for-a-climate-denier.html
Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds
- http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate-change-denial-nothing-but-lies-and-frauds/
Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology
- http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
God delights as Pope transpires not to be total ass.
- http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/god-delights-as-pope-transpires-not-to-be-ass/
"The 1930s were the Warmest Decade, and Climate Fascists
Need to Find God"
- http://www.layscience.net/node/438
Insert “swindle” joke here
- http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/insert-swindle-gag-here/
Humbug! The skeptics’ field guide to spotting fallacies in
thinking
- http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/12/podcast-hunting-humbug-101-tutorial-10.html
" You know you are talking about politics, not science,
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science."
- http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/just-shut-up.html
Climate change and your lying eyes
- http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/climate-change-and-your-lying-eyes/
"Of course, the usual collection of anti-science warriors
blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own
fabrications."
- http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php
When Skeptics Go Bad: From Climate Skeptics to 9/11 Truthers
- http://www.layscience.net/node/43
"As a society we are preparing for a medium-sized
climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being greater than we had anticipated."
- http://climatesafety.org/downloads/climatesafety.pdf

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in
Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
- www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Deja Vu all over again

December 21, 2008 - 13:50 ET by dbo

This has gotten too painful. The circle-jerking of misinformation, the

comradely backslapping, the willing acolytes, the malicious

maelstrom, the brainless sycophants

That's funny. That's the same exact thing Ed Wegman said in his congressional report about Michael Mann and his "peer reviewed" cronies.

http://www.climateau...

So Giles, I guess there's a

December 21, 2008 - 13:52 ET by PeskyDane

So Giles, I guess there's a debate going on, huh?

Giles,Unhinged ;Looks like the snow in Lost Wages,

December 21, 2008 - 14:27 ET by upcountrywater

has froze the last remaining reason you may, of had.

The spotless S** word for today 12-21-2008..

FREEDOM

(D)

Blown away...snowed away...whatever!

December 21, 2008 - 17:53 ET by Georgia Girl

Well, I just don't even know what to say. To refute Mr. Thom Hartmann's "theory" (and I really mean nonsense, not theory) would require some patience on my part, and I feel a little short on patience today for the wacky liberal views that I see permeating so many areas of our society.

I'm truly beginning to understand how teenagers feel when they resort to that slightly obnoxious, rather vague, dismissively frustrated "whatever!" retort. It's like they realize it's futile (or not worth their time) to try to convince or argue with an audience who can't relate to them, but yet they have enough fight in them not to just stuff their feelings. ;)

So, for today, all I can summon up for Mr. Hartmann is: WHATEVERRR! (Gee, that is oddly self-calming...I can see where it could become a habit). ^_^

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Skeptics Guide

December 21, 2008 - 18:52 ET by PopularTech

Poor Giles keeps forgetting about this:

"More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming" - 2008 Texas A&M University Study

Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, UK)

Guides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
Global Warming FAQ (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global Warming: Science vs. Nonsense (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)

Myths:
Fallacies about Global Warming (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Five Biggest Myths about Global Warming (The Washington Examiner)
Global Warming: Fact and Myth (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
Green Myths On Global Warming - Debunked (The Association of British Drivers, UK)
Heartland President Debunks Global Warming Myths (The Heartland Institute)
Myths and Facts About the Environment (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Myths of Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, ABC News)
Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007 (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science)
Top 10 Environmental Myths (PDF) (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)

Papers:
A Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming (PDF) (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
Climate Change is Nothing New (PDF) (Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering)
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, Physics & Society)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF) (Kesten C. Green, Ph.D. Management Science, J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. MIT)
Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology)
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking (PDF) (David Henderson, Professor of Economics)
Is the Climate Really Changing Abnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Is the Earth still recovering from the "Little Ice Age"? (PDF) (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Low climate sensitivity and other inconvenient truths (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research (PDF) (Arthur Rörsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics)
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)
The Global Warming Scam (PDF) (Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us (PDF) (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide - The Innocent Source of Life (PDF) (Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate (PDF) (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatology)

Reports:
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Whilst at the same time

December 23, 2008 - 02:04 ET by Giles Winterbourne

PT demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to
suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a
motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently
begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it)They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill
level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own
previous lack of skill.

Overview at http://en.wikipedia....

Full paper at http://www.apa.org/j...

Giles , no HOT weather DATA from you, just hot air

December 23, 2008 - 11:18 ET by upcountrywater

It's you that has shown all of us here your INCOMPETENTLY, in a constructive argument in regards to AGW..

FREEDOM

(D)

Good morning Giles

December 23, 2008 - 11:29 ET by cocodrie

thanks for the summation of your skill level. It was nice of you to critique your climate knowledge for us.

Merry Christmas and God bless

Really, do you read what you write?

December 23, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Giles Winterbourne

WTF is "your INCOMPETENTLY"?

Or even read what others post?

You are positing a position that has no basis in reality. Thus, if you feel the need to have a 'discussion' on the points being ineffectively raised by the anti-science propagandists, it saves us all time by just pointing out that all those points have been debunked:

A few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:

The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about
climate change (PDF)
- http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
- http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably
thorough debunking
- http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
Responses to common contrarian arguments
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
Climate change - the big picture
- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
Global Warming Myths and Facts
- http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274

"First, they have not come up with any plausible
alternative culprit
for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for
example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the
atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human
activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be
responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative,
they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they
had one,
which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells
us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the
atmosphere is wrong."

John P. Holdren

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/
- "Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who
  want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all
  evidence to the contrary."
  - http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
- Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier
  - http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/delay-phrases-script-for-a-climate-denier.html
- Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds
  - http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate-change-denial-nothing-but-lies-and-frauds/
- Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The
  Role of Ideology
  - http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
- God delights as Pope transpires not to be total ass.
  - http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/god-delights-as-pope-transpires-not-to-be-ass/
- "The 1930s were the Warmest Decade, and Climate
  Fascists Need to Find God"
  - http://www.layscience.net/node/438
- Insert “swindle” joke here
  - http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/insert-swindle-gag-here/
- Humbug! The skeptics’ field guide to spotting fallacies
  in thinking
  - http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/12/podcast-hunting-humbug-101-tutorial-10.html
- " You know you are talking about politics, not science
  You know the data refutes you,
  Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
  Everything to do with diversion and delay.
  And nothing to do with science."
  - http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/just-shut-up.html
- Climate change and your lying eyes
  - http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/climate-change-and-your-lying-eyes/
- "Of course, the usual collection of anti-science
  warriors blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own
  fabrications."
  - http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php
- When Skeptics Go Bad: From Climate Skeptics to 9/11
  Truthers
  - http://www.layscience.net/node/430
- "As a society we are preparing for a medium-sized
  climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being
  greater than we had anticipated."
  - http://climatesafety.org/downloads/climatesafety.pdf

Commentary on the anti-scientific propagandist ideology

Giles suffering from Alarmist Desperation

December 23, 2008 - 20:36 ET by PopularTech

Giles you are getting repetitive now and repeating long ago debunked Alarmist talking points.

Papers:
A Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming (PDF) (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
Climate Change is Nothing New (PDF) (Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering)
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, Physics & Society)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc. Natural Sciences)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF) (Kesten C. Green, Ph.D. Management Science, J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. MIT)
Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, CCM, AMS Fellow)
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking (PDF) (David Henderson, Professor of Economics)
Is the Climate Really Changing Abnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Is the Earth still recovering from the "Little Ice Age"? (PDF) (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Low climate sensitivity and other inconvenient truths (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research (PDF) (Arthur Rörsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics)
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)
The Global Warming Scam (PDF) (Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us (PDF) (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide - The Innocent Source of Life (PDF) (Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate (PDF) (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatology)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

p-tech....thanks for your

December 23, 2008 - 20:59 ET by porpoiseboy

continued battle to expose the truth about agw. there is alot of issues we don't agree on...but this is not one of them. the fact is that every day more and more people in the know stand up and let themselves be counted as at least skeptics and many in firm opposition to the tomfoolery. nice to see you have michael crichton listed....he will be missed as a highly qualified voice of reason.

merry christmas

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin

Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

Has anybody else

December 23, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Giles Winterbourne

noticed that:

None of the links go to real science organizations or journals
Most of the links offer sparse documentation - cites - to science journals

Really, along with long lists of anomalous weather (actually predicted in multiple IPCC reports), we get the general long list of crank writers who are

under or unqualified
continuously debunked as their stuff comes out

Really, if you want some smidgen of credibility, at least look at an undergraduate level of resource evaluation before using a source to disprove established science. It will help prevent social and intellectual embarrassment:

One short explanation on anti-scientific propagandists:

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit
for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for
example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the
atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human
activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be
responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative,
they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they
had one,
which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells
us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the
atmosphere is wrong."
- John P. Holdren
- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

And a bit more on the same topic:

"Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who
want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all
evidence to the contrary."

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier

http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/delay-phrases-script-for-a-climate-denier.html

Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate-change-denial-nothing-but-lies-and-frauds/

Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The
Role of Ideology

http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/

God delights as Pope transpires not to be total ass.

http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/god-delights-as-pope-transpires-not-to-be-ass/

"The 1930s were the Warmest Decade, and Climate Fascists
Need to Find God"

http://www.layscience.net/node/438

Insert “swindle” joke here

http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/insert-swindle-gag-here/

Humbug! The skeptics’ field guide to spotting fallacies in
thinking

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/12/podcast-hunting-humbug-101-tutorial-10.html

" You know you are talking about politics, not science,
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science."

http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/just-shut-up.html

Climate change and your lying eyes

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/climate-change-and-your-lying-eyes/

"Of course, the usual collection of anti-science warriors
blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own
fabrications."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php

When Skeptics Go Bad: From Climate Skeptics to 9/11
Truthers

http://www.layscience.net/node/43

"As a society we are preparing for a medium-sized
climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being
greater than we had anticipated."

http://climatesafety.org/downloads/climatesafety.pdf

→ Thanks Giles

December 23, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Cool Arrow

But I prefer to eat corn rather than stuff it in my gas tank just because it makes me feel green.

Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised. - Brit Hume

really giles?

December 23, 2008 - 21:24 ET by porpoiseboy

i will not even spend the time....but how is say michael crichton not qualfied? god rest his soul. only p-tech can surpass you in evidence...and he does quite easily. can you say bahh, bahhh?

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin

Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

Has anyone else noticed Giles has now resorted to spamming?

December 23, 2008 - 21:31 ET by PopularTech

Yeah Giles the links go to real scientists and many include hundreds of sources. Giles is still trying to declare that only he can decide what sources are valid, his Napoleon Complex continues.

Inconveniently, Climate Alarmists Are Wrong (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)

There are plenty of journal papers debunking the alarmism:

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

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- R. S. Courtney

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
- W. Kininmonth

Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- S. A. Boehmer-Christiansen

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard

- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change is Nothing New!
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, No. 42, March, 2007)
- Lance Endersbee

Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
(Physics & Society, Volume 37, Number 3, July 2008)
- Christopher Monckton

- Letter from Lord Monckton to APS President, Paper was Peer-Reviewed (PDF)
- Statement by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (PDF)

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 - 9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh

Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
- Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso

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

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

Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
- Christopher Monckton

Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
- R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler

Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux

Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
- Serge Galam

Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
- E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, July 2006)
- David Henderson

Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Number 2, 2007)
- David Henderson

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
(IdŰjárás, vol. 111, no1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany

Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
- Ya. K. Kondratyev

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, 2008)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.

Oceanic influences on recent continental warming
(Climate Dynamics, 2008)
- G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh

On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
- Olavi Kamer

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

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
- Fred Goldberg

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder

The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray

The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA - Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008)
- Ivan Jankovic

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson

The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
- Vincent Gray

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.

"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
(Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
- Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker

But those are pretty boring for people to read

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Astute readers will notice

December 23, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Giles Winterbourne

the lack of resources that are

in ISI,
get cited by journals that are in ISI
build on previous studies that are in journals that are in ISI
referenced by those actually researching
referenced by those setting policy

And you may now go on your 'elistist' tirade now.

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit
for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for
example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the
atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human
activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be
responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative,
they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they
had one,
which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells
us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the
atmosphere is wrong."
- John P. Holdren
- http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

“It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology,” http://www.nytimes.c...

Thanks to the Internet Elitists do not control information

December 23, 2008 - 22:14 ET by PopularTech

Before the Internet only elitist journal sources could censor all journals they wished but thanks to the Internet this is no more. (end elitist rant). Astute readers will notice the papers are not imaginary.

Giles and his alarmist buddies are mad as hell that they cannot control the information people read and thus resort to slander against all sources that dares to disagree with the imaginary consensus. Poor Giles all this effort and nothing to show for it.

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who

December 24, 2008 - 02:05 ET by Giles Winterbourne

"Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary."
- http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier
- http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/delay-phrases-script-for-a-climate-denier.html
Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds
- http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate-change-denial-nothing-but-lies-and-frauds/
Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The
Role of Ideology
- http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
God delights as Pope transpires not to be total ass.
- http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/god-delights-as-pope-transpires-not-to-be-ass/
"The 1930s were the Warmest Decade, and Climate Fascists
Need to Find God"
- http://www.layscience.net/node/438
Insert “swindle” joke here
- http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/insert-swindle-gag-here/
Humbug! The skeptics’ field guide to spotting fallacies in
thinking
- http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/12/podcast-hunting-humbug-101-tutorial-10.html
" You know you are talking about politics, not science,
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science."
- http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/2008/09/just-shut-up.html
Climate change and your lying eyes
- http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/climate-change-and-your-lying-eyes/
"Of course, the usual collection of anti-science warriors
blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own
fabrications."
- http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php
When Skeptics Go Bad: From Climate Skeptics to 9/11
Truthers
- http://www.layscience.net/node/43
"As a society we are preparing for a medium-sized
climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being
greater than we had anticipated."
- http://climatesafety.org/downloads/climatesafety.pdf

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in
Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
- www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Giles continue to spam the same repetitive thing

December 24, 2008 - 02:33 ET by PopularTech

So here goes... I can do this too!

Guides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
Global Warming FAQ (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
The Skeptics Handbook (PDF) (Joanne Nova, Ph.D. Meteorology)

Myths:
Fallacies about Global Warming (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Five Biggest Myths about Global Warming (The Washington Examiner)
Global Warming Economics: Facts vs. Myths (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global Warming: Fact and Myth (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Global Warming: Science vs. Nonsense (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
Green Myths On Global Warming - Debunked (The Association of British Drivers, UK)
Heartland President Debunks Global Warming Myths (The Heartland Institute)
Myths and Facts About the Environment (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Myths of Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, ABC News)
Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007 (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science)
Top 10 Environmental Myths (PDF) (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)

Papers:
A Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming (PDF) (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
Climate Change is Nothing New (PDF) (Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering)
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, Physics & Society)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc. Natural Sciences)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF) (Kesten C. Green, Ph.D. Management Science, J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. MIT)
Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, CCM, AMS Fellow)
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking (PDF) (David Henderson, Professor of Economics)
Is the Climate Really Changing Abnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Is the Earth still recovering from the "Little Ice Age"? (PDF) (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Low climate sensitivity and other inconvenient truths (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)
Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research (PDF) (Arthur Rörsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics)
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)
The Global Warming Scam (PDF) (Vincent R. Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us (PDF) (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide - The Innocent Source of Life (PDF) (Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate (PDF) (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatology)

Reports:
NIPCC: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Civil Society Report on Climate Change (PDF) (Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Now now PT

December 24, 2008 - 04:01 ET by RESTLESS 1

If it is in PDF form, Giles doesn't consider it. After all, he can't figure out wher it came from.

"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

"First, they have not come

December 23, 2008 - 21:33 ET by RESTLESS 1

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit
for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for
example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the
atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human
activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be
responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)"

Your side keeps saying this is so, but offer no proof to invalidate the evidence. After all, if the sun fails to rise tomorrow, how cold will it get? That your side fails to argue it doesn't make it so.

" Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative,
they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they
had one,
which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells
us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the
atmosphere is wrong."

Your side has failed to prove this as well. Too many subjective forcings, and too much on the line for Hansen et al. for them to do any REAL research into how GHG actually interracts with global temps. If they had, they would have chosen a bogeyman other than CO 2.

"Thi
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

→ It's the sky!!!

December 23, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Cool Arrow

It's not a perfect experiment, but I've noticed that when it gets cloudy in the Summer, it's usually not as hot as when the sky is blue.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe it's the blue sky that warms this planet? And when the sky is grey, it kinda gets colder and sadder? What else could cause this phenomenon?

Maybe the earth is about to cry when its skies turn grey.

Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised. - Brit Hume

BTW Giles

December 23, 2008 - 21:50 ET by RESTLESS 1

This would not be the first time the scietific community was turned ot it's ear by lay people.

"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

pt...stop making sense you will ruin

December 23, 2008 - 21:38 ET by porpoiseboy

all giles fun watching the "weather" channel, the "science" channel, the "discovery" channel and "animal planet".....if agw isn't real, then half ( or more ) of their programming is bullsh*+.

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin

Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left

Dolphin :)

December 23, 2008 - 21:54 ET by RESTLESS 1

The funny thing is that these programs refute themselves if you watch throughout.

"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

Giles suffers from Cognitive Dissonance

December 23, 2008 - 12:40 ET by PopularTech

Global Warming and Cognitive Dissonance Theory

"When discomfirmatory (contrary) evidence is presented, Festinger found one condition that often determined whether the belief is discarded or maintained with new fervor by belief with a strongloy held belief. That was whether or not the individual believer has social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand strong discomfirming evidence. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, you might expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselytice or persuade non-members that the belief is correct even in the face of data suggesting otherwise."

Cognitive Dissonance

"Festinger first developed this theory in the 1950s to explain how members of a cult who were persuaded by their leader, a certain (Al Gore), that the earth was going to be destroyed. The dissonance of the thought of being so stupid was so great that instead they revised their beliefs to meet with obvious facts: that (Al Gore) had, through their concern for the cult, saved the world instead."

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Isn't that Dignitive Incontinence?

December 23, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Cool Arrow

When all he's got are the talking points from the biggest Ponzii scheme ever devised, he can't help but splatter it all the way to the men's room.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

fallacy

December 23, 2008 - 17:23 ET by Giles Winterbourne

The only reason you can posit Cognitive Dissonance is by fitting it to the talking points of 'cooling' and through the ongoing confusion of climate v weather and local v global.

Since all of those talking points have been debunked, there isn't an issue of persistence. However, a case could be made for that being the case with the gullible skeptics following their leaders.

To bring this back to Hartmann's statement. The premise is covered in the basic science.

Basic Science

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
or a bit more simplified:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/

Giles suffers from Cognitive Dissonance

December 23, 2008 - 20:32 ET by PopularTech

You suffer from it by following Al Gore despite what the science and reality does tell us.

Absolutely nothing I have posted has been debunked, except in your mind.

Giles the IPCC has long ago been debunked

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)

The Basic Science is still the same:

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Pop,

December 23, 2008 - 20:43 ET by RESTLESS 1

And I hope you don't take offense at me calling you "Pop", (I've seen you take others to task for such trangressions), but you are responding to an idividual that can't get it through his mind that CO2 is not a major driver of global warming, or cooling. It is minor in the concentrations that occur naturally, much less the infinitesimal amount that man contributes.

"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

No offense taken

December 24, 2008 - 02:37 ET by PopularTech

Others didn't just call me "Pop" but added derogatory jabs to it. Giles is brainwashed because he is computer illiterate, this allows him to believe in virtual reality conclusions that do not exist in the real world.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT!

December 21, 2008 - 19:37 ET by Nof

ALERT ALERT!!!! Global warming or is it cooling? Is currently raging in the Pacific Northwest!

Here you can read about it!

Run for your lives!!!! Uncle Al was right! Its warming..errr I mean cooling...errr...Its warming brought about by cooling! Ahhhhhhhh!!!! Up is down, down is up...I'm gonna go suck my thumb now..

Noel will hate this video

December 21, 2008 - 19:46 ET by Clear thinker

Don't show this to your kids!!!

Disgusting Ecofascist Santa Claus

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

Clear, Isn't posting

December 21, 2008 - 20:03 ET by NL207

Clear,

Isn't posting this vid the moral equivalent of smearing feces on the wall next to the Christmas tree? Your allowed to do it, as long as it's your wall, but it is in poor taste.

NL207... Do you mean 'me'

December 21, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Clear thinker

NL207...

Do you mean 'me' posting the vid or Greenpeace-of-crap?

Disgusting Ecofascist Santa Claus

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

I should think anyone that

December 22, 2008 - 02:45 ET by NL207

I should think anyone that posts this on a new venue ...

You do have to admit that it is the product of distorted minds.

Hartmann is an idiot

December 22, 2008 - 14:37 ET by dammit

He just one on the list of absolute crazy, foolish, idiots that unfortunatly have a microphone in front of them

If It Is To Be, It Is Up To Me

then there's the truth that if agw

December 23, 2008 - 21:46 ET by porpoiseboy

is not true...there are alot of idiot going to be out of "work" and may be forced to look for "real jobs". can the economy take it right now? will the weather channel have to petition the bho administration for some tarp funds? the horror!

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin

Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left