[Uncle Skeleton]

Still don't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate" do you? Awww, that's rough. Poor guy...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"It's oddly cold out today. I guess global warming was wrong after all."

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

"It's oddly cold out today. I guess global warming was wrong after all."

I'm glad your seeing the light.

hehehehe

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=30e_1227885518

[Buckaroo]

International poll: 'Growing public reluctance' to support global warming efforts...

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/ne...e-7e6dd92d4ebe

[Buckaroo]

Now even the US Senate has concerns about the Gore Scam.


UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616db87e6

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

[Chongo]

....Meanwhile it's snowing in New Orleans

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

....Meanwhile it's snowing in New Orleans

And?

It snows in New Orleans.

1895



1963



among other years...

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Now even the US Senate has concerns about the Gore Scam.


UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

650 international scientists? Err, not exactly.

Field Geologist Louis A.G. Hissink is the editor of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists Newsletter and is currently working on the ore-reserve feasibility study of the Koongie Park Base Metals project in Western Australia. Hissink, who earned a masters in geology, recently dissented from man-made climate fears. "The assumption that humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the earth by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical evidence. No gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to misunderstand basic physics and the greenhouse effect," Hissink told EPW on January 21, 2008. "The global mean temperature derivations from the surface meteorological stations confuse the thermal state of the measuring instruments with unspecified volumes of air nor are those temperatures linked to any discrete physical object; in geostatistics this is known as a data set lacking sample support and no more a metric of the earth's thermal state as the mean calculated from the telephone numbers of the meteorological stations producing the temperature readings," Hissink explained. "Recent discoveries by NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely measured during polar aurora displays by satellites - this enormous source of energy, and thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth's thermal balance in global climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that modulates the earth's climate," Hissink added.

John Lott, Jr., who has a Ph.D in economics, is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and has published over 90 articles in academic journals. In his March 3, 2008, article arguing against man-made climate change, "Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis?", Lott said, "Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but "there has been no net global warming since 1998." Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling [...] Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun)."

Sound arguments

[tie]

Chongo has convinced me. How could it snow in New Orleans if there is global warming? Is this argument not airtight?

[Chongo]

More proof

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease

Sound arguments

Isn't this a fairly predictable refutation of the article cited though? Some of the statements included from former IPCC scientists are in fact pretty damning. Do we just pluck the 3 or 4 more absurd arguments as indicative of the entire debate?

Do you think the IPCC isn't likewise citing economists and geologists? The sole intent of the IPCC is to compile studies and policy statement summaries regarding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and the options for adaptation and mitigation. How would it serve this body and its well-documented intention to reference material that does not presuppose the above???

Do we apply the same degree of scrutiny to Al Gore, with absolutely no credentials at all, then mock any and all information referenced by him?

[Buckaroo]

Finally, we have some people that are thinking with their brain instead of their wacko? I'm not sure what I meant by that, but I couldn't think of what the Goreits were using to think.

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

http://businessandmedia.org/articles...218205953.aspx

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do we apply the same degree of scrutiny to Al Gore, with absolutely no credentials at all, then mock any and all information referenced by him?

I'll just point out that it's a totally different scenario. Gore is a politician, who references scientific works to make a public-policy case for global warming.

He is listed nowhere as a "scientist" proponent of global warming. No one says, "Over 5000 scientists agree with AGW, including Al Gore."

The scientists being referenced were used as "numbers" to indicate dissent, even though it seems that many of them do not work in the field, have no experience in the field, or haven't worked in the field in a long time. In other words, their opinions are being held up as "dissent."

greg

[PaperNotes]

Apart from using their names even when they don't agree with his alarmist message (such as Revelle and Thompson who he cites in his scifi comedy horror documentary) his is how Gore treats scientists:

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’

‘The current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken’

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.]

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer -- who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears -- are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," Inhofe said.
Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy," Happer explained in 1993.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'll just point out that it's a totally different scenario. Gore is a politician, who references scientific works to make a public-policy case for global warming.

That's exactly what the IPCC is commissioned to do as cited earlier.

He is listed nowhere as a "scientist" proponent of global warming. No one says, "Over 5000 scientists agree with AGW, including Al Gore."

Not even the Nobel Committee who granted its coveted prize to Al Gore and the IPCC?

The scientists being referenced were used as "numbers" to indicate dissent, even though it seems that many of them do not work in the field, have no experience in the field, or haven't worked in the field in a long time. In other words, their opinions are being held up as "dissent."

Granted, I agree that the tactics are a little predictable and certainly questionable in terms of raw numbers, but again they do not comprise the majority of contributors do they? The IPCC also cites works of those no longer in the field, economists, geologists, etc... in their policy summaries. If the advancement of science were entirely driven by consensus, I might be more inclined to agree. Unfortunately, much of it has come on the backs of those considered frankly a little bizarre and hobbyist.

The type of dishonesty you see from one side is often driven by the tactics of the other. PaperNotes' sources are simply making it more excitable for the masses. Certainly you'd agree this is not exclusive to them.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's exactly what the IPCC is commissioned to do as cited earlier.

Well the IPCC is merely a body. No one's questioning the credentials of the IPCC; "it" doesn't write the reports. People do. And we've already discussed that the scientists who contribute have impressive credentials.

Not even the Nobel Committee who granted its coveted prize to Al Gore and the IPCC?

He was awarded in a "public figurehead" capacity. He "spread awareness". That doesn't touch on the question of his credentials as evidence weight for AGW. (Because, uhh, he has none. )

Granted, I agree that the tactics are a little predictable and certainly questionable in terms of raw numbers, but again they do not comprise the majority of contributors do they? The IPCC also cites works of those no longer in the field, economists, geologists, etc... in their policy summaries. If the advancement of science were entirely driven by consensus, I might be more inclined to agree. Unfortunately, much of it has come on the backs of those considered frankly a little bizarre and hobbyist.

You answered your own issue right there. They cite the works. We've already discussed this on the last page. Nothing wrong with citing someone's works; if anyone disagrees, they are free to show the errors in that work to support their position.

As usual, "works" isn't the issue in question. The issue is whether Joe Blow scientist's opinion on AGW – independent of scientific works – is good enough to support disagreement.

Given the current Kevin-esque strategy to blindly yell "ad hominem" when those scientists are ultimately personally attacked, I call foul. If that's all you're giving as evidence, what else can one do?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well the IPCC is merely a body.

Right. A body compiled to study human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and draft policy regarding the options for adaptation and mitigation. How would it serve this body to include any information that does not presuppose human-induced climate change?

No one's questioning the credentials of the IPCC; "it" doesn't write the reports. People do. And we've already discussed that the scientists who contribute have impressive credentials.

True just as there are those with impressive credentials who challenge popular media hype on this issue and believe it should be tempered with acknowledging the state of the science. We've also discussed that authorship and contributing scientists/researchers are two different entities. There is a matter of integrity between these entities that has been problematic. There are IPCC contributors who are at odds with how the researchers' information is handled in one case referring to them as "misrepresentations", "being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

He was awarded in a "public figurehead" capacity. He "spread awareness". That doesn't touch on the question of his credentials as evidence weight for AGW. (Because, uhh, he has none. )

What if he is guilty of spreading FUD?

You answered your own issue right there. They cite the works. We've already discussed this on the last page. Nothing wrong with citing someone's works; if anyone disagrees, they are free to show the errors in that work to support their position.

I've already explained that in some cases they have, but the information is disregarded. Information that does not presuppose human-induced climate change does no good for a body compiled to study human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and draft policy regarding the options for adaptation and mitigation.

As usual, "works" isn't the issue in question. The issue is whether Joe Blow scientist's opinion on AGW – independent of scientific works – is good enough to support disagreement.

Joe Blow scientist's opinions on AGW are not necessarily independent of scientific works. With as many variables as those that exist in climate science, it does little good to frame the debate in terms of black or white IMO.

Given the current Kevin-esque strategy to blindly yell "ad hominem" when those scientists are ultimately personally attacked, I call foul. If that's all you're giving as evidence, what else can one do?

Since name-calling seems to be an important part of the debate, it doesn't surprise me that folks would yell "ad hom". It's kind of hard to maintain that they're yelling it blindly when you give such a good example of it above.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

As I said: when you only provide people who disagree – and not evidence based on scientific research – then you're not providing evidence at all. You're providing an opinion. Everyone has one of those, and the only way to counter an "incorrect" opinion is to show, time and time again, factual evidence that said opinion is wrong.

That's basically what's happened in this thread, over and over again. It's mostly just people posting opinions by this or that person on AGW, followed by someone else posting contrary evidence showing the state of scientific knowledge today. Over, and over, again. What's the point? Only in a case or two has those opinions been backed up with any kind of evidence.

As for the IPCC bit, it's certainly true that a body can be self-serving to some extent, but it's tiring to hear the paranoid, PaperNotes-esque rambling conspiracy theory-type bit. The IPCC is made up of scientists, and scientists are not without fault – but they are also prickly about being right in the name of science. It's a matter of pride in their profession, in my experience.

There's no vast conspiracy theory to cover up anti-AGW science.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

As I said: when you only provide people who disagree – and not evidence based on scientific research – then you're not providing evidence at all. You're providing an opinion. Everyone has one of those, and the only way to counter an "incorrect" opinion is to show, time and time again, factual evidence that said opinion is wrong.

There's a wealth of information to suggest a number of factors for global warming climate change. The question is the degree of human contribution to it. You frame the issue here in such a way as to imply that to have integrity, a study must argue against AGW when you already know this is not the "prickly" way of science. A number of studies exist that indicate profound correlations between natural phenomena and climate change.

That's basically what's happened in this thread, over and over again. It's mostly just people posting opinions by this or that person on AGW, followed by someone else posting contrary evidence showing the state of scientific knowledge today. Over, and over, again. What's the point? Only in a case or two has those opinions been backed up with any kind of evidence.

There is a reasonable doubt inherent in those one or two cases. Especially considering documented discord between contributors/researchers and authors in a review process that presupposes human-induced climate change. There are even some scientists upset with the IPCC summaries not being dire enough in their connection between humans and climate.

Conversely, zealots attempt to immediately marginalize these cases by citing a vast oil industry conspiracy.

As for the IPCC bit, it's certainly true that a body can be self-serving to some extent, but it's tiring to hear the paranoid, PaperNotes-esque rambling conspiracy theory-type bit. The IPCC is made up of scientists, and scientists are not without fault – but they are also prickly about being right in the name of science. It's a matter of pride in their profession, in my experience.

The IPCC is made up of scientists, politicians, economists, and authors. You act as if the conclusions of the contributing scientists' work goes right to print and press. You're more familiar with the IPCC process than this. The fact of the matter is that the most controversial statements made by this body have actually undergone very little by way of peer review. The critical reviews offered have been rejected without cause in some cases leaving truly prickly scientists scratching their heads and in some cases resigning their posts as IPCC contributors.

There's no vast conspiracy theory to cover up anti-AGW science.

There's no vast conspiracy theory to oppose AGW science.

[Chongo]

Interesting article from the telegraph. Full article at the link below.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 7:40AM GMT 29 Dec 2008

Polar bears will be fine after all Photo: AP

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo

Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the menace has abated

The measures are working! Just like offshore drilling worked to combat high oil prices! Yay!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The measures are working! Just like offshore drilling worked to combat high oil prices! Yay!

The global climate is sweating in its boots at the prospect of us doing something to mitigate it.

[Buckaroo]

How's this for odd? Minnesota sled dog race canceled because of too much snow

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articl...4&section=News

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

How's this for odd? Minnesota sled dog race canceled because of too much snow

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articl...4&section=News

Too much fluffy snow that keeps drifting and therefore made it impossible to maintain a groomed trail.

That poses a safety risk to the dogs, supercharged canines whose mushers need a groomed trail to drop a hook to stop when necessary.

...

“The drifting aspect is just unbelievable,” said Streeper, a native of Canada who has been involved with dogsled racing for 25 years. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

I never would have believed for a second that it would be snowing... and (more importantly to this article) windy... in winter... in Minnesota.

In other mushing news - well it's not really "news" since it's nearly 5 years old - the Iditarod's starting point was permanently moved in 2003 farther north due to lack of snow. Climate change and urban sprawl alter Iditarod race
Mosquitos? In Alaska? In winter? Now that is odd.

[Buckaroo]

Extreme Alaska cold grounds planes, disables cars

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/...a_extreme_cold

JUNEAU, Alaska – Ted Johnson planned on using a set of logs to a build a cabin in Alaska's interior. Instead he'll burn some of them to stay warm.
Extreme temperatures — in Johnson's case about 60 below zero — call for extreme measures in a statewide cold snap so frigid that temperatures have grounded planes, disabled cars, frozen water pipes and even canceled several championship cross country ski races.

[Warren Pease]

Dangit Buckaroo! You drew me into a debate about weather in a climate thread again. Shame on me.

Well played, sir.

[Buckaroo]

Here are some interesting comments in a reply to a news story concerning the -78 degrees in Alaska.

Robert Moore (Fidlin) wrote:
The only man made Global warming is in a computer model. I guess our Mars range Rover is causing the snow caps on Mars to melt.There will always be climate change unless of course we make human sacrifices like the ancient Mayans to appease the Gods.How about the ebb and flow from the power of the Sun.If anything on Earth is going to change the climate it'll be a major eruption in Yellowstone or elsewhere.As far as the suggestion to give Al Gore a thermometer let's please make it a rectal one.
January 10, 2009 2:27:11 PM EST

Dennis Patterson (Rascal69) wrote:
How very convenient. Temperature goes up and it is the result of ever-increasing CO2. Temperature goes down and it is apparently the result of ever-increasing CO2.

So which is it? Does increasing CO2 raise temperature, or lower temperature?

Duh!, Maybe it's not the CO2?
January 10, 2009 2:45:32 PM EST




Don Harban (mrdon) wrote:
Tim,
Actually, I was trained in science. And I am neither prepared to accept nor dismiss any point of view based on the tyrrany of the majority. Ultimately what matters in science is not the preponderance of opinion or even the preponderance of "evidence". What matters is what is true. Even if only one scientist can discover it.

I find it extremely ironic that we live in a culture which readily attaches itself to every great advance that science brings to us. And just as readily looks to science for the cure for the afflictions that the last great advance brought us. We have little but contempt for what science has done for (to?) us. Yet we eagerly return to the same well, the same culprits, for our future salvation.

I am skeptical of the rantings of scientists on all sides of this subject. I spent much of my career working with the very tools that these scientists place so much faith in, not the least of which are numerical models. And I am convinced that the people who would make policy based on the opinions of these scientists are relying on little more than their faith in a well told story about a subject they cannot remotely understand wrapped in the comfort of consensuses which are nothing more than mirages.
January 10, 2009 2:55:38 PM EST

[Warren Pease]

The cold snap in Alaska can't just be a high pressure area sitting over the mainland and not moving for several days. It must represent more!

[Wiskedjak]

It's interesting to see the unusually cold weather across all of North America used as an example *against* climate change. It certainly doesn't prove that climate change is happening, but it definitely doesn't disprove it either. It's not often that Las Vegas gets snow.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The cold snap in Alaska can't just be a high pressure area sitting over the mainland and not moving for several days. It must represent more!

It is the Russians using their weather control machine.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's not often that Las Vegas gets snow.

Why then is it called "nevada"?

[Buckaroo]

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age


http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...arth_ice_age-0


The real sad part is that man can't put out enough greenhouse gases no matter how hard he tried to save us from the next ice age.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The real sad part is that man can't put out enough greenhouse gases no matter how hard he tried to save us from the next ice age.

Don't be so pessimistic, Buckaroo! We only have ten thousand years before then - I'm sure we can do it if we really try!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's interesting to see the unusually cold weather across all of North America used as an example *against* climate change. It certainly doesn't prove that climate change is happening, but it definitely doesn't disprove it either. It's not often that Las Vegas gets snow.

So... I just want to make sure it's climate change now and not global warming. I think it's important to get this down now before future threads.

[Buckaroo]

How can you believe any of this crap when they make claims like this?

President 'has four years to save Earth'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...m-hansen-obama

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

These morons are so full of BS I can smell them all the way across the country.

[Buckaroo]

Here it is, more proof that Al Gores is conducting a huge scam. The whole carbon trading thing will only do one thing and that is line Al Gore with Green bills in his pocket. Al Gore should go to jail for this scam.

James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity.

Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal.

The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rue&print=true

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Is that, like, carbon dioxide?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Is that, like, carbon dioxide?

Dihydrogen Monoxide - this stuff needs to be band. It's can kill you.

[Buckaroo]

Former astronaut speaks out on global warming

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/na...osition=recent

Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

[Buckaroo]

I'm not surprised. I'll be willing to bet 80% of all the data that Al Gore presented is off, along with the programs that they used to evaluate the data.


Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aIe9swvOqwIY

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Dihydrogen Monoxide - this stuff needs to be band. It's can kill you.

You're starting a band? And it's can kill you <sic>? You should call it Dihydrogen Monoxide, I hear that stuff is some sort of sciency joke.

[Buckaroo]

I guess they decided to check the C02 in the oceans first. Literally. I believe I read that it went for a swim near Antarctica.

Satellite to Study Global-Warming Gases Lost

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5BuOI&refer=us

[Doofy]

Is it time to repeat the real reasons again? I guess so.

The war against terror is designed to scare/control those who're scared of terrorists.
The climate change industry is designed to scare/control the other side of the political spectrum.

Smoke and mirrors so you're distracted from what the politicians are really doing... ...which is basically setting up a global system to monitor your every move.

CCTV? That's to make sure you're not going to be blown up, sir.
Car tracking? That's to make sure you're not destroying the planet, ma'am.

Add to this the credit crunch and resultant actions, such as the upcoming G20 meeting which will call for a new global financial order.

Your money tracked everywhere? That's to make sure no bankers abuse it, sir.

It's a cohesive whole guys. Wake up.

[olePigeon]

I see that after 40 pages Buckaroo is stead fast on ignoring the countless explanations on microclimates.

In summary:

Buckaroo: 2+2=5
Opposition: 2+2=4
Buckaroo: Pi+B=Lemonade
Opposition: You're not making any sense.
Buckaroo: So how come 2+2=5?
Opposition: It doesn't. 2+2=4
Buckaroo: Pink unicorns.
Opposition: Huh?
Buckaroo: See! 2+2=5!
Opposition: No, it doesn't. Scroll back three pages and read. 2+2=4.
Buckaroo: I like cheese.
Opposition: That's completely irrelevant.
Buckaroo: Oh yeah? Then how come 2+2=5?
Opposition:

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I see that after 40 pages Buckaroo is stead fast on ignoring the countless explanations on microclimates.

In summary:

Buckaroo: 2+2=5
Opposition: 2+2=4
Buckaroo: Pi+B=Lemonade
Opposition: You're not making any sense.
Buckaroo: So how come 2+2=5?
Opposition: It doesn't. 2+2=4
Buckaroo: Pink unicorns.
Opposition: Huh?
Buckaroo: See! 2+2=5!
Opposition: No, it doesn't. Scroll back three pages and read. 2+2=4.
Buckaroo: I like cheese.
Opposition: That's completely irrelevant.
Buckaroo: Oh yeah? Then how come 2+2=5?
Opposition:

OMG that was hillarious, but I think you got it wrong. It's the Gore waco's that are trying to make 2+2=5, not me.

The Gore waco's won't even share their computer programs that says 2+2=5.

Thanks for trying, that was great.

[olePigeon]

First, learn how to use an apostrophe.

Second, not a single article you have posted recently contradicts any of the current scientific data in regards to climate change.

Third, you've stopped attacking Al Gore and you're trying to go after the science. You fail at that because you either A, read the headlines but not the article and the article contradicts your argument; or B, posted an editorial that has no relevance as far as the evidence is concerned.

[BadKosh]

The Goreacle has spoken–again.

Its “kind of silly” to keep debating the science, Mr. Gore said (AP)

Former Vice President Al Gore repeated his message that climate change is a planetary emergency at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California. The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg. But don’t expect Mr. Gore to debate the merits of how best to tackle climate change anytime soon.

Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at “a political tipping point” on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, “political will is a renewable resource.”

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added.

As an example, he pointed to a new addition to the budget for the island nation of the Maldives: “Funds to buy a new nation.”
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...ics/trackback/

[Buckaroo]

Al Gore will not give up on his lies. Even though most scientists have turned against him and disagree with him, he will never give up on his money making scam.

A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critic(s)

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...s-his-critics/

[BadKosh]

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift


MILWAUKEE -- The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.

Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

"Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.

Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.

Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.

"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

[olePigeon]

As I mentioned in the other thread, your article doesn't contradict current evidence. You should probably read them before posting, as it's contradictory to your viewpoint.