# H. Sapiens is to blame...any y'all care to disagree ?



## fr73ed

Human Impacts On The Planet Pushing Earth Into 'Danger Zone'
Reuters
Posted: 01/15/2015 2:00 pm EST Updated: 01/16/2015 2:59 am EST 




By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Climate change and high rates of extinctions of animals and plants are pushing the Earth into a danger zone for humanity, a scientific report card about mankind's impact on nature said on Thursday.

An international team of 18 experts, expanding on a 2009 report about "planetary boundaries" for safe human use, also sounded the alarm about clearance of forests and pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers.

"I don't think we've broken the planet but we are creating a much more difficult world," Sarah Cornell, one of the authors at the Stockholm Resilience Center which led the project as a guide to human exploitation of the Earth, told Reuters.

"Four boundaries are assessed to have been crossed, placing humanity in a danger zone," a statement said of the study in the journal Science, pointing to climate change, species loss, land-use change and fertilizer pollution.

Of a total of nine boundaries assessed, freshwater use, ocean acidification and ozone depletion were judged to be within safe limits. Others, including levels of airborne pollution, were yet to be properly assessed.

The report defined climate change and loss of species as two core areas of concern. Each "has the potential on its own to drive the Earth System into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed," the authors wrote.

Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are about 397 parts per million in the atmosphere, above 350 ppm that the study set as the boundary for safe use.

Almost 200 governments will meet in Paris in late 2015 to try to agree a deal to limit global warming to avert floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels blamed on rising emissions of greenhouse gases.

The study said that rates of extinctions of animals and plants, caused by factors ranging from pollution to deforestation, were 10 to 100 times higher than safe levels.

"Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state," said lead author Will Steffen, of the Stockholm Resilience Center and the Australian National University, Canberra.

The report expanded definitions of the planetary boundaries set in 2009, making it hard to compare trends. (Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)


----------



## EastTexFrank

fr73ed said:


> The report expanded definitions of the planetary boundaries set in 2009, making it hard to compare trends.



The last sentence of the report, quoted above, nullifies any conclusion or recommendation that the report puts forth.  You have to compare apples to apples.  You can make anything you want look worse and the situation appear to be deteriorating if you if you change the parameters to make it appear that way.  

It makes it look as if a bunch of academics are pronouncing doom and gloom in order to garner research funds to study the situation that they themselves created.  It may be true but on the other hand it may not.  We'll never know from this report.


----------



## 300 H and H

EastTexFrank said:


> It makes it look as if a bunch of academics are pronouncing doom and gloom in order to garner research funds to study the situation that they themselves created. It may be true but on the other hand it may not. We'll never know from this report.


 
And there you have it, the motivation for these clowns to do and say as they do. MONEY fallow the money....

Academics... They need to step outside once in a while and realize the sky isn't really falling.

The wife says in the news it said 2014 was the warmest year on record. B.S. it was not. The numbers and those who collect the data are not being honest. They can see that they are loosing ground with the public opinion, with their dishosesty. NO matter, just tell even bigger lies to make up for it.

Regards, Kirk


----------



## MrLiberty

When you consider how this ole planet came into being, and then how life started on earth I do not think a couple thousand years of man will harm the planet.  

Yes, we haven't always cared about earth like we should, but that has changed and we are much more attuned to doing better.  

Like the other posters said, this is all about money.  These scientists need to keep fibbing about how dire our situation is becoming to keep those grant dollars flowing.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

I don't need science to tell me there are too many people in this world.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any answer to the problem outside of large scale war or disease.


----------



## snowstorm

300 H and H said:


> The wife says in the news it said 2014 was the warmest year on record. B.S. it was not. The numbers and those who collect the data are not being honest. They can see that they are loosing ground with the public opinion, with their dishosesty. NO matter, just tell even bigger lies to make up for it.
> 
> These asshats couldn't  more wrong or self serving the numbers produced measuring mercury said my region was .02 of a degree form the coldest winter ever recorded last winter   Your right they just up spout ever increasingly larger lies   That why they need to keep changing tier pet names Global warming, weird weather, global cooling, climate change, all bullshit


----------



## JEV

If the alarmists really cared about carbon foot prints on the planet, they should visit someone like Dr. Kevorkian and he'll help them lessen the impact on the planet, one alarmist at a time. Just tell them they'll get 72 solar panels if they eliminate themselves, like the muzzie suicide bombers get their 72 virgins.


----------



## mak2

This would make 2014 the 38th consecutive year with an anomalously high annual global temperature.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

Until very recently I was not sure man significantly contributed to climate change.  I am convinced.


----------



## Kane

MrLiberty said:


> Like the other posters said, this is all about money. These scientists need to keep fibbing about how dire our situation is becoming to keep those grant dollars flowing.


Yes, MrLiberty, it is all about money. The scientist will skew the numbers as directed by TPWTP* so that they (TPWTP) can position themselves to profit. 

Take that hypocrite Al Gore, for instance. His fictional production, An Inconvenient Truth, forced upon American youth, has made him a fucking billionaire. Then again, congress recently failed, thankfully, to enact silly carbon cap & tax laws that would have made Gore's predatory Chicago Carbon Exchange scheme obscenely profitable. Gore and his buddies would have profited handsomely.

Just face it: the science and the politics of so-called global warming are driven entirely by TPWTP.




*The People With The Power
.


----------



## mak2

I agree, it is all about the money. But if you follow the real money it leads back to big oil.  Wonder why it is only the RWers in the US that cant see that.  Interesting.  Ever notice facts have a liberal bias?  There is a reason for that.





Kane said:


> Yes, MrLiberty, it is all about money. The scientist will skew the numbers as directed by TPWTP* so that they (TPWTP) can position themselves to profit.
> 
> Take that hypocrite Al Gore, for instance. His fictional production, An Inconvenient Truth, forced upon American youth, has made him a fucking billionaire. Then again, congress recently failed, thankfully, to enact silly carbon cap & tax laws that would have made Gore's predatory Chicago Carbon Exchange scheme obscenely profitable. Gore and his buddies would have profited handsomely.
> 
> Just face it: the science and the politics of so-called global warming are driven entirely by TPWTP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The People With The Power
> .


----------



## 300 H and H

mak2 said:


> This would make 2014 the 38th consecutive year with an anomalously high annual global temperature.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/
> 
> Until very recently I was not sure man significantly contributed to climate change. I am convinced.


 
mak2,

I am not convinced at all. Your artical stated the "older" data sets were from the 1950's or what 60 years worth of measurement? This significantly reduces the data that most claim we have roughly 150 years worth of temp data, but for the whole world?... Probably not.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and what we see today, took that long to develope. Statisticly you can not say with confidence much about our climate with maybe 60 years worth of emperical data the artical hangs it's hat on.. Why 60 years, that's about the wink of an eye...

We used to believe that we will run the Earth out of oil too. When was the last time you heard about conservation of oil? I remeber the histerics of the late 70's and how we would run out. What happend to all of that?

Some folks know how to make money off of mass hysteria. They really do!

Regards, Kirk


----------



## mla2ofus

All the greenies depend on grants and donations. If they have to admit they're wrong all their gravy trains will derail.
                                           Mike


----------



## road squawker

fr73ed said:


> ...The study said that *rates of extinctions* of animals and plants, caused by factors ranging from pollution to deforestation, *were 10 to 100 times higher than safe levels*...
> The report expanded definitions of the planetary boundaries set in 2009, making it hard to compare trends. (Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)



what IDIOT wrote this???  guess it is OK to make things extinct @ 4 or 5 times some level set by some liberal pseudo-science expert. 



mak2 said:


> I agree, it is all about the money. But if you follow the real money it leads back to big oil.  Wonder why it is only the RWers in the US that cant see that.  Interesting.  Ever notice facts have a liberal bias?  There is a reason for that.




err,.................... FACTS do not have ANY bias,.......... by definition


----------



## mak2

road squawker said:


> what IDIOT wrote this???  guess it is OK to make things extinct @ 4 or 5 times some level set by some liberal pseudo-science expert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> err,.................... FACTS do not have ANY bias,.......... by definition



Yea, but when scientific data disagrees with conservative dogma, it is junk science, ever notice that?


----------



## Danang Sailor

There is too much conflicting data for me to reach a conclusion either way.  Arctic ice-cover is the sixth-lowest, but last year it
was much higher than normal; this year the Antarctic ice-cover set new records.  And there are nearly 150 years of records
available, but only the last 60-some years are being used*.  Just too much conflict, and too many unanswered questions.


*Actually, there are pretty good records going back a lot further than that.  Those records indicate that we are about
due for the sun to give us a Maunder Minimum, which would cool things down considerably.


----------



## ki0ho

As to the OP.......Ive seen less Bull Shit in a stockyard filled with fresh green house gas.!!!   Dad always said ....Thats money your smelling .....Money!!!!


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Yea, but when scientific data disagrees with conservative dogma, it is junk science, ever notice that?


The same can be said for liberal "dogma" as you call it.

Let's see, what could be some examples of liberal dogma... Oh, here we go...

Dogma No. One. *That government is best that governs the most.* Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, said “that government is best that governs the least.” Liberals believe the opposite and act accordingly. For example: In California, “liberal” bureaucrats rerouted the Klamath river so that 35 thousand farmers lost their jobs as 300,000 acres could no longer be farmed. The reason is that the water must be used to permit the 3” smelt fish to perpetuate itself. Never mind the unemployed people.   


Liberals in San Francisco have attempted to prohibit the inclusion of toys in McDonald's “happy meals” on the grounds that the “liberals” don’t approve of the food served there.    


In New York, restaurants have been prohibited from using salt in cooking. Here we have liberals telling us what we may eat.   


A petition drive in San Francisco seeks to prohibit circumcision. This is a direct assault on the Jewish religion. This is not surprising since “liberals” are traditionally anti-Jewish. A similar law was decreed in Nazi Germany in 1934.   

The “Obama care” law, now one year old, tells physicians who may have health care and who may not. It condemns to death anyone who needs health care but is not approved by ”liberal” bureaucrats who have never seen the patient. That law also forces all Americans to buy health insurance and forces employers to buy health insurance for their employees. Since health insurance is very expensive, small businesses cannot hire new employees because they cannot afford the health insurance. “Liberals” don’t care if the unemployed find no work.


Dogma No. Two. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed except for supporters of “liberal” causes. Example: Whenever a speaker is invited to hold a public speech and the speaker is suspected of not supporting the “liberal” agenda, “liberals” crowd into the hall and scream loudly so the speaker cannot be heard and must abandon his speech.


Dogma No. Three. Freedom of the press cannot be allowed. On major university campuses, numerous groups publish literature promoting their opinions. “Liberals” seize any publications not to their liking and burn them. Moreover,  the “liberal” press, i.e. ninety percent of American newspapers, suppress any event not supporting “liberal” causes. For example, no American newspaper and no television program except Glenn Beck said one word about the slaughter of a family of five Jews, including a baby, stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists in the village of Itamar. The massacre of Jews does not interest the media. They only publish their limited agenda but not the news.


Dogma No. Four. All white men are racists. There is no need to prove this in any fashion. It is believed and therefore “the truth.”


Dogma No. Five.  All minority people are supporters of civil rights. Example: The Rev. Al Sharpton, “civil rights leader” and “liberal,” stood in front of a Jewish owned clothing store screaming “burn down the Jew store.” His followers did so and seven employees died. Sharpton is nevertheless the hero of the “liberal establishment.”     

When Lemrick Nelson stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum to death on a street in Brooklyn, the “minority” jury found Nelson not guilty and then gave a party for killer. Nelson and a gang of Sharpton followers surrounded Rosenbaum, who was wearing black clothes and a beard, and screamed “get the Jew.” Nelson stabbed Rosenbaum, who identified his killer to the police before he died.  “Liberals” find nothing wrong with the murder of Rosenbaum. The victim was at fault, according to liberals.   



Dogma No. Six. No one has the right to improve himself by hard work or investments or any other means. An immigrant who works his way up from standing on the docks of Hoboken in the winter without an overcoat has no right to earn money or gain an education. His possessions must be taken away from him and given to someone who never worked but is using numerous drugs. Ambition must come to an end and all who have made an effort to improve their lives need to find out that they should have remained poor.


Dogma No. Seven. Higher and higher taxes must be imposed so as to finance the lifestyles of the idle bureaucrats in Washington and their employers, the government “of the liberals, by the liberals and for he liberals,” and no one else.    



The catechism of “liberal” beliefs is much longer. The dogmas included are held sacred by the believers. They are followed blindly and without thought or discussion. They are “the truth” which its promoters hope to impose on all Americans so that democracy will come to and end and all Americans will pledge allegiance to this creed.   
May that day never come.
Shalom u’vracha.


Source


----------



## fr73ed

*5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly*
The right still somehow insists that climate change isn't real and that the ACA will euthanize old people
AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET
 Share  1K   339     207  

TOPICS: ALTERNET, CONSERVATIVES, CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATIONISM, ELECTIONS NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
AlterNet

Mark Twain once famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Twain wasn’t praising lies with this comment, of course, but modern-day conservatives seem to think he was dishing out advice instead of damning the practice of dishonesty. Conservatives have figured out a neat little rhetorical trick: One lie is easy for your opponents to debunk. Tell one lie after another, however, and your opponent’s debunkings will never catch up. By the time the liberal opposition has debunked one lie, there’s a dozen more to take its place.

Science educator Eugenie Scott deemed the technique the “Gish Gallop,” named for a notoriously sleazy creationist named Duane Gish. The Urban Dictionary defines the Gish Gallop as a technique that “involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it.” Often users of the Gish Gallop know their arguments are nonsense or made in bad faith, but don’t particularly care because they are so dead set on advancing their agenda. Unfortunately, the strategy is so effective that it’s been expanding rapidly in right-wing circles. Here are just a few of the most disturbing examples of the Gish Gallop in action.

1. Creationism. It’s no surprise creationists inspired the coining of the term Gish Gallop, as they have perfected the art of making up nonsense faster than scientists can refute it. The list of false or irrelevant claims made by creationists, as chronicled by Talk Origins, numbers in the dozens, perhaps even hundreds, and more are always being spun out. Trying to argue with a creationist, therefore, turns into a hellish game of Whack-A-Mole. Debunk the lie that the speed of light is not constant, and you’ll find he’s already arguing that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. Argue that it’s unconstitutional to put the story of Adam and Eve in the science classroom, and find he’s pretending he was never asking for that and instead wants to “teach the controversy.”



“Teaching the controversy” is a classic Gish Gallop apology. The conservative wants to make it seem like he’s supporting open-minded debate, but instead he just wants an opportunity to dump a bunch of lies on students with the knowledge that they’ll never have the time and attention to carefully parse every debunking.

2. Climate change denialism.This strategy worked so well for creationism it makes perfect sense that it would be imported to the world of climate change denialism. Climate change denialists have many changing excuses for why they reject the science showing that human-caused greenhouse gases are changing the climate, but what all these reasons have in common is they are utter nonsense in service of a predetermined opposition to taking any action to prevent further damage.

*Skeptical Science, a website devoted to debunking right-wing lies on this topic*, has compiled a dizzying list of 176 common claims by climate denialists and links to why they are false. Some of these lies directly contradict each other. For instance, it can’t both be true that climate change is “natural” and that it’s not happening at all. No matter, since the point of these lies is not to create a real discussion about the issue, but to confuse the issue so much it’s impossible to get any real momentum behind efforts to stop global warming.

3. The Affordable Care Act. It’s not just science where conservatives have discovered the value in telling lies so fast you simply wear your opposition out. When it comes to healthcare reform, the lying has been relentless. There are the big lies, such as calling Obamacare “socialism,” which implies a single-payer system, when in fact, it’s about connecting the uninsured with private companies and giving consumers of healthcare a basic set of rights. In a sense, even the name “Obamacare” is a lie, as the bill was, per the President’s explicit wishes, written by Congress.

But there are also the small lies: The ACA funds abortion. Under the ACA, old people will be forcibly euthanized. Obamacare somehow covers undocumented immigrants. Congress exempted itself from Obamacare (one of the lies that doesn’t even make sense, as it’s not a program you could really get exempted from). Healthcare will add a trillion dollars to the deficit.

The strategy of just lying and lying and lying some more about the ACA has gotten to the point where Fox News is just broadcasting lies accusing the Obama administration of lying. When it was reported that the administration was going to hit its projections for the number of enrollments through healthcare.gov, a subculture of “enrollment truthers” immediately sprang up to spread a variety of often conflicting lies to deny that these numbers are even real. It started soft, with some conservatives suggesting that some enrollments shouldn’t count or arguing, without a shred of evidence, that huge numbers of new enrollees won’t pay their premiums. Now the lying is blowing up to the shameless level, with “cooking the books” being a common false accusation or, as with Jesse Watters on Fox, straight up accusing the White House of making the number up. Perhaps soon there will be demands to see all these new enrollees’ birth certificates.

4. Contraception mandate.The ACA-based requirement that insurance plans cover contraception without a copay has generated a Gish Gallop so large it deserves its own category. Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check chronicled 12 of the biggest lies generated by the right-wing noise machine in just the past couple of years since the mandate was even announced. It is not “free” birth control, nor is it “paid for” by employers. The birth control coverage is paid for by the employees, with benefits they earn by working. The mandate doesn’t cover “abortifacients,” only contraception. No, birth control doesn’t work by killing fertilized eggs, but by preventing fertilization. It’s simply false that the prescriptions in question can all be replaced with a $9-a-month prescription from Walmart, as many women’s prescriptions run into the hundreds and even thousands a year. No, it’s not true that the contraception mandate is about funding women’s “lifestyle”, because statistics show that having sex for fun instead of procreation is a universal human behavior and not a marginal or unusual behavior as the term “lifestyle” implies.

5. Gun safety. The gun lobby is dishonest to its core. Groups like the NRA like to paint themselves like they are human rights organizations, but in fact, they are an industry lobby whose only real goal is to protect the profit margins of gun manufacturers, regardless of the costs to human health and safety. Because their very existence is based on a lie, is it any surprise that gun industry advocates are experts at the Gish Gallop, ready to spring into action at the sign of any school shooting or report on gun violence and dump so many lies on the public that gun safety advocates can never even begin to address them all?

A small sampling of the many, many lies spouted by gun industry advocates: That guns prevent murder, when in fact more guns correlates strongly with more murders. That gun control doesn’t work. That gun control is unpopular.  That any move to make gun ownership safer is a move to take away your guns. That a gun in the home makes you safer when it actually puts your family at more risk. That guns protect against domestic violence, when the truth is that owning a gun makes abuse worse, not better. Even the standard line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a distracting bit of dishonesty, since most gun deaths aren’t murders but suicides.

How do you fight the Gish Gallop, when trying to debunk each and every lie is so overwhelming? There are a few tactics that help, including creating websites and pamphlets where all the lies can be aggregated in one place, for swift debunking. (Bingo cards and drinking games are a humorous version of this strategy.) A critical strategy is to avoid lengthy Lincoln-Douglas-style debates that allow conservatives to lie-dump rapidly during their speaking period, leaving you so busy trying to clean up their mess you have no time for positive points of your own. Better is a looser style of debate where you can interrupt and correct the lies as they come. I’ve also found some luck with setting an explicit “no lies” rule that will be strictly enforced. The first lie receives a warning, and the second lie means that the debate is immediately terminated. This helps prevent you from having to debunk and instead makes the price of participation a strict adherence to facts.

Amanda Marcotte is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and journalist. She's published two books and blogs regularly at Pandagon, RH Reality Check and Slate's Double X.

====================================================================================================================

I don't agree with #5, but since in the interest of honesty, I felt it should be left in, decide for yourself...


----------



## Danang Sailor

fr73ed said:


> *5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly*
> The right still somehow insists that climate change isn't real and that the ACA will euthanize old people
> AMANDA MARCOTTE, ALTERNET
> 
> 5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly
> 
> This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
> 
> 1. Creationism.
> 
> 2. Climate change denialism.
> 
> 3. The Affordable Care Act.
> 
> 4. Contraception mandate.
> 
> 5. Gun safety.
> 
> ====================================================================================================================
> 
> I don't agree with #5, but since in the interest of honesty, I felt it should be left in, decide for yourself...



_I stripped out all the verbiage and just left the five points for reference; anyone who wants to read it all is directed to
fr73ed's post.

_Point #1:  Since I have never found any unreconcilable differences in Genesis and science, this one gets a pass.

Point #2:  There is no doubt that man is having an impact on the planet; only a complete fool would argue otherwise.
However, much of what has been published in support of man-made catastrophic global warming is, at best, subject
to serious questioning.  If the science is so solid as to be nearly sacrosanct, why does it include less than 100 years of data,
when there is about twice that much available?  Could it be because the inclusion of that extra data tends to seriously
lessen the impact of man ... which it definitely does?  There is still evidence of warming, for which we may be indeed be
responsible, but not to the extent being claimed.  Why are we being told only _part of the story_?

Point #3:  Most of the "lies" being alluded to here have already been *proven* to be true; not much more to say, is there?
However, one statement needs to be addressed:  that Congress could not exempt itself from the ACA, "as it’s not a program
you could really get exempted from."  That is literally true, but it is deceptive in that Congress did in fact approach OPM to be
able to maintain the plan they already had, which was quite a bit cheaper than anything under ACA.  An agreement was
reached, which was not an exemption, _per se_, but was indeed a very special treatment not available to others.  It comes down
to a matter of semantics, as it surely *looks* like an exemption to most people.

Point #4:  This is disingenuous; the contraception controversy was not about who would pay for it.  The controversy was
centered on groups that have deep moral convictions that prohibit contraception being *forced* to provide it to their
employees.  It was a moral/religious problem more than a financial one_.

_Point #5:  Wow!  This is an article purporting to expose lies told by conservatives, yet every single thing written under this
point is fabricated.  Ms Marcotte has evidently never been introduced to the work of John Lott, Gary Kleck, or Don
Kates, all of whom have produced scholarly and well accepted works that debunk her every point.

This article by Ms Marcotte may have been well intended, and she may believe everything she has written, but she is well
off the mark on Points 1 thru 4, and her Point 5 is totally incorrect.


----------



## ki0ho

Is fr73er...maks twin sister????? ....what crap!!!! The only truth I saw in the whole thing was Twain,s statement and even that is suspect as I did not hear him say it myself.......It must be hell to live in a progressive mind set and self imposed curse!!!.....no wonder they come here to a place of peace and order!!! truth is sush a beautiful thing and I guess we should welcome them here...........but must they bring their crap with them? can't they just leave it where they seem to want to get away from?   Of course that is just my personal opinion.....I do not presume to speak for others....


----------



## fr73ed

Nahhh... kiohoer, it just boils down to the simple fact that YOU can't stand an opposing viewpoint.

Make your point and attempt to stay on subject...


----------



## SShepherd

lmao...another liberal wants to take a crack at the "gun safety"/nra/gun industry profit thing.

 hilarious.

 he needs more ((((((((((feels))))))) in his arguement


----------



## fr73ed

Hiya SS,

You talkin about me or the person who wrote #5...?

As I said I don't agree with #5



To the rest...

Do you really believe that the majority of scientists are working up a conspiracy on global warming ?




Ok, here's your chance to dispute what the scientists are sayin... please show references for your beliefs, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion.
Show facts, not emotionalism.





2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics
By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 16, 2015
Photo

Continue reading the main story
Last year was the hottest on earth *since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday,* underscoring warnings about the risks of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and undermining claims by climate change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped.

Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year. Records were set across large areas of every inhabited continent. And the ocean surface was unusually warm virtually everywhere except near Antarctica, the scientists said, providing the energy that fueled damaging Pacific storms.

In the annals of climatology, 2014 surpassed 2010 as the warmest year. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human activity and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and nature.

“Climate change is perhaps the major challenge of our generation,” said Michael H. Freilich, director of earth sciences at NASA, one of the agencies that track global temperatures.

Of the large land areas where many people live, only the eastern portion of the United States recorded below-average temperatures in 2014, in sharp contrast to the unusual heat in the West. Some experts think the weather pattern that produced those American extremes is an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven.

Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it had occurred in a year that did not feature a strong El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the Pacific Ocean pumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

Skeptics of climate change have long argued that global warming stopped around 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century. Some politicians in Washington have seized on that claim to justify inaction on emissions.

But the temperature of 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, and 2014 was the first time that happened without a significant El Niño. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next strong El Niño would probably rout all temperature records.

Continue reading the main story
The Warmest Year on Record
Parts of the eastern United States were cooler than average last year, but globally 2014 was the warmest year in recorded history.


How far above or below average temperatures were in 2014
Compared with the average from 1951 to ’80
–1
+1
+3
N.A.
0
+2
+4˚C
+1˚F
–1.8
0
+1.8
+3.6
+5.4
+7.2˚F
+.5
Average global surface air temperature
Compared with the average from 1901 to 2000
0
−.5
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
2014
Sources: NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
By The New York Times
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

video Climate Change UnderfootSEPT. 22, 2014
A discrepancy in climate research had set off a search for possible additional melting from glaciers like those in Antarctica.New Research May Solve Puzzle in Sea Level’s RiseJAN. 14, 2015
As sea ice retreats, more sunlight reaches the upper layers of the sea, leading to more phytoplankton blooms, seen here in the Bering Sea this fall.Snow Is Down and Heat Is Up in the Arctic, Report SaysDEC. 17, 2014
A dead whale in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in 2011. As container ships multiply, more whales are being harmed, a study said.Matter: Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study SaysJAN. 15, 2015
“Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

Such claims are unlikely to go away, though. John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements. “Since the end of the 20th century, the temperature hasn’t done much,” Dr. Christy said. “It’s on this kind of warmish plateau.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Despite such arguments from a handful of scientists, the vast majority of those who study the climate say the earth is in a long-term warming trend that is profoundly threatening and caused almost entirely by human activity.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED IN OPINION

After the Warmest Year on Record, West Virginia Feels the HeatJAN. 16, 2015
Calculating the running mean temperature -- over periods of 12, 60 and 132 months -- provides a way to see long-term trends behind variability. Warming has continued, but slowed.A Closer Look at the Global Warming Trend, Record Hot 2014 and What’s AheadJAN. 16, 2015
They expect the heat to get much worse over coming decades, but already it is killing forests around the world, driving plants and animals to extinction, melting land ice and causing the seas to rise at an accelerating pace.

“It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be witnessing a record year of warmth, during a record-warm decade, during a several decades-long period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled for more than a thousand years, were it not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels,” Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at the Pennsylvania State University, said in an email.

NASA and the other American agency that maintains long-term temperature records, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, issued separate data compilations on Friday that confirmed the 2014 record. A Japanese agency had released preliminary information in early January showing 2014 as the warmest year.

One more scientific group, in Britain, that curates the world’s temperature record is scheduled to report in the coming weeks.

Separate temperature measurements taken from satellites do not show 2014 as a record year, although it is close. Several scientists said the satellite readings reflected temperatures in the atmosphere, not at the earth’s surface, so it was not surprising that they would differ slightly from the ground and ocean-surface measurements that showed record warmth.

Photo

A competitor mushed across an oddly snowless section of land in Alaska during the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race in March. Credit Bob Hallinen/The Anchorage Daily News, via Associated Press
Continue reading the main story



“Why do we keep getting so many record-warm years?” Dr. Schmidt asked in an interview. “It’s because the planet is warming. The basic issue is the long-term trend, and it is not going away.”

February 1985 was the last time global surface temperatures fell below the 20th-century average for a given month, meaning that no one younger than 30 has ever lived through a below-average month. The last full year that was colder than the 20th-century average was 1976.

The contiguous United States set a temperature record in 2012, a year of scorching heat waves and drought. But, mostly because of the unusual chill in the East, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year on record for the lower 48 states.

That cold was drawn into the interior of the country by a loop in a current called the jet stream that allowed Arctic air to spill southward. But an offsetting kink allowed unusually warm tropical air to settle over the West, large parts of Alaska and much of the Arctic.

A few recent scientific papers say that such long-lasting kinks in the jet stream have become more likely because global warming is rapidly melting the sea ice in the Arctic, but many leading scientists are not convinced on that point.

Whatever the underlying cause, last year’s extreme warmth in the West meant that Alaska, Arizona, California and Nevada all set temperature records. Some parts of California essentially had no winter last year, with temperatures sometimes running 10 to 15 degrees above normal for the season. The temperature in Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, never fell below zero in 2014, the first time that has happened in 101 years of record-keeping for the city.

Twenty years of global negotiations aimed at slowing the growth of heat-trapping emissions have yielded little progress. However, 2014 saw signs of large-scale political mobilization on the issue, as more than 300,000 people marched in New York City in September, and tens of thousands more took to the streets in other cities around the world.

The next big attempt at a global climate agreement will come when negotiators from around the world gather in Paris in December. Political activists on climate change wasted no time Friday in citing the 2014 heat record as proof that strong action was needed.

“The steady and now record-breaking rise in average global temperatures is not an issue for another day,” Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who is spending tens of millions of dollars of his personal fortune to battle climate change, said in a statement. “It’s a clear and present danger that poses major economic, health, environmental and geopolitical risks.”

A version of this article appears in print on January 17, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: 2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics


----------



## 300 H and H

And all of this heat is the result of the Sun. 

Yet not one single word about the heat out put of the sun and how it varies from year to year. 

These doomsday Global warming theorists NEVER deal with the Sun. Never address that one at all, yet ALL of the heat in our planetary system is due to the output of the Sun. 

When I see these theories include the Sun and it's profound effects, I might take the time to consider them. But a reasonable and prudent man cann't simply ignor the Sun in all of this. 

Lots of science and those who do it are out there on the internet to see, and many have been brought to this vary forum if you would have done a search. I see no point in wasting my time supporting anything that is counter to what the dooms dayers are preaching this good day. It is not settled science, hate to tell you...

I suposed that back in the day, you believed that the earth had limited oil supplies and we would run out. Heard anthing about that one lately? Rememer for your side it's all about the money...

Regards, Kirk


----------



## JEV

> John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, *pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements.*




*Source
*


----------



## fr73ed

Hi JEV,

Here's a bunch of info about your hero, a lot of folks out there don't think his science is valid.

regards, fr73ed





Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON MAY 22, 2008 AT 11:52 AM UPDATED: MAY 22, 2008 AT 12:27 PM
 0Share This   0Tweet This "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?" Share:  facebook icon  twitter icon
I don’t. But should you?
spencer.jpgchristy.jpgYou can’t read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it.
But some of the more than 360 (!) comments in my recent post “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.
In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of this blog, let’s see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“).
In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis.
RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr. [Insert your editorial comment here, or here.]
As for Christy, what can you say about somebody who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that is/was funded by ExxonMobil?
In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:
There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.
Christy is (mostly) a delayer these days, now that his denier disanalysis has been dissed and the real science is well verified by real observation.
Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.
You go, judge!
In December 2003, Christy said in a debate:
I don’t see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere.
Restained glee. Yes, that’s going to be the reaction to widespread desertification, loss of the inland glaciers, sea level rise for century after century, mass extinction….
So, if you have time to burn, and a planet to burn, these are the guys to listen to. Otherwise I’d look elsewhere.
Tags: Science


----------



## fr73ed

Hi Kirk,

Here's something for you to peruse, showing that not only do I look at both sides of a scientific debate, but also that there *IS* comment on solar variability.

===============================================================================snip==================================
quote

And all of this heat is the result of the Sun. 

Yet not one single word about the heat out put of the sun and how it varies from year to year. 

These doomsday Global warming theorists NEVER deal with the Sun. Never address that one at all, yet ALL of the heat in our planetary system is due to the output of the Sun. 

When I see these theories include the Sun and it's profound effects, I might take the time to consider them. But a reasonable and prudent man cann't simply ignor the Sun in all of this. 

Lots of science and those who do it are out there on the internet to see, and many have been brought to this vary forum if you would have done a search. I see no point in wasting my time supporting anything that is counter to what the dooms dayers are preaching this good day. It is not settled science, hate to tell you...

I suposed that back in the day, you believed that the earth had limited oil supplies and we would run out. Heard anthing about that one lately? Rememer for your side it's all about the money...

Regards, Kirk


stop quote

==========================================================



 Terrestrial Climate


Jan. 8, 2013:  In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. 
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Sun-Climate (cycle, strip)
These six extreme UV images of the sun, taken by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, track the rising level of solar activity as the sun ascends toward the peak of the latest 11-year sunspot cycle. More
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem.  To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop.  The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important.  "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.  Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Sun-Climate (tsi, strip)
Space-borne measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) show ~0.1 percent variations with solar activity on 11-year and shorter timescales. These data have been corrected for calibration offsets between the various instruments used to measure TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of Greg Kopp, University of Colorado.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface.  There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.  For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent.  Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further.  He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it.  "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies.  [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies."  In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
Sun-Climate (sep, strip)
How incoming galactic cosmic rays and solar protons penetrate the atmosphere. SOURCE: C. Jackman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “The Impact of Energetic Particle Precipitation on the Atmosphere,” presentation to the Workshop on the Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate, September 9, 2011.
Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiple layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics.  But just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's not real.
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific."  Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
Sun-Climate (pacific anomaly, strip)
Composite averages for December-January-February for peak solar years. SOURCE: G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing, Science 325:1114-1118, 2009; reprinted with permission from AAAS.
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.  The Pacific region is only one example. 
Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally.  The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA." 
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature.  "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal."  This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.  The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.
Sun-Climate (sunspot numbers, strip)
The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2010). SOURCE: Courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering.  More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.”   This is not a large number, but it is significant. 
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.  Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.  Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
Sun-Climate (faculae, 200px)
This image of the Sun's upper photosphere shows bright and dark magnetic structures responsible for variations in TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of P. Foukal, Heliophysics, Inc.
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps.  Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager.  Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number:  the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths.  This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.
In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex.  The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity.  Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae.  Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity.  Of particular interest are the faculae.  While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not.  This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum.  A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study.  Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results.  Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists.  However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores.  Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity.  A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars.   Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Science News
Science@NASA Headline News


----------



## JEV

fr73ed said:


> Hi JEV,
> 
> Here's a bunch of info about your hero, a lot of folks out there don't think his science is valid.
> 
> regards, fr73ed



Where did I say he was my hero? I posted a cited source in rebuttal to your request for another viewpoint, and you go into liberal mode and try to be cute. I never got personal with you, and ask that you stop doing so with me. Stick to the topic and can the poor attempt at humor. Condescension of your debate partners is not a desirable debate tactic, and makes you look small.  

A lot of people also thought your president was being truthful and working in the best interest of the country...probably the same ones who think my "hero's" science is not valid. I don't put faith in those people, as they are wrong more often than not.


----------



## 300 H and H

The conclusion on the solar data is addmittedly important. Yet it is inconclusive. Nice....

So we don't know... Imagine that. We just don't know. It also fails to mention longer term cycles of the sun. The 11 years is well documented for an unimaginally breif period of time that we have been able. 4.5 billion years plus of solar activity and we know only maybe 50 years of emperical data. So statistically we really don't know sh1t about it.....

You old enought to remember being told that we'd be out of oil by now if we didn't conserve? People made lots of money on perpetuating that lie. Most people even today don't realise that organic matter has nothing to do with crude oil, or it's formation. The world is full of uniformed to taken advantage of....

Carbon taxation is what this is about, and it is the money behind it. So many people can, and will capitalize on the carbon tax. It is bull sh1t and about control of our economy and perhaps the worlds, if we don't wake up to this scam...

You can cut and paste till your blue in the face and the informed, and those who can think, will see through this rouse. We simply don't have have enough ACURATE data from a long enough time period to say much about what is being observed. It just isn't sound statistically. So many assumptions are made in the interpillation of physical data for the earlier times, the water gets way too murky for me to accept predictions of the conditons on the planet a thousand years ago. This is why liers love numbers, and assumptions that are not made public....

So I say go fly a kite and enjoy the weather. It isn't changing cause we caused it to change. It is slightly changing because mother nature is always changing the weather. She has for 4.5 billion years already.

Regards, Kirk


----------



## leadarrows

In January 2007, Marcotte wrote controversial statements about the Duke lacrosse case, including that people who defended the accused were "rape-loving scum". 
A few months later all the charges were dropped in the case, turns out the woman admitted to making it up. 
Yep ...a real credible blogger...
She is all about PC and her liberal view...her "truth" is all that matters to her. 
You have intellect and emotion to serve you in your thought process...you need to seek a better balance.


----------



## fr73ed

Here's a bunch of info about your ..., a lot of folks out there don't think his science is valid.

regards, fr73ed


too bad you got bent... oh well...


----------



## SShepherd

fr73ed-

the person who wrote #5.

 you can't tell others 
 "Show facts, not emotionalism."
 and then make comments like
 "Here's a bunch of info about your ..., a lot of folks out there don't think his science is valid.

regards, fr73ed


too bad you got bent... oh well..."

 that's being hypocritical.


----------



## ki0ho

fr73ed said:


> Nahhh... kiohoer, it just boils down to the simple fact that YOU can't stand an opposing viewpoint.
> 
> Make your point and attempt to stay on subject...



You even talk ike mak!! I have no problem with opposing views......I know what I believe to be the truth...and no amount of double talk and down right lies will have any effect    on what I believe.....to me your post is predicated on lies and falsehoods O-slimmy care is built on the same foundation...as is the falsehood that is present in the White House at this time.....it matters not what you or those like you have to say....I listen..form my own opinions..and go about my life as I wish.....as far as what you wrote.....after reading it I get the feeling of needing to go take a hot shower and get the scum off me....much like the feeling of listening to O-slimmy speak!!! but there again...I listen and form my own opinion.....after all it is wise to keep track of what the opposing force is up to!!!

and please...have a nice day....


----------



## JEV

fr73ed said:


> Here's a bunch of info about your ..., a lot of folks out there don't think his science is valid.
> 
> regards, fr73ed
> 
> 
> too bad you got bent... oh well...



I get upset when someone starts out posting a topic for debate, then turns into an ass hole by making condescending remarks when people present supporting documentation that conflicts with the OP's viewpoint. 

Also, quantify "a lot of folks." That quantity is meaningless as a correlation to how people interpret this "science." And YES, a lot of people out there don't think. They respond to any stimulus from liars who manipulate and cherry pick data in support of their agenda at the expense of the masses, and under the lie of "_We care_."


----------



## SShepherd

"man made" climate change

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

http://www.express.co.uk/news/natur...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder


----------



## mak2

look up the difference between scientific data and mindless right wing talking points.  





JEV said:


> The same can be said for liberal "dogma" as you call it.
> 
> Let's see, what could be some examples of liberal dogma... Oh, here we go...
> 
> Dogma No. One. *That government is best that governs the most.* Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, said “that government is best that governs the least.” Liberals believe the opposite and act accordingly. For example: In California, “liberal” bureaucrats rerouted the Klamath river so that 35 thousand farmers lost their jobs as 300,000 acres could no longer be farmed. The reason is that the water must be used to permit the 3” smelt fish to perpetuate itself. Never mind the unemployed people.
> 
> 
> Liberals in San Francisco have attempted to prohibit the inclusion of toys in McDonald's “happy meals” on the grounds that the “liberals” don’t approve of the food served there.
> 
> 
> In New York, restaurants have been prohibited from using salt in cooking. Here we have liberals telling us what we may eat.
> 
> 
> A petition drive in San Francisco seeks to prohibit circumcision. This is a direct assault on the Jewish religion. This is not surprising since “liberals” are traditionally anti-Jewish. A similar law was decreed in Nazi Germany in 1934.
> 
> The “Obama care” law, now one year old, tells physicians who may have health care and who may not. It condemns to death anyone who needs health care but is not approved by ”liberal” bureaucrats who have never seen the patient. That law also forces all Americans to buy health insurance and forces employers to buy health insurance for their employees. Since health insurance is very expensive, small businesses cannot hire new employees because they cannot afford the health insurance. “Liberals” don’t care if the unemployed find no work.
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Two. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed except for supporters of “liberal” causes. Example: Whenever a speaker is invited to hold a public speech and the speaker is suspected of not supporting the “liberal” agenda, “liberals” crowd into the hall and scream loudly so the speaker cannot be heard and must abandon his speech.
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Three. Freedom of the press cannot be allowed. On major university campuses, numerous groups publish literature promoting their opinions. “Liberals” seize any publications not to their liking and burn them. Moreover,  the “liberal” press, i.e. ninety percent of American newspapers, suppress any event not supporting “liberal” causes. For example, no American newspaper and no television program except Glenn Beck said one word about the slaughter of a family of five Jews, including a baby, stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists in the village of Itamar. The massacre of Jews does not interest the media. They only publish their limited agenda but not the news.
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Four. All white men are racists. There is no need to prove this in any fashion. It is believed and therefore “the truth.”
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Five.  All minority people are supporters of civil rights. Example: The Rev. Al Sharpton, “civil rights leader” and “liberal,” stood in front of a Jewish owned clothing store screaming “burn down the Jew store.” His followers did so and seven employees died. Sharpton is nevertheless the hero of the “liberal establishment.”
> 
> When Lemrick Nelson stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum to death on a street in Brooklyn, the “minority” jury found Nelson not guilty and then gave a party for killer. Nelson and a gang of Sharpton followers surrounded Rosenbaum, who was wearing black clothes and a beard, and screamed “get the Jew.” Nelson stabbed Rosenbaum, who identified his killer to the police before he died.  “Liberals” find nothing wrong with the murder of Rosenbaum. The victim was at fault, according to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Six. No one has the right to improve himself by hard work or investments or any other means. An immigrant who works his way up from standing on the docks of Hoboken in the winter without an overcoat has no right to earn money or gain an education. His possessions must be taken away from him and given to someone who never worked but is using numerous drugs. Ambition must come to an end and all who have made an effort to improve their lives need to find out that they should have remained poor.
> 
> 
> Dogma No. Seven. Higher and higher taxes must be imposed so as to finance the lifestyles of the idle bureaucrats in Washington and their employers, the government “of the liberals, by the liberals and for he liberals,” and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> The catechism of “liberal” beliefs is much longer. The dogmas included are held sacred by the believers. They are followed blindly and without thought or discussion. They are “the truth” which its promoters hope to impose on all Americans so that democracy will come to and end and all Americans will pledge allegiance to this creed.
> May that day never come.
> Shalom u’vracha.
> 
> 
> Source


----------



## mak2

I generally just read your silly post and kinda chuckle because I know you are somewhere thinking you are some sort of conservobot genius, but goodness you are stupid.  



ki0ho said:


> Is fr73er...*maks twin sister*????? ....what crap!!!! The only truth I saw in the whole thing was Twain,s statement and even that is suspect as I did not hear him say it myself.......It must be hell to live in a progressive mind set and self imposed curse!!!.....no wonder they come here to a place of peace and order!!! truth is sush a beautiful thing and I guess we should welcome them here...........but must they bring their crap with them? can't they just leave it where they seem to want to get away from?   Of course that is just my personal opinion.....I do not presume to speak for others....


----------



## MrLiberty

Fromm 2008.............



> 31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming        Environmental extremists routinely assert a “scientific consensus”  that global warming is occurring, and that human activity somehow causes  it.  This week, however, over 31,000 scientists spoke up and reduced  that myth to a smoldering rubble.
> The environmentalists’ alleged “scientific consensus” is much like the curtain in _The Wizard of Oz_,  behind which the supposedly infallible wizard dictated to his minions.   Beyond that curtain, however, the wizard was nothing more than an  ordinary little man perpetrating a fraud upon those who worshipped his  doctrine.  And once Toto removed that curtain, the fraud was exposed for  all to see.
> Similarly, environmentalists’ mythical “scientific consensus” has  served as a shroud behind which they have sought to maintain an air of  infallibility.  By falsely claiming a closed consensus and excoriating  anyone who speaks out against their flawed orthodoxy, environmental  extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific debate that might  inhibit their political agenda.
> That shroud, however, was further torn this week by a 31,000-strong  petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine  (OISM).  According to the OISM’s board of scientists, “a review of the  research literature concerning the environmental consequences of  increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that  increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.”
> To the contrary, the OISM notes that increases in atmospheric carbon  dioxide have actually increased plant growth rates, among other positive  effects.  On this basis, the OISM concludes that “predictions of  harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse  gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current  experimental knowledge.”
> Accordingly, the straightforward petition reads:
> _We urge the United States government to reject the global warming  agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any  other similar proposals.  The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would  harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and  damage the health and welfare of mankind. _
> _There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of  carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will  in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s  atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is  substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide  produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal  environments of the Earth._
> The petition itself appears alongside a letter from the late  Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences.   Dr. Seitz stated that “the United States is very close to adopting an  international agreement that would ration the use of energy and  technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other  organic compounds.” He therefore warned that, “this treaty is, in our  opinion, based upon flawed ideas.  Research into data on climate change  does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.  To the  contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon  dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
> It should be noted that the OISM’s petition effort receives  absolutely no funding from the energy industry, or from anyone else with  a financial interest in the ongoing climate change debate.  Rather, its  funding derives entirely from private, non-tax-deductible contributions  from individual donors.
> Global warming alarmists will nevertheless exclaim, like the “wizard” in _The Wizard of Oz_,  “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”  Their agenda simply  cannot tolerate dissent, contrary evidence, or objective discussion of  the matter.  Instead, they cling to the claim of a false consensus, and  liken any objective disagreement to flat-earth proponents.  According to  Al Gore, for instance, “there is as strong a consensus on this issue as  science has ever had.”
> Oh?  Is it as strong as the supposed consensus when _Newsweek_  announced on November 23, 1992 that “the advent of a new ice age,  scientists say, appears to be guaranteed,” and that “the devastation  will be astonishing?”
> Gore’s comment is obviously absurd on its face.  A scientific  consensus does exist in well-settled scientific subjects, such as the  laws of gravity or physics.  But this is certainly not the case when it  comes to climate change.
> We can thank the OISM, its leadership and its 31,000 participating scientists for helping shatter the environmentalists’ myth.




http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...-Myth-Scientific-Consensus-Global-Warming.htm


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> look up the difference between scientific data and mindless right wing talking points.


Truth hurts, doesn't it? I thought so.


> I generally just read your silly post and kinda chuckle because I know  you are somewhere thinking you are some sort of conservobot genius, but  goodness you are stupid.


 As expected, if a point differs from your omniscient viewpoint, it's considered stupid. I actually believe you are to be pitied for the blinders that keep you from seeing the truth. But then, you put them on voluntarily.


----------



## mak2

This is a stupid post.  It just is.  





ki0ho said:


> You even talk ike mak!! I have no problem with opposing views......I know what I believe to be the truth...and no amount of double talk and down right lies will have any effect    on what I believe.....to me your post is predicated on lies and falsehoods O-slimmy care is built on the same foundation...as is the falsehood that is present in the White House at this time.....it matters not what you or those like you have to say....I listen..form my own opinions..and go about my life as I wish.....as far as what you wrote.....after reading it I get the feeling of needing to go take a hot shower and get the scum off me....much like the feeling of listening to O-slimmy speak!!! but there again...I listen and form my own opinion.....after all it is wise to keep track of what the opposing force is up to!!!
> 
> and please...have a nice day....





JEV said:


> Truth hurts, doesn't it? I thought so.
> As expected, if a point differs from your omniscient viewpoint, it's considered stupid. I actually believe you are to be pitied for the blinders that keep you from seeing the truth. But then, you put them on voluntarily.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> This is a stupid post.  It just is.


Yet you continue to return...probably just to get the last word.


----------



## fr73ed

Where did I say he was my hero?

OK you dint say that.
But what word would you suggest I use there ?
It's just a phrase.   I couldn't come up another for that sentence...
You're a bit  too thin skinned about this, so let's just eliminate that word and continue with the discussion, hey ?


============================================================================================================================================================snip=======================================







 I posted a cited source in rebuttal to your request for another viewpoint, and *you go into liberal mode and try to be cute. I never got personal with you, and ask that you stop doing so with me. Stick to the topic and can the poor attempt at humor. Condescension of your debate partners is not a desirable debate tactic, and makes you look small. * 
======================================================================================================================================================================================================


I love it ! You get offensive towards me and insult me in print, and now you take the high ground ...HA!
You are such a hypocrit.

=================================================================

A lot of people also thought your president was being truthful and working in the best interest of the country...probably the same ones who think my "hero's" science is not valid. I don't put faith in those people, as they are wrong more often than not.
======================================================================================================================================================================================================

Obama is your President too. At least he is if you are an AMERICAN.
================================================================

*I get upset when someone starts out posting a topic for debate, then turns into an ass hole by making condescending remarks when people present supporting documentation that conflicts with the OP's viewpoint. *

======================================================================================================================================================================================================

Once again, offensive, irritating, argumentative,not conducive to a reasonable debate.


==================================================================



Also, quantify "a lot of folks." 

======================================================================================================================================================================================================


A bunch.  More than a few. Quite a lot of people.200,000. 600,000.
Twenty million.

==================================================================

That quantity is meaningless as a correlation to how people interpret this "science." And YES, a lot of people out there don't think.
======================================================================================================================================================================================================
You won't get an argument from me about that. You see, we can agree on somethings.

===============================================================






 They respond to any stimulus from liars who manipulate and cherry pick data in support of their agenda at the expense of the masses, and under the lie of "We care."
======================================================================================================================================================================================================

All sides do this, Conservatives, Liberals, GDI's, Catholics, Protestants, Islamex, you name it and they do it.
__________________
__________________


----------



## JEV

Yep...mak2's brother. Thin skinned??  You might have signed up here in 2006, but you know nothing about me or the thickness of my skin. What's with the equals signs? Are you a mathematician? Oh...and turn on your spell checker, or begin paying attention to it. You look liberal with all the misspellings.


----------



## fr73ed

March, 2009.... Newbie.


----------



## JEV

fr73ed said:


> March, 2009.... Newbie.


I stand corrected. And you're correct about the newbie part after almost six years.


----------



## waybomb

It's the arrogance of liberals. Thinking man can change nature. We are just pipsqueeks on this planet. 

We can't make rain happen. We can't make cloud cover happen. We can't make rivers flow uphill. We can't predict nor stop an earthquake. We can't stop a volcanic eruption. We can't stop a tsunami. We can't stop the magnetic poles from flipping. We can't keep our roads from freezing over. We can't stop a cow from farting. and on and on.....

Yet the arrogant liberals think we can change the climate.
For the life of me, I fail to understand why y'all debate with these brainless media followers who feel they are right. They cannot figure out they are being played by money hungry mooches.


----------



## Doc

I think we've all seen reports come out with new information, and then 3 years later another report adds more to the original and changes the conclusion.  That's how I feel all this current hoopla.  Someday we'll get to a true understanding.  Currently to many are looking for ways to collect money and make money in the name of saving the world.  Noble cause for sure, and that is why so many will get behind it, even if they are wrong.


----------



## ki0ho

Im starting to think maby liberals is the wrong term.....after all it sort of sounds like liberty and freedom.......maby ...regressive.....is a better term...cause progressive is also false when referring to O-slimmy rats!!

JUMO


----------



## tiredretired

Well, you guys argue this global warming bullshit all you want.  Back and forth until the cows come home and when one side manages to convince the other let me know.

I will tell you this.  Personally I am thankful for global warming if indeed it does exist.  It was -17F here this morning and i do not even want to think about how cold it would have been this morning without out it. 

So, excuse me. I have two wood burning stoves that need my attention and when it warms up to zero or so, I will go and try to start my truck and go buy some more gas because we may have two snow storms coming this week and it's going to get even colder so the Sno-blower is going to be very busy. 

But I will say this to all those dooms day proponents.  They gotta have something to bitch about and this is about as good as any I guess.  

Carry on!


----------



## Kane

TiredRetired said:


> Well, you guys argue this global warming bullshit all you want. Back and forth until the cows come home and when one side manages to convince the other let me know.
> 
> I will tell you this. Personally I am thankful for global warming if indeed it does exist. It was -17F here this morning and i do not even want to think about how cold it would have been this morning without out it.
> 
> So, excuse me. I have two wood burning stoves that need my attention and when it warms up to zero or so, I will go and try to start my truck and go buy some more gas because we may have two snow storms coming this week and it's going to get even colder so the Sno-blower is going to be very busy.
> 
> But I will say this to all those dooms day proponents. They gotta have something to bitch about and this is about as good as any I guess.
> 
> Carry on!


Alas, my friend,  it's all about choices in life. Here in Sarasota, it's gonna' be sunny and 75 the rest of the winter. So to you guys choosing to live up north, WTF were you thinking? 



And as to so-called global warming, I and my spawn will be long dead before anyone actually gives a shit.  It's Human Nature to procrastinate.

.


----------



## tiredretired

Kane said:


> Alas, my friend,  it's all about choices in life. Here in Sarasota, it's gonna' be sunny and 75 the rest of the winter. So to you guys choosing to live up north, WTF were you thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> And as to so-called global warming, I and my spawn will be long dead before anyone actually gives a shit.  It's Human Nature to procrastinate.
> 
> .



Rub it in.  It is all about the quality of life, my friend.  Read up on the demographics of Vermont and it will give you some insight as to why I find this place somewhat appealing. I will say no more then that.


----------



## Kane

TiredRetired said:


> Rub it in. It is all about the quality of life, my friend. Read up on the demographics of Vermont and it will give you some insight as to why I find this place somewhat appealing. I will say no more then that.


Yes indeed, Vermont is special. If ever I could wrangle a second home, I'd come up in the Summer and be your neighbor. Boy oh boy would you hate that!  (there goes the neighborhood).

And yes, to all the good folks in Vermont: fuck global warming. Bring it on.


----------



## tiredretired

Kane said:


> Yes indeed, Vermont is special. If ever I could wrangle a second home, I'd come up in the Summer and be your neighbor. Boy oh boy would you hate that!  (there goes the neighborhood).
> 
> And yes, to all the good folks in Vermont: fuck global warming. Bring it on.



  Oh, and lots of nice curvy roads for the Crossfire, when global warming kicks in and we actually get a 80 degree day.


----------



## tiredretired

Came across this article by accident.  


Seems to me that if indeed man made global warming is real, then shouldn't the people who are the most concerned about this travel more responsibly and be even more concerned about their own personal CO footprint?  Seems to me they would be. Of course, we are talking about super rich ultra left wing liberal elitists.  You sky is falling proponents can cozy up  to these douche bags all you want.  I for one, will stay away, thank you very much 

Hard for me to take any of this global warming bullshit seriously and even harder to take the loonie proponents seriously as well.  Phonies.


----------



## EastTexFrank

TiredRetired said:


> Came across this article by accident.




Oh!!!  The irony!!!!

If it's any comfort to you freezing your butt off in Vermont, I read an article a while back that said that much colder winters will be a consequence of global warming.  If you can figure that one out, let me know.


----------



## waybomb

So the more I drink the less drunk I get?


----------



## tiredretired

EastTexFrank said:


> Oh!!!  The irony!!!!
> 
> If it's any comfort to you freezing your butt off in Vermont, I read an article a while back that said that much colder winters will be a consequence of global warming.  If you can figure that one out, let me know.



Yeah, I read that as well. Humorous to say the least.  Finding that article was rather ironic, was it not??  



waybomb said:


> So the more I drink the less drunk I get?



I tried that when I was younger.  It did not work, but not for lack of trying.  Maybe it is just the fact that you can't bullshit a bullshitter, but I find it incredible there of folks that buy into this shit.  I just do.  

BTW, my truck started just fine today, so maybe there is something to this GW hoopla.


----------



## JEV

In an effort to show the world how serious they are about reducing their carbon footprint, I think they should have a mass suicide to prove the point. Maybe it will catch on and the problem will go away all by itself.


----------



## tiredretired

JEV said:


> In an effort to show the world how serious they are about reducing their carbon footprint, I think they should have a mass suicide to prove the point. Maybe it will catch on and the problem will go away all by itself.



I promise to watch. However, I would suspect Mr. fr73ed has done his usual semi annual flame baiting post and has now regressed into the depths of liberalism for another six months or so.  I look forward to his next "intelligent" post sometime around July or August.


----------



## ki0ho

JEV said:


> In an effort to show the world how serious they are about reducing their carbon footprint, I think they should have a mass suicide to prove the point. Maybe it will catch on and the problem will go away all by itself.





If you folks would just newter all your lib..regressive pets......the problem of global warming and various other problems would soon solve them selves!!!!


----------



## fr73ed

I promise to watch. However, I would suspect Mr. fr73ed has done his usual semi annual flame baiting post and has now regressed into the depths of liberalism for another six months or so. I look forward to his next "intelligent" post sometime around July or August.


Well, Mr. tiredretired, wrong again, as usual.
And this wasn't a troll, it was designed to get a conversation started. Which it did.
" Flame baiting post " ? Is that what you think ?
I guess you fell for it then .

Anyway, thought I'd give y'all another shot at what real scientists think, and let you have a chance to stay on subject with an argument against.

========================================================



Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level...	 Basic		  Intermediate		  Advanced		
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

consensus pie chart

Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study:



Several studies have confirmed that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.



Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


----------



## JEV

I guess if someone says something enough time, even if it's not true, that some folks will begin to believe it. Interesting...



> 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.



Just how many "_climate experts_" are there to get a 97% consensus? 4...5..10?  What qualifies a person as a "climate expert?" Probably the same thing that qualifies someone to be a presidential adviser...like Al Sharpton, the race baiting tax evader. 

I don't know ANY group that gets 97% consensus of anything...unless they have a vested financial interest in its outcome.


----------



## SShepherd

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## Catavenger

Sure blame it on the HOMOS!


----------



## Kane

Come on now, guys. We need to all quit arguing and just acknowledge man-made global warming is real  ... because the science is settled ... well, sorta'. Maybe. Could be.


----------



## Kane

Yo, fr73ed. Surely you're a smart guy and know it's not about warm weather. Like JEV says, it's a hoax. And it's all about the money.
____________________________________________

THE SHOREBANK, OBAMA, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE SCAM! 

So . . . You think you know quite a bit about Obama and his band of thieves. Read on and see just how little you know. All of this comes together in the last part... a must read.

This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper.It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change, it is money.

I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it.The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires.(It's definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).

A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.

ShoreBank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to Eco-litmus tests.

Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.

This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.

Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.

Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.

So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts 

One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.

Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years. 

Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist.Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.

(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).

When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding.Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist. 

Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.

Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends). 

Interesting? And now the closing... 

Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.

But, here's the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).

If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.

But don't forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.

It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life. Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.

stolen from whatreallyhappened.com 2010
_________________________________________________

Kane's warning to America:


Heads Up, People: Just wait for Obama to push a carbon tax thru during the final two years of his presidency ... *by executive order.* BEWARE!

.


----------



## tiredretired

fr73ed said:


> Well, Mr. tiredretired, wrong again, as usual.
> And this wasn't a troll, it was designed to get a conversation started. Which it did.
> " Flame baiting post " ? Is that what you think ?
> I guess you fell for it then .



Whoa, whoa there fella.  Take it easy now.  Don't you be getting those panties of yours all in a twist.  It has been your track record after all. So, I predicted your escape a bit early, silly me.  It will happen sooner then later and you do know I am right.   

Don't I know you from another forum?  Different moniker, but I recognize the way you write.  One of Surly's er Mak's buddies most likely.  Yeah, I get your style.  

Cheers.


----------



## 300 H and H

I thought I gave him a reasonable and unanswered post in #29 of this thread. He never got around to a reply....

Stattistics will be on my side and any other who cares to consider what a brief instant of time we have definative records for.

We like to think we can extend that time frame with interpillation of data sets, and by creating assuptions that are used to maniulate the data sets... This is were the waters get very muddy IMHO..

And, of course we are aware of the manipulation of data that has been exposed as fruadulent... By the global warming theroists..

And the myth of the 97%.. Like nearly all the guns the drug cartels are using came from the USA... This issue has become way to political. Maybe the 97% of those who believe are ALL Democrats and liberals...

I think it is B.S. of unimaginable magnitude. It won't be settle in my life time cause of the money and the politics. 

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Danang Sailor

SShepherd said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136



Shep, the _Journal_ wouldn't let me see the article unless I was willing to subscribe, but it was picked up by others.  Here is
a link for anyone else who would like to read the article but isn't a subscriber:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## fr73ed

Kirk,

I'm sorry that I haven't responded to yer post.
Sorry 'bout that.
I thought you said good things, others got in the way don't ya know...
more lator,
 despite what some on here say, I think this thread has gone well...
regards, fr73ed


----------



## mak2

The internet is a far bigger place than you realize.  There are more than 2 or 3 people out there that are not crazy far right wing, and I dont know them all.  





TiredRetired said:


> Whoa, whoa there fella.  Take it easy now.  Don't you be getting those panties of yours all in a twist.  It has been your track record after all. So, I predicted your escape a bit early, silly me.  It will happen sooner then later and you do know I am right.
> 
> Don't I know you from another forum?  Different moniker, but I recognize the way you write.  One of Surly's er Mak's buddies most likely.  Yeah, I get your style.
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## tiredretired

mak2 said:


> The internet is a far bigger place than you realize.  There are more than 2 or 3 people out there that are not crazy far right wing, and I dont know them all.



Well, thank you very much for enlightening me.  Guess I must have struck a nerve.

Carry on.


----------



## tiredretired

fr73ed said:


> Kirk,
> 
> I'm sorry that I haven't responded to yer post.
> Sorry 'bout that.
> I thought you said good things, others got in the way don't ya know...
> more lator,
> despite what some on here say, I think this thread has gone well...
> regards, fr73ed



Better watch yourself young padawan, Post #29 is an inconvenient truth for you gloom & doom sky is falling lefties.  That is if you are still around.

Cheers.


----------



## fr73ed

Better watch yourself young padawan, Post #29 is an inconvenient truth for you gloom & doom sky is falling lefties. That is if you are still around.

Cheers.



Hardly inconvenient, as I mentioned, Kirk has some good things to say.
And yeah, as long as I piss you off so bad, I'll be around with the truth.
Cheers back atcha...


----------



## tiredretired

fr73ed said:


> Kirk has some good things to say.
> And yeah, as long as I piss you off so bad, I'll be around with the truth.
> Cheers back atcha...



Well, I certainly do not want to get in the way of your man crush with Kirk, so let's hear your long promised response to Post #29.  As I said, it is an inconvenient truth for you gloom and doomers.  Prove it wrong.  Please tell me how we will have palm trees in Vermont by 2020 or so. I have a spot all picked out for them, but there is about 4 feet of snow and 30" of frost in the ground right now to plant them.   

By all means, stick around.  This place needs more lefties anyway to have fun with.  

Cheers!


----------



## fr73ed

Seems like I heard it like this 
" Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get"
Wish I had some of that 48 " snow here...


----------



## tiredretired

fr73ed said:


> Seems like I heard it like this
> " Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get"
> Wish I had some of that 48 " snow here...



We have a lot and the temps have been below zero every morning for over a week now.  Typical winter for us up here.  PM me your shipping address and I will be glad to send you all the white stuff you want and then some.


----------



## SShepherd

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...te-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.
During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”
But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.

Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”
“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:
“I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”
Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.

 This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry.
“Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”
*Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”
As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”
The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.
“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”*


----------



## ki0ho

That post rings of honest truth...to me....Havent checked the reference yet but I will and then decide if I need to read further....thanks for the post  Shep!!

But for now..it sure looks like a couple of Regressive's  need to recant their crap Ideas!!!


----------



## Doc

SShepherd said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...te-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
> 
> An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.
> During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
> “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
> Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.
> 
> Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”
> But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.
> 
> Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”
> “Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
> Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:
> “I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”
> Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.
> 
> This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry.
> “Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”
> *Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
> “They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”
> As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
> “Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”
> The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.
> “Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”*



Excellent post.


----------



## mak2

Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism


----------



## 300 H and H

Kanes post no.66 is very interesting and explains alot. My posts need addressed about the statistics as well.

Just those two posts should keep the global warming crowd busy explaining to us the truth about global warming...

Regards, Kirk


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism



Lindzen was right about the cultist doubling down. Thanks, mak2, for validating his point. 

FWIW, the OP never got back to me with just how many climate experts there are, who when polled, agree 97% that where going to fry in our own fat because of the catastrophic rising temperatures (2/100ths of a degree  SAVE US JESUS!!!).

Personally, I think they are all weak little people with no friends who need something to do to feel important. The only people being fooled, and joining their alarmist cult, are other weak little people with no lives and no friends. Climate "optimum" is a bad thing for them, because they have nothing to bitch about otherwise. They are to be pitied and offered psychological help. When "optimum" is bad in their minds, you know they have gone off the deep end. 

Hey...I just realized I was able to be a condescending bastard in a charming way...just like the liberals. I knew i had it in me all the time, it just needed to come out. I must have been a liberal in a previous life.


----------



## Kane

300 H and H said:


> Kanes post no.66 is very interesting and explains alot. My posts need addressed about the statistics as well.
> 
> Just those two posts should keep the global warming crowd busy explaining to us the truth about global warming...
> 
> Regards, Kirk



With regard to post #66, you can bet your ass that Obama will enact some sort of carbon cap and tax -- BY EXECUTIVE ORDER -- before his term expires. An obscene retirement plan for himself, Al Gore and the rest of his cronies.


----------



## Danang Sailor

mak2 said:


> Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism




 _"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - S. L. Clemmons_

With that thought firmly in mind, here are some figures from the other side of the debate.  I have not done a 100% due
diligence on these, but the ones personally checked do in fact support the data in the _WSJ_ article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## mak2

It only lets me read a couple of lines.  





Danang Sailor said:


> _"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - S. L. Clemmons_
> 
> With that thought firmly in mind, here are some figures from the other side of the debate.  I have not done a 100% due
> diligence on these, but the ones personally checked do in fact support the data in the _WSJ_ article.
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## jpr62902

mak2 said:


> It only lets me read a couple of lines.



Try here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...st-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/


----------



## ki0ho

That won't help much JPR.......its the ADAH that screws up the regressive up!!!  after a line or two its mind goes blank......and they get the urge to riot......


----------



## mak2

Thanks.  





jpr62902 said:


> Try here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...st-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/


----------



## mak2

If this were a topic in my field and I wanted to make a decision on what I thought about it I would construct a meta analysis.  In this analysis I would include the last certain number of studeis (depends on how many had been done in the last year or two,) by people I consider experts in my field.  I would have to constrcut the question depending on what the studites looked out.  Constructing the questions has a great effect on the validity of hte analysis.  The problem with the deniers is they dont look to the real experts in the field.  I would not consult a physical thearpy study aobut a respiratory problem in most cases.  That is why there is a body of knowledge in every field and experts in that field.  Of course Kerry screwed it up, but using his screw up as some bit of evidence to reiforce the weakness in the argument is not relevant in any case.   I still think if it wasnt for big oil money there woudl be no question about the science.  





jpr62902 said:


> Try here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...st-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> If this were a topic in my field and I wanted to make a decision on what I thought about it I would construct a meta analysis.  In this analysis I would include the last certain number of studeis (depends on how many had been done in the last year or two,) by people I consider experts in my field.  I would have to constrcut the question depending on what the studites looked out.  Constructing the questions has a great effect on the validity of hte analysis.  The problem with the deniers is they dont look to the real experts in the field.  I would not consult a physical thearpy study aobut a respiratory problem in most cases.  That is why there is a body of knowledge in every field and experts in that field.  Of course Kerry screwed it up, but using his screw up as some bit of evidence to reiforce the weakness in the argument is not relevant in any case.   I still think if it wasnt for big oil mey there woudl be no question about the science.



The problem is, Mak, that too many of those doomsday situations predicted by those experts simply didn't happen.  The ocean has not risen by 10 or 200 feet.  Polar bears are not drowning due tod  lack of icebergs in the Artic.  The worlds temperature has not risen significantly over the recent past.  The world is apparently not running out of fossil fuel just yet.  The list goes on.

Now, instead of saying we screwed up, the models they designed must be wrong, but if you give us more money, we can fix them.

Now the experts appear to be doubling down on stupid.  A recent Yahoo article reports that researchers have found some glacier is melting at a doomsday rate due to warm water melting it from below, where we can't see it happening and will increase the ocean level by 10 feet in a few years.  Even an uneducated non expert such   as myself can spot the flaws in this report.  Even if the entire glacier melts, the resulting water results in a rise of less than an inch.  Plus, no explanation as to how warm water gets under a glacier, which by definition is bedded on land.  If ocean ice is melying, then there is exactly zero increas in ocean level.   FWIW, a similar expedition last year got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued.

There are many more similar situations, and many newer  predictions that need to be funded and studied.  

I'm not buying it.


----------



## Kane

Of course 97% of meteorologists concurred that the blizzard of 2015 ... Snowmaggedon ... would paralyze NYC with 2 feet of snow. The science was settled.


----------



## JEV

Kane said:


> Of course 97% of meteorologists concurred that the blizzard of 2015 ... Snowmaggedon ... would paralyze NYC with 2 feet of snow. *The science was settled*.


...and fucked up as expected. Friday they will all get their paychecks for being wrong...AGAIN! I shoulda listened to my Mama and became a meteorologist. You get paid for being wrong or right. Good work if you're lucky and you have a pretty face for TV. Mama always said I had a face for radio.


----------

