http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sceptics-weather-the-storm-to-put-their-case-on-climate-20121228-2bz91.html

In the climate debate, the only "judge" is the scientific method - a testable hypothesis followed by factual or experimental challenge. The "facts" here represent an anxious problem for the DAGW advocates. For example, everybody agrees that the warming trend paused 16 years ago, despite a corresponding 10 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2. This ought to be an embarrassment to the global warming alarmists. What exactly is the relationship between CO2 and temperature? Why did the warming trend stop as it did between 1945 and 1975, when CO2 emissions took off?

As Dr David Whitehouse, the former BBC online science editor, said in the New Statesman in 2007, "something else is happening to the climate and it is vital we find out what or we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly". Obviously we should pay close attention to the computer models that form the basis of climate scientists' projections. In fact these models apparently failed to anticipate the current pause in global warming, not to mention the abundance of post-drought rainfall in Australia. Scientific "consensus" based on these computer models is becoming rather shaky.

The reason why scientific consensus emerged in this debate is because political activists want to get things moving, and if they say that consensus is scary and urgent, then sceptics had better get out of the way.

The activist cause peaked early in 2007 when Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth became an international hit. This documentary was superficially compelling for the uninitiated, but in October 2007 the British High Court found the film contained nine errors of fact.

Professor Bob Carter of Queensland's James Cook University gave evidence in this case; few people in Australia are aware of this severe embarrassment for Mr Gore.

Later that year, the ABC broadcast Martin Durkin's provocative documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, against the outraged objections of many prominent alarmists. How interesting. The science was "settled", the debate was said to be over and no further discussion was required. Any media professional should have been aroused by such an excited censorship campaign, and it stimulated my first cartoon on the subject (above), which depicted the family TV set as mediaeval stocks with an imprisoned climate sceptic being pelted by the family with their TV dinner.

It seemed to me that things changed after that documentary was screened. Perhaps the shock of hearing the likes of Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, and Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, had joined the ranks of the sceptical was just too much for some people.

Things got nasty. Someone came up with the brilliant but insidious idea of using the term "denier" to describe a person who remained agnostic or sceptical about the exact human contribution to the 0.7 degree global warming of the past 100 years. This malicious rhetoric came to be adopted by climate activists, media reporters and politicians up to head-of-state level. Many distinguished scientists such as Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Bill Kininmonth, former head of our National Climate Centre, were casually defamed in this way. The same label was applied to world-renowned theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and Australia's distinguished Professor Bob Carter.

Holocaust denial describes the heartless and despicable refusal by anti-Semites to acknowledge the historical truth of the Jewish genocide of World War II. If you use the offensive term "denier" you do so for reasons best known to yourself. You may be calculating or you may be indifferent, but as Wong, Rudd and Gillard would have known, the effect is pungent. No sensible, morally responsible person wants to be stigmatised in such a way.

Some prominent Australian intellectuals to this day continue to explicitly endorse the moral equivalence between Holocaust and global warming denial. This is all the more incredible because it comes from academics who understand the horror of the Holocaust. For good measure, sceptics have also been compared with 18th century slave trade advocates, tobacco lobbyists and even paedophile promoters.

But times have changed, and since 2007, the non-scientific players in this great intellectual drama have been confronted by creeping uncertainty about many of the major climate science issues. These have included the composition of the IPCC and the credibility of its processes; remember Glaciergate? The IPCC predicted the end of the Himalayan glaciers based on non-scientific literature; the unusual (or not) melting of sea ice and glaciers; the evidence for warm temperatures during the mediaeval period; the importance of sun spots; changes (or not) in patterns of extreme weather events; ocean "acidification"; ocean warming and rising sea levels; bio-mass absorption and the longevity of molecules of atmospheric CO2; the influence of short-period El Nino southern oscillation (ENSO) and other similar oscillations on a multi-decade scale; the chaotic behaviour of clouds; and the impact of cosmic rays on climate. Even James Lovelock, the founder of the "Gaia", movement has turned sceptic

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Later that year, the ABC broadcast Martin Durkin's provocative documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, against the outraged objections of many prominent alarmists. How interesting. The science was "settled", the debate was said to be over and no further discussion was required. Any media professional should have been aroused by such an excited censorship campaign, and it stimulated my first cartoon on the subject (above), which depicted the family TV set as mediaeval stocks with an imprisoned climate sceptic being pelted by the family with their TV dinner.

As soon as they Mentioned Martin Durkin you know the article has no credibility ;D ;D ;D ;D

Did anyone see the doco ??

The ABC tore it to shreds ;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ

Al Gore = L.R Hubbard.

Religion dressed as Science.

The Denialists admitting they are following a handful of nutjobs  ;D
Even Tony Abbott has the same targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases as Julia Gillard so the only idiot in politics they can follow now is Bill the poofter basher Heffernan  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 3:03pm:

The Denialists admitting they are following a handful of nutjobs  ;D Even Tony Abbott has the same targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases as Julia Gillard so the only idiot in politics they can follow now is Bill the poofter basher Heffernan  ;D

ADELCROW... SPOT THE 'craxy nutjob' in the following list...

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

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

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

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

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

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. 

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”
- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.  # #

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i...

gold_medal wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 3:03pm: The Denialists admitting they are following a handful of nutjobs  ;D Even Tony Abbott has the same targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases as Julia Gillard so the only idiot in politics they can follow now is Bill the poofter basher Heffernan  ;D ADELCROW... SPOT THE 'craxy nutjob' in the following list... “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -  Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.  “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.  “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.  # # http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i...

This looks like a difficult task

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

The commy sunrise presenters at channel 7 will be very dissapointed to hear this-no not really they will just push their leftist cause as usual.

Go mel and koshy!

be a bit hard to call ANYONE on that list a crazy nutjob.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

be a bit hard to call ANYONE on that list a crazy nutjob.

They are denialists so it stands to reason that they are nutjobs..longy is living proof that just because a person has a degree that it doesn't mean they are not a certifiable lunatic.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/images/firefighter.feature.jpg

A picture says a thousand words  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:23am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 7:21pm: be a bit hard to call ANYONE on that list a crazy nutjob. They are denialists so it stands to reason that they are nutjobs..longy is living proof that just because a person has a degree that it doesn't mean they are not a certifiable lunatic.

thats an amazing argument!! ANYBODY - yes, anybody, including famed scientists, Noble Prize winners, aatronauts and thos at the top of their field - is a nutjob if they refuse to agree with a hypothesis about CO2 which has no evidence and a mass of contrary facts?

you are the nutjob bozo for continuing to swallow the cAGW scam when you can see the proof all around you. NO rise in temperatures as predictied. NO rise in sea levels. NO increase in climate catastophes.

Denialist loon
http://images.theage.com.au/2011/06/22/2446023/art-415326574-420x0.jpg

Climate change activist
http://blog.petaasiapacific.com/wp-content/uploads/Cara-G-Save-the-Planet-TC-300-495x700.jpg

I know which side Im on

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:55am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 7:23am: gold_medal wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 7:21pm: be a bit hard to call ANYONE on that list a crazy nutjob. They are denialists so it stands to reason that they are nutjobs..longy is living proof that just because a person has a degree that it doesn't mean they are not a certifiable lunatic. thats an amazing argument!! ANYBODY - yes, anybody, including famed scientists, Noble Prize winners, aatronauts and thos at the top of their field - is a nutjob if they refuse to agree with a hypothesis about CO2 which has no evidence and a mass of contrary facts? you are the nutjob bozo for continuing to swallow the cAGW scam when you can see the proof all around you. NO rise in temperatures as predictied. NO rise in sea levels. NO increase in climate catastophes.

For your benifit

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TEK0s6ptMsA/UKVLoWrkNfI/AAAAAAAAGc0/GlCYFi6ROTw/s1600/Powell-climate-articles-chart.png

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:57am:

Denialist loon http://images.theage.com.au/2011/06/22/2446023/art-415326574-420x0.jpg Climate change activist http://blog.petaasiapacific.com/wp-content/uploads/Cara-G-Save-the-Planet-TC-300-495x700.jpg I know which side Im on

the one where your penis points?

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 7:57am: Denialist loon http://images.theage.com.au/2011/06/22/2446023/art-415326574-420x0.jpg Climate change activist http://blog.petaasiapacific.com/wp-content/uploads/Cara-G-Save-the-Planet-TC-300-495x700.jpg I know which side Im on the one where your penis points?

Why not..that seems to be what your doing

the real figure...

---

since your graphic contains made-up figures it seems only fair that I make up a few myself.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

since your graphic contains made-up figures it seems only fair that I make up a few myself.

Sadly all you have is made up figures that are easily debunked by the experts because there is no science involved in the sceptics arguments

Sceptics are sucked in by multi nationals using the same lobbyists the tobacco industry employed for decades

http://churchandstate.org.uk/wordpressRM/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-02-01_095121.gif

Yep...your being played for the suckers that you are

The birth of modern denialism
http://jimcraven10.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hypocrisy-theory-of-evolution-scopes-monkey-trial.jpg

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:23am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 29th, 2012 at 7:21pm: be a bit hard to call ANYONE on that list a crazy nutjob. They are denialists so it stands to reason that they are nutjobs..longy is living proof that just because a person has a degree that it doesn't mean they are not a certifiable lunatic.

the thing is that long loser doesn't have a degree in anything. He just imagines that he does and that is why he is insane !!

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14am:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 8:07am: since your graphic contains made-up figures it seems only fair that I make up a few myself. Sadly all you have is made up figures that are easily debunked by the experts because there is no science involved in the sceptics arguments

to add to that how many skeptics actually go out and get their own research data ? Instead they are like parasites waiting for someone else to do it for them and then they just add their own conclusions to suit their own hidden agendas !!

I'm embarrassed alright, I'm embarrassed my ten year old son sees f wits that don't believe the overwhelming majority of scientists that the world is warming, partly due to mans abuse of it. When he asks me why some people say things like the world is not warming I just tell him to ignore the tards, they belong in mental institutions.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

I'm embarrassed alright, I'm embarrassed my ten year old son sees f wits that don't believe the overwhelming majority of scientists that the world is warming, partly due to mans abuse of it. When he asks me why some people say things like the world is not warming I just tell him to ignore the tards, they belong in mental institutions.

So you and your son ignore scientists too then. You ignore empirical evidence that the earth has not warmed further for 16 years. Way to go dad.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:07am: I'm embarrassed alright, I'm embarrassed my ten year old son sees f wits that don't believe the overwhelming majority of scientists that the world is warming, partly due to mans abuse of it. When he asks me why some people say things like the world is not warming I just tell him to ignore the tards, they belong in mental institutions. So you and your son ignore scientists too then. You ignore empirical evidence that the earth has not warmed further for 16 years. Way to go dad.

My son and I ignore the retards that peddle lies. We believe the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:07am: I'm embarrassed alright, I'm embarrassed my ten year old son sees f wits that don't believe the overwhelming majority of scientists that the world is warming, partly due to mans abuse of it. When he asks me why some people say things like the world is not warming I just tell him to ignore the tards, they belong in mental institutions. So you and your son ignore scientists too then. You ignore empirical evidence that the earth has not warmed further for 16 years. Way to go dad. My son and I ignore the retards that peddle lies. We believe the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Your letting your son down if you refuse to let him be influenced by ex tobacco industry lobbyists.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:13am: skippy. wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:07am: I'm embarrassed alright, I'm embarrassed my ten year old son sees f wits that don't believe the overwhelming majority of scientists that the world is warming, partly due to mans abuse of it. When he asks me why some people say things like the world is not warming I just tell him to ignore the tards, they belong in mental institutions. So you and your son ignore scientists too then. You ignore empirical evidence that the earth has not warmed further for 16 years. Way to go dad. My son and I ignore the retards that peddle lies. We believe the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Indoctrination is a powerful thing. Coming from dad, it is even more powerful. We dont need free thinkers anymore.

This thread is hilarious.

An OPINION piece by a climate change skeptic is given the headline
"Embarrassment for the climate alarmists"

The article spends most of its time whinging about name calling and playing the victim.

It repeats the lie that "global warming has stopped the past 16 years". I guess the skeptics figure that if they repeat a lie often enough then people will start to believe it.

This "global warming has stopped" is pure statistical cherry picking. Start the graph in 1999 and suddenly the outcome is that it has been warming strongly in the last 13 years.

Last decade was warmer than the decade before it. This is the evidence that global warming is continuing.

16 years of data is not long enough to distinguish the signal from the noise on a long term trend like global warming.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

This thread is hilarious. An OPINION piece by a climate change skeptic is given the headline "Embarrassment for the climate alarmists" The article spends most of its time whinging about name calling and playing the victim. It repeats the lie that "global warming has stopped the past 16 years". I guess the skeptics figure that if they repeat a lie often enough then people will start to believe it. This "global warming has stopped" is pure statistical cherry picking. Start the graph in 1999 and suddenly the outcome is that it has been warming strongly in the last 13 years. Last decade was warmer than the decade before it. This is the evidence that global warming is continuing. 16 years of data is not long enough to distinguish the signal from the noise on a long term trend like global warming.

Retards don't know the difference between weather and climate.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 9:57am: This thread is hilarious. An OPINION piece by a climate change skeptic is given the headline "Embarrassment for the climate alarmists" The article spends most of its time whinging about name calling and playing the victim. It repeats the lie that "global warming has stopped the past 16 years". I guess the skeptics figure that if they repeat a lie often enough then people will start to believe it. This "global warming has stopped" is pure statistical cherry picking. Start the graph in 1999 and suddenly the outcome is that it has been warming strongly in the last 13 years. Last decade was warmer than the decade before it. This is the evidence that global warming is continuing. 16 years of data is not long enough to distinguish the signal from the noise on a long term trend like global warming. The retards don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Its ok for AGW loons. The sandy storm for a recent weather event. The USA heat wave for another.

Keep up skip

Well the denialists are running out of heros coz all they have left in the Aussie parliament is the old dinosaur Bill poofter basher Heffernan.
Everyone else is a member of a doomsday cult (including Tony Abbott) according the the denialists  :D

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Well the denialists are running out of heros coz all they have left in the Aussie parliament is the old dinosaur Bill poofter basher Heffernan. Everyone else is a member of a doomsday cult (including Tony Abbott) according the the denialists  :D

Lets call an election and see where your Carbon Tax end up?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

This thread is hilarious. An OPINION piece by a climate change skeptic is given the headline "Embarrassment for the climate alarmists" The article spends most of its time whinging about name calling and playing the victim. It repeats the lie that "global warming has stopped the past 16 years". I guess the skeptics figure that if they repeat a lie often enough then people will start to believe it. This "global warming has stopped" is pure statistical cherry picking. Start the graph in 1999 and suddenly the outcome is that it has been warming strongly in the last 13 years. Last decade was warmer than the decade before it. This is the evidence that global warming is continuing. 16 years of data is not long enough to distinguish the signal from the noise on a long term trend like global warming.

this so-called 'lie' comes from Phil Hughes head of CRU and climate hysteric. CRu is the worlds leading temeprature data research centre.  but feel free to deny the truth if it helps feed your fantasy.

The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election!
And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world?

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world?

the most horrible thing I have to say is that in the end I am glad that GWB won in 2000. Bush was a bozo and essentially won the election by vote rigging. He was a terrible president and yet... imagine if Gore had come to power.

it is enough to make you shiver.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

Sceptics are sucked in by multi nationals using the same lobbyists the tobacco industry employed for decades http://churchandstate.org.uk/wordpressRM/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-02-01_095121.gif Yep...your being played for the suckers that you are

THEY'RE NOT BEING PLAYED: THEY SIMPLY HATE THEIR CHILDREN AND ALWAYS HAD HATRED AT THE CENTRE OF THIER BEING!

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world?

I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 2:09pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:29pm: The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world? I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!!

not even you could be THAT stupid. GWB won in 2000. you need a new drug supplier.

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 2:09pm: hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:29pm: The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world? I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!! not even you could be THAT stupid. GWB won in 2000. you need a new drug supplier.

I bet the American public are now glad they voted in the idiot that destroyed the countries financial system  ;D

http://www.marxistbooks.com/images/P/likearockonlydumber.jpg

adelcrow wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 4:27pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 2:09pm: hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:29pm: The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world? I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!! not even you could be THAT stupid. GWB won in 2000. you need a new drug supplier. I bet the American public are now glad they voted in the idiot that destroyed the countries financial system  ;D

Bill Clinton was not too bad

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 4:27pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 2:09pm: hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:29pm: The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world? I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!! not even you could be THAT stupid. GWB won in 2000. you need a new drug supplier. I bet the American public are now glad they voted in the idiot that destroyed the countries financial system  ;D Bill Clinton was not too bad

Yep..but Abbott takes after GWBush   ;D

http://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-content/uploads/george-w-bush-stupid-president-500.png

hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world?

It was close though:

5 to 3 in a stacked high court.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 5:12pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 4:27pm: gold_medal wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 4:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2012 at 2:09pm: hadrian_now wrote on Dec 30th, 2012 at 2:29pm: The climate alarmists have conveniently forgotten than Al Gore was SO dumb he couldn't even beat George W Bush in an election! And this is the person we are supposed to revere as the GURU of the world? I THOUGHT HE WON ACTUALLY.................!!???!! not even you could be THAT stupid. GWB won in 2000. you need a new drug supplier. I bet the American public are now glad they voted in the idiot that destroyed the countries financial system  ;D Bill Clinton was not too bad Yep..but Abbott takes after GWBush   ;D

How did your mate Gore go against Bush during the election

Didn't Gore win an Academy Award for something?

Oh that's right - he didn't win that either

100 REASONS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL


HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:


1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

And 50 more
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

So this is where the the most oft-repeated canards of the denialist blogosphere come to die.

Some of these canards are so embarrassing, debunking them would feel a little like clubbing baby seals.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:22am:

So this is where the the most oft-repeated canards of the denialist blogosphere come to die. Some of these canards are so embarrassing, debunking them would feel a little like clubbing baby seals.

You could take your cult book over to this guy who wrote the article and take on his challenge.


Quote:

THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE SCIENTIST WHO HAS REAL DATA EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE 31.12.12, 7:10am FACT. There is no scientist in the world who can produce observational data evidence showing that increases in CO2 levels over the last hundreds, thousands or millions of years cause increases in world temperatures. IF ANYONE out there thinks there is then (i) NAME the scientist and (ii) GIVE THE OBSERVATIONAL DATA EVIDENCE. Note opinions, computer models or claims it 'must be so' by anyone however expert, well-known or gravy-train funded count for zero. The only thing that counts is scientific observational evidence. Thanks Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters.

http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/146138/1

When you do, let us know and we will follow your success.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:44am:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/images/firefighter.feature.jpg A picture says a thousand words  ;D

That's a pretty good visual summation of where we are at the moment.

[img]http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/images/firefighter.feature.jpg[/img]

There's no fire.

Soren wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:44am:

There's no fire.

I would have to agree. There has to be a reason everyone has to agree there is a fire when they will not allow you to see the fire in order to agree with it.

More religious stuff from the cult. You must believe. A fire is not a god. You could just show the people the fire and move on, but nooooo. Because it doesnt exist in reality, there is no empirical real world data that the fire exists.

Soren wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 11:44am:

There's no fire.

No but there is an abundance of seals to club.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:28am:

100 REASONS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: 18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

And this link debunks all these so called reasons

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

I'm not sure what the economics of windfarms has to do with evidence that global warming is natural.  :D

I also notice reason 18 where once again the total lack of scientific knowledge is apparent.

The current levels of water vapour, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses keep our planet at its current temperature. It is only if we increase those gasses that the temperature increases.

Increases in water vapour fall out as rain. Increases in CO2 stay in the atmosphere and cause it to warm.

Its not rocket science, but the global warming deniers do like to peddle their lies.

My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda? 

Unlike CO2, an external forcing which can be added to and subtracted from the atmosphere, the level of water vapour is a function of temperature. Add CO2 and a little temperature to the atmosphere, and more water vapour can be held by the atmosphere Without this positive feedback effect a doubling of CO2 would only increase temperatures by about 1°C. Water vapor feedback doubles the warming. The other major positive feedback is of course the loss of albedo due to melting of our ice caps, ice sheets and glaciers.

Point 18 is wrong because our actions can indirectly increase the amount of water vapour held by the atmosphere.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:20pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 10:28am: 100 REASONS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: 18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control And this link debunks all these so called reasons http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html I'm not sure what the economics of windfarms has to do with evidence that global warming is natural.  :D I also notice reason 18 where once again the total lack of scientific knowledge is apparent. The current levels of water vapour, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses keep our planet at its current temperature. It is only if we increase those gasses that the temperature increases. Increases in water vapour fall out as rain. Increases in CO2 stay in the atmosphere and cause it to warm. Its not rocket science, but the global warming deniers do like to peddle their lies. My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?

So what is your name to the challenge from the author of the piece. Would love to keep up with how you flawed the author via his challenge.

Keep us posted.

I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs.


Quote:

My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?

You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:56pm:

I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history.

I am sure you would. So how did you flaw the author. What is the response to his challenge that we should look out for, that is yours?

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:58pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:56pm: I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history. I am sure you would. So how did you flaw the author. What is the response to his challenge that we should look out for, that is yours?

It's an exercise in semantics, progs. Few things can be proven absolutely. However, progs, we do have satellite data that  shows a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 2:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:58pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:56pm: I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history. I am sure you would. So how did you flaw the author. What is the response to his challenge that we should look out for, that is yours? It's an exercise in semantics, progs. Few things can be proven absolutely. However, progs, we do have satellite data that  shows a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

Comparing to what time frame. How is that graph any different to one when satellites went up or is this just a stagnant graph.

The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 3:11pm:

The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time.

It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time.

Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature.

wow... that is just so wrong. and to add to the error in your posts. climatologists of all persuasions admit they know very little of the response of clouds and water vapour to increased warming thus making any predictive model invalid.

but keep going and dig yourself a deeper hole. Everything is a function of temperature... except CO2 because that is the CAUSE of temperature. How convenient! and yet not supported by ice-cores or even current experience.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 1:56pm:

I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history.

NOBODY does! the only people who claim that are the drongos who dont understand it at all and simply google something and therefore beleive that it is the entire truth. Atmospheric phsyics is an exceptionally complex area which its practictioners admite is very very poorly understood.

but you do?

wrong.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature. wow... that is just so wrong. and to add to the error in your posts. climatologists of all persuasions admit they know very little of the response of clouds and water vapour to increased warming thus making any predictive model invalid. but keep going and dig yourself a deeper hole. Everything is a function of temperature... except CO2 because that is the CAUSE of temperature. How convenient! and yet not supported by ice-cores or even current experience.

Go on, goldie, explain how water vapour changes over time. This is going to be fun.

And BTW any climatologists will tell you how increases in temperature can lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2. You really have a poor understanding of what you are arguing against. I guess that comes from being exposed to so many straw men in the right wing echo chamber.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:56pm: I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history. NOBODY does! the only people who claim that are the drongos who dont understand it at all and simply google something and therefore beleive that it is the entire truth. Atmospheric phsyics is an exceptionally complex area which its practictioners admite is very very poorly understood. but you do? wrong.

There is a big difference between complete understanding and very limited understanding. Don't pretend understanding isn't some sort of continuum. Saying someone has limited understanding isn't saying you know everything, or even close to everything. It means you believe you have a relatively deeper understanding.

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature.

Well one would think the cult would want to be proving their point then wouldnt you. Guess they dont.

As to proving their point, the graph would show or should show but doesnt
is, as co2 caught more energy, more water vapor was in the air with h2o catching more energy.

My request still stands. I take it the reason why they do not include it is because it would not show what the cult wanted it to.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:36pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature. Well one would think the cult would want to be proving their point then wouldnt you. Guess they dont. As to proving their point, the graph would show or should show but doesnt is, as co2 caught more energy, more water vapor was in the air with h2o catching more energy. My request still stands. I take it the reason why they do not include it is because it would not show what the cult wanted it to.

Progs, I'm struggling to work out the exact nature of your criticism. That's the problem with Chinese whispers. Do you have a direct link.

Why dont you internet forum denialists get together and submit a paper...your combined knowledge on the subject of green house gases and climate change is sure to change the mind of the worlds scientific community and the majority of the worlds respected leaders  ;D

Why dont you internet forum denialists get together and submit a paper...your combined knowledge on the subject of green house gases and climate change is sure to change the minds of the worlds scientific community and the majority of the worlds respected leaders  ;D

Further evidence to support a 16 year pause in global warming.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:40pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:56pm: I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history. NOBODY does! the only people who claim that are the drongos who dont understand it at all and simply google something and therefore beleive that it is the entire truth. Atmospheric phsyics is an exceptionally complex area which its practictioners admite is very very poorly understood. but you do? wrong. There is a big difference between complete understanding and very limited understanding. Don't pretend understanding isn't some sort of continuum. Saying someone has limited understanding isn't saying you know everything, or even close to everything. It means you believe you have a relatively deeper understanding.

that is nothing more complex than saying that I, as an expert in this field know 0.002% of the subject whiel you as a novice know 0.0001% about it.

yeah that 0.002% really impresses me.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Why dont you internet forum denialists get together and submit a paper...your combined knowledge on the subject of green house gases and climate change is sure to change the mind of the worlds scientific community and the majority of the worlds respected leaders  ;D

they have - multiple times. do try and keep up. your religious beliefs are not keeping up with what is happening in the REAL work aka science.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 10:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 5:21pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:40pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 1:56pm: I'm interested in your answer to this question, progs. Quote: My question to you progresiveslol is that if you are so ignorant about how the atmosphere works then why are you spamming this forum with your propaganda?  You have very little understanding of how the atmosphere works, you know very little about statistics and one half of the stuff you post contradicts the other half. Yet you are certain you are right. Is this a paid gig, progs, or do you do this because of you want to leave a record behind that you were on the wrong side of history. NOBODY does! the only people who claim that are the drongos who dont understand it at all and simply google something and therefore beleive that it is the entire truth. Atmospheric phsyics is an exceptionally complex area which its practictioners admite is very very poorly understood. but you do? wrong. There is a big difference between complete understanding and very limited understanding. Don't pretend understanding isn't some sort of continuum. Saying someone has limited understanding isn't saying you know everything, or even close to everything. It means you believe you have a relatively deeper understanding. that is nothing more complex than saying that I, as an expert in this field know 0.002% of the subject whiel you as a novice know 0.0001% about it. yeah that 0.002% really impresses me.

Go on, goldie, make your own numbers up to argue a point.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 4:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature. wow... that is just so wrong. and to add to the error in your posts. climatologists of all persuasions admit they know very little of the response of clouds and water vapour to increased warming thus making any predictive model invalid. but keep going and dig yourself a deeper hole. Everything is a function of temperature... except CO2 because that is the CAUSE of temperature. How convenient! and yet not supported by ice-cores or even current experience.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356701751

Under this measure - which is included in Kyoto Protocol - was not included

Water vapour contributes up to 74% of Greenhouse effect and they decide it should not be included as a measure

MOTR wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 5:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 5:36pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:06pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:41pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:11pm: The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time. It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time. Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature. Well one would think the cult would want to be proving their point then wouldnt you. Guess they dont. As to proving their point, the graph would show or should show but doesnt is, as co2 caught more energy, more water vapor was in the air with h2o catching more energy. My request still stands. I take it the reason why they do not include it is because it would not show what the cult wanted it to. Progs, I'm struggling to work out the exact nature of your criticism. That's the problem with Chinese whispers. Do you have a direct link.

The reason it should be important is because the graph is trying to represent greenhouse gases. H2O is a greenhouse gas. The major GHG. The importance factor becomes clear when you consider the earth loses more heat, the hotter the earth is. So if you are going to try and represent the greenhouse gases, you would need to include all so we can see what all have been doing over a time period.

Here is information on a good correlation for heat loss dependant on temperature.

Temperature Dependence of the Earth’s Outgoing Energy

I have been involved in some pretty extensive discussions with the TRCS group over the past few weeks.  The posts lately have been offshoots of that discussion.  The following one is one that I am putting together for that team as well, enjoy.

What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy?  There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that.  Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-medium-overview-part-2-of-2/.

more info at site
................
...............

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NH-OLR-temp-550x364.png

What this indicates is that for each 1K increase in temperature, there will be an associated 2.2 W/m^2 increase in the OLR.  There can be no more an effective feedback mechanism than this for regulating the Earth’s temperature.  There are many reasons for this, but the best is simplicity.  The warmer the Earth is, the faster it loses energy (which means it cools down faster).

Many warmists have noted that the annual change in OLR is smaller than the calibration error for measurement device (spaced based satellite in this case).  Fortunately there is no need to depend on the overall annual data when all that is needed is to look at monthly data and build from the monthly change in temperature and OLR.

Based on the OLR measurements, the Earth was losing 2.6 W/m^2 more over the 5 year period from 2007-2011 than it did in the 5 year period from 1979-1983.  The satellite temperature difference for those two periods show that the later period was 0.27 °C warmer.  Based on the easily proven temperature dependency of the OLR, there is no reason to believe that the difference is satellite calibration error (although that doesn’t mean there is none).

While the Earth has been warmer over the past 10 years than it was 30 years ago, it is also losing energy at a higher rate, even though the CO2 level is higher now.  Energy is what matters and if the Earth is losing it faster now than ever before (based on an entire 34 years of satellite data), then it doesn’t look like CO2 is doing a very good job at slowing the rate of energy loss.  Conversely it appears that the tried and true Stefen-Boltzmann law is working just fine.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/temperature-dependence-of-the-earths-outgoing-energy/

Oh dear, progs. If OLR is a function of temperature and OLR is rising then temperatures must be increasing. Yet you also believe the temperature increase is a fabrication.

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:11am:

Oh dear, progs. If OLR is a function of temperature and OLR is rising then temperatures must be increasing. Yet you also believe the temperature increase is a fabrication.

Not if. OLR is rising, co2 is rising. What on earth is co2 doing if it isnt blocking the extra heat. Remember we are only talking a small rise in temp so far.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:17am:

What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy?  There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that.  Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-medium-overview-part-2-of-2/. more info at site There can be no more an effective feedback mechanism than this for regulating the Earth’s temperature.  There are many reasons for this, but the best is simplicity.  The warmer the Earth is, the faster it loses energy (which means it cools down faster).

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

This is hilarious. No doubt the author is hoping to blind people with science in the hope they won't be able to understand what he is on about (it certainly worked with progs)

The problem is the Stefen-Boltzmann Law refers to heat radiated by a perfect black body without an atmosphere.


The Earth however reflects 30% of solar radiation and has an atmosphere so to use the Stefen-Boltzmann law is quite deceptive.

Let me explain global warming this way:

If the earths atmosphere had absolutely no water vapour, CO2, CH4 or any other greenhouse gasses the average temperature would be about -18 degrees on earth.

But because our atmosphere does have water vapour, CO2 and CH4 it keeps our average temperature at about +15 degrees.

Global warming is caused by increasing theses gasses. Increased water vapour simply falls out as rain. CO2 and CH4 however stay in the atmosphere so if their concentrations increase so will the temperature.

So Maqqa can you finally see why water vapour is irrelevant to global warming?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:17am: What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy?  There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that.  Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-medium-overview-part-2-of-2/. more info at site There can be no more an effective feedback mechanism than this for regulating the Earth’s temperature.  There are many reasons for this, but the best is simplicity.  The warmer the Earth is, the faster it loses energy (which means it cools down faster). ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D This is hilarious. No doubt the author is hoping to blind people with science in the hope they won't be able to understand what he is on about (it certainly worked with progs) The problem is the Stefen-Boltzmann Law refers to heat radiated by a perfect black body without an atmosphere. The Earth however reflects 30% of solar radiation and has an atmosphere so to use the Stefen-Boltzmann law is quite deceptive. Let me explain global warming this way: If the earths atmosphere had absolutely no water vapour, CO2, CH4 or any other greenhouse gasses the average temperature would be about -18 degrees on earth. But because our atmosphere does have water vapour, CO2 and CH4 it keeps our average temperature at about +15 degrees. Global warming is caused by increasing theses gasses. Increased water vapour simply falls out as rain. CO2 and CH4 however stay in the atmosphere so if their concentrations increase so will the temperature. So Maqqa can you finally see why water vapour is irrelevant to global warming?

oh dear. You better go right over there and straighten that guy up. You sound righ on it lol

I suggest god forbid, wikipedia to get yourself up to speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth

H2O does not simply fall out as rain. It has to be transformed from a gas. That is not simple. Your explanation does nothing to explain the difference from current h2o levels compared to greater h2o levels. Nothing at all.

You saying water vapour is irrelevent is astounding.

the invalidity of these arguments are easy to prove.

temperatures arent rising and if your theories say they should then they are provably wrong. it really IS that simple.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:17am: What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy?  There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that.  Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-medium-overview-part-2-of-2/. more info at site There can be no more an effective feedback mechanism than this for regulating the Earth’s temperature.  There are many reasons for this, but the best is simplicity.  The warmer the Earth is, the faster it loses energy (which means it cools down faster). ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D This is hilarious. No doubt the author is hoping to blind people with science in the hope they won't be able to understand what he is on about (it certainly worked with progs) The problem is the Stefen-Boltzmann Law refers to heat radiated by a perfect black body without an atmosphere. The Earth however reflects 30% of solar radiation and has an atmosphere so to use the Stefen-Boltzmann law is quite deceptive. Let me explain global warming this way: If the earths atmosphere had absolutely no water vapour, CO2, CH4 or any other greenhouse gasses the average temperature would be about -18 degrees on earth. But because our atmosphere does have water vapour, CO2 and CH4 it keeps our average temperature at about +15 degrees. Global warming is caused by increasing theses gasses. Increased water vapour simply falls out as rain. CO2 and CH4 however stay in the atmosphere so if their concentrations increase so will the temperature. So Maqqa can you finally see why water vapour is irrelevant to global warming?

==>>>> DOCUMENT SHOCK- THE BORN TO RULERS ARE SUCH TRYHARDS!

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:

I suggest god forbid, wikipedia to get yourself up to speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth H2O does not simply fall out as rain. It has to be transformed from a gas. That is not simple. Your explanation does nothing to explain the difference from current h2o levels compared to greater h2o levels. Nothing at all. You saying water vapour is irrelevent is astounding.

Yes I've already read that Wikipeadia entry. It explains rather nicely why the Stephan Boltzmann law doesn't apply to a planet with an atmosphere.

Water vapour is not a gas for a start. Water has to be over 100 degrees before it becomes a gas. Water vapour is actually liquid water "dissolved" in the atmosphere.

Water vapour helps keep the planet at the temperature it is (which is about 33 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere).

So if the temperature is constant. putting more H2O into the atmosphere will not warm it, it will simply fall out as rain.

but if the temperature is constant and you put more CO2 or CH4 into the atmosphere, this will accumulate and will lead to warming.

You and Maqqa and all the other deniers seem to be confusing "The Greenhouse Effect" (which keeps us 33 degrees warmer than a planet without an atmosphere) with "The enhanced Greenhouse Effect" which leads to global warming.


Quote:

The greenhouse effect is an important part of the Earth's climate without which the planet would be a far colder place. The effect is natural and not new. The enhanced greenhouse effect, sometimes referred to as climate change or global warming, is the impact on the climate from the additional heat retained due to the increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that humans have released into the earths atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

   

In am keeping a dossier of negative impacts of climate policy on the poor, i.e. rising cost of energy, food ad water...no smoke screen will hide the truth....Any attempt to make the poor pay the price for the rich is being meticulously noted... :)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 10:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 9:50pm: I suggest god forbid, wikipedia to get yourself up to speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth H2O does not simply fall out as rain. It has to be transformed from a gas. That is not simple. Your explanation does nothing to explain the difference from current h2o levels compared to greater h2o levels. Nothing at all. You saying water vapour is irrelevent is astounding. Yes I've already read that Wikipeadia entry. It explains rather nicely why the Stephan Boltzmann law doesn't apply to a planet with an atmosphere. Water vapour is not a gas for a start. Water has to be over 100 degrees before it becomes a gas. Water vapour is actually liquid water "dissolved" in the atmosphere. Water vapour helps keep the planet at the temperature it is (which is about 33 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere). So if the temperature is constant. putting more H2O into the atmosphere will not warm it, it will simply fall out as rain. but if the temperature is constant and you put more CO2 or CH4 into the atmosphere, this will accumulate and will lead to warming. You and Maqqa and all the other deniers seem to be confusing "The Greenhouse Effect" (which keeps us 33 degrees warmer than a planet without an atmosphere) with "The enhanced Greenhouse Effect" which leads to global warming. Quote: The greenhouse effect is an important part of the Earth's climate without which the planet would be a far colder place. The effect is natural and not new. The enhanced greenhouse effect, sometimes referred to as climate change or global warming, is the impact on the climate from the additional heat retained due to the increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that humans have released into the earths atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

Without going into every single thing you got wrong, the water vapour will do for now.

Water vapor or water vapour (see spelling differences), also aqueous vapor, is the gas phase of water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 11:15am:

the invalidity of these arguments are easy to prove. temperatures arent rising and if your theories say they should then they are provably wrong. it really IS that simple.

But temeperatures ARE rising.

The planet IS getting warmer.

Each decade is warmer than the previous decade.

That is what "getting warmer" means.

Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise.


The plant is unambiguously warming.

Denying it is silly

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:15am: the invalidity of these arguments are easy to prove. temperatures arent rising and if your theories say they should then they are provably wrong. it really IS that simple. But temeperatures ARE rising. The planet IS getting warmer. Each decade is warmer than the previous decade. That is what "getting warmer" means. Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise. The plant is unambiguously warming. Denying it is silly

No warming for 16 years is not as you say "getting warmer". It is the same temperature from 16 years ago. 1 = 1 means no uptick, no down tick.

The only reason the arctic ice went down (with such short term observations from satellites) is the there was a major storm that broke the ice up and the satellites could not see it as ice. As you notice the ice extent resumed as normal quite quickly. That is the broken ice from the storm, coming back together and the satellite now being able to see it as ice extent.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:12pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:15am: the invalidity of these arguments are easy to prove. temperatures arent rising and if your theories say they should then they are provably wrong. it really IS that simple. But temeperatures ARE rising. The planet IS getting warmer. Each decade is warmer than the previous decade. That is what "getting warmer" means. Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise. The plant is unambiguously warming. Denying it is silly No warming for 16 years is not as you say "getting warmer". It is the same temperature from 16 years ago. 1 = 1 means no uptick, no down tick. The only reason the arctic ice went down (with such short term observations from satellites) is the there was a major storm that broke the ice up and the satellites could not see it as ice. As you notice the ice extent resumed as normal quite quickly. That is the broken ice from the storm, coming back together and the satellite now being able to see it as ice extent.

The planet IS getting warmer.

Each decade is warmer than the previous decade.

That is what "getting warmer" means.

Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise.


The planet is unambiguously warming.

Denying it is silly.  Believing what you read in a Daily Mail article by David Rose is even sillier
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:19pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:12pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 11:15am: the invalidity of these arguments are easy to prove. temperatures arent rising and if your theories say they should then they are provably wrong. it really IS that simple. But temeperatures ARE rising. The planet IS getting warmer. Each decade is warmer than the previous decade. That is what "getting warmer" means. Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise. The plant is unambiguously warming. Denying it is silly No warming for 16 years is not as you say "getting warmer". It is the same temperature from 16 years ago. 1 = 1 means no uptick, no down tick. The only reason the arctic ice went down (with such short term observations from satellites) is the there was a major storm that broke the ice up and the satellites could not see it as ice. As you notice the ice extent resumed as normal quite quickly. That is the broken ice from the storm, coming back together and the satellite now being able to see it as ice extent. The planet IS getting warmer. Each decade is warmer than the previous decade. That is what "getting warmer" means. Theory says the planets temperature should rise - an that is exactly what is happening.  This is evidenced not only though surface temperature measurements, but also in ocean temperatures, glacial mass balance decrease, arctic sea ice decrease and sea level rise. The planet is unambiguously warming. Denying it is silly.  Believing what you read in a Daily Mail article by David Rose is even sillier http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause.

Co2 increases in the atmospher is primarily from pumping Co2 into the atmosphere? How is this the effect and not the cause?

What do you believe is the cause of this effect - Increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere?

Obviously its not from the millions of litres we pump into the atmosphere each week.

This is a dumb argument to try and make.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Co2 increases in the atmospher is primarily from pumping Co2 into the atmosphere? How is this the effect and not the cause? What do you believe is the cause of this effect - Increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere? Obviously its not from the millions of litres we pump into the atmosphere each week. This is a dumb argument to try and make.

It has been the effect at all times in history. Making it come out quicker than the past does not somehow start making it the cause.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Co2 increases in the atmospher is primarily from pumping Co2 into the atmosphere? How is this the effect and not the cause? What do you believe is the cause of this effect - Increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere? Obviously its not from the millions of litres we pump into the atmosphere each week. This is a dumb argument to try and make.

Ice cores confirm that CO2 increases FOLLOW warming and result from warming of the oceans. it is hardly a dumb argument. The CO2 we put into the environment is not necessarily leading to increased warming. That connection is unproven by any proper standard of proof. It is suggestive but at the same time it ignores completely the earths feedback mechanisms that reduce temperatures.

What I a dumb argument to make is to say because we prouce CO2 that that ipso facto increase temperature. A littel bit of proof would be handy.

Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future.

skippy. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future.

lol thats what the church said.

That is exactly how religion expresses fear.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong?

On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all?

The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average.
This means the planet is warming.

And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed,

Sea levels are rising.
The arctic icecap is shrinking.
Glacial mass balance is decreasing.

This is because the planet is warming.

Why do you keep trying to deny it?
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"?

Do you have anything to support that silly statement?

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years.

Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you.

You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we?

Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea. 
In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea.
In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea.

Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement?

I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you. You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we? Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.  In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea. In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea. Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government?

It would mean a trend has gone down. The deaths have not gone up further, they have actually gone down.

Now what. You need help is what. 350 is more than 242. Maybe you meant another analogy lol.

Oh I get it. Maybe you think the heat hangs around for 16 years and will show up somewhere from an invisible force.

skippy. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future.

The reality, skip, is that those who tolerate the stupidity of those who refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future, too.

That probably includes you and me, so don't be too judgemental.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement?

actually is doesnt. where did you learn maths?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you. You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we? Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.  In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea. In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea. Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government?

the irony is that that is EXACTLY th argument you are making now. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!!

it is climate hysteria 101. it is not science. it is fraud.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 3:55pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact.

Yes.  The temperature anomaly for this year may well be exactly the same as it was 16 years ago.  I will take your word for it.

But you wrote:
Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years.
which is complete bollocks.

How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years)

Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years.

Please explain?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? actually is doesnt. where did you learn maths?

No.  Actually it does.  That is exactly what it means.

Where did you learn maths if you think that the earth has not warmed for 16 years - yet the hottest average global temperature ever recorded occurred in 2010.

How does that work?

goldie, doesn't understand how it works, he just accepts it. It's a waste of time using logic on him.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you. You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we? Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.  In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea. In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea. Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government? the irony is that that is EXACTLY th argument you are making now. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!! it is climate hysteria 101. it is not science. it is fraud.

rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!!
Very good!  You are making progress!

Now, tell us  - why have you decided to choose an arbitrary point in time and keep repeating that the earth hasnt warmed further for 16 years?

And explain how this could be possible when the hottest year ever occurred only 3 years ago.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:32pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you. You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we? Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.  In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea. In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea. Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government? the irony is that that is EXACTLY th argument you are making now. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!! it is climate hysteria 101. it is not science. it is fraud. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!! Very good!  You are making progress! Now, tell us  - why have you decided to choose an arbitrary point in time and keep repeating that the earth hasnt warmed further for 16 years? And explain how this could be possible when the hottest year ever occurred only 3 years ago.

He's been told. "Four legs are good, two legs are better!" He is impervious to logic.

Sorry, goldie, normally I'd be more tolerant.  Unfortunately, there is too much at stake to be polite.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:55pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact. Yes.  The temperature anomaly for this year may well be exactly the same as it was 16 years ago.  I will take your word for it. But you wrote: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. which is complete bollocks. How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain?

it is a very good point. Perhaps you should think about that for a while and consider the answer. Let me give you a starting point. not everything you read and hear is true.

PS the 'hottest ever' is crap. the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer than now. Of course that is too hard for climate scientists to swallow so they invent the story that the MWP didnt happen. And somehow Vikings circum-navigated Greenland thru pack ice and dug graves in permafrost. 

the MWP is the living proof of the lie of ACC. Im equally sure you dont believe it happened either.

So, besides the conspiracy theory argument, goldie, what else have you got.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:55pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact. Yes.  The temperature anomaly for this year may well be exactly the same as it was 16 years ago.  I will take your word for it. But you wrote: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. which is complete bollocks. How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain?

Same. Hasnt warmed further. Anomoly the same. Same.

You seem to be stuck on weather is climate type thinking. 2 years does not make up for 16 years now does it. It is all the years combined that makes up the trend and the trend is that the anomoly is exactly the same, 16 years later. No up tick, no co2 correlation.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:32pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Maths is hard isn't it.  Let me try to help you. You appear to be a very ignorant person, so I will to try to explain things to you in terms that a very ignorant person may understand.  You may be aware that there are a few very ignorant and racist Australian's who possess an irrational fear about asylum seekers.  Let's use that as an example shall we? Let us consider the deaths of asylum seekers at sea.  In 2001 under the Howard Pacific Solution, over 350 asylum seekers died at sea. In 2012, 242 asylum seekers died or were missing at sea. Under your reasoning - does this mean that the deaths of asylum seekers at sea had decreased under the current government? the irony is that that is EXACTLY th argument you are making now. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!! it is climate hysteria 101. it is not science. it is fraud. rather than look at what is happening now you choose and arbitrary point in time, compare it and say TA DA!!! Very good!  You are making progress! Now, tell us  - why have you decided to choose an arbitrary point in time and keep repeating that the earth hasnt warmed further for 16 years? And explain how this could be possible when the hottest year ever occurred only 3 years ago.

for goodness sake you dumb simpleton. the IPCC itself states that a pause in temperature for 17 years constitutes s significant alteration in the temperature trajectory. Given that you cannot count let me remind you that the 17th year is this year.  16 years of no statistically significant  temperature increase is not an arbitrary statement. if you are producing a trend graph you don't pick start and end points to support your hypothesis. That is the job Mann etc who spliced data (some of it made up) into his data. a trend graph shows a flattening in the last 16 years making it a valid anomaly worth commenting on.

Your insistence on using the 30 year time frame and today while ignoring what happens inbetween is invalid - unless you are planning on supporting an ideology rather than investigating truth.

and why the hottest year is always 'this year' or last year' or whatever... always an interesting question. For that I refer you to 2007 NASA results which initially said that it was the coolest year in 10 or so. Then James Hansen changed the data and declared that it was the hottest.

I wish I could say it was an isolated incident. Perhaps he was relying exclusively on the temperature gauges located conveniently in car parks, outside A/C vents and other such perfect locations.

yes, I am implying scientific fraud and flat-out lying. Enough have been caught out at it now to have established a trend.

MOTR wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

Sorry, goldie, normally I'd be more tolerant.  Unfortunately, there is too much at stake to be polite.

Id settle for some critical reasoning but I notice you have gone cold on that claim. Just as well.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:55pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact. Yes.  The temperature anomaly for this year may well be exactly the same as it was 16 years ago.  I will take your word for it. But you wrote: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. which is complete bollocks. How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain? Same. Hasnt warmed further. Anomoly the same. Same. You seem to be stuck on weather is climate type thinking. 2 years does not make up for 16 years now does it. It is all the years combined that makes up the trend and the trend is that the anomoly is exactly the same, 16 years later. No up tick, no co2 correlation.

Really, progs. All the years combined.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warmestdecade.jpg

You don't even comprehend your own argument. That's because you outsource your thinking to others.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:39pm: Sorry, goldie, normally I'd be more tolerant.  Unfortunately, there is too much at stake to be polite. Id settle for some critical reasoning but I notice you have gone cold on that claim. Just as well.

I tried, goldie. Now I'm just giving you the brutal truth.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

it is a very good point. Perhaps you should think about that for a while and consider the answer. Let me give you a starting point. not everything you read and hear is true.

Yes it is.  Now, how about an answer?

How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years)

Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years.

Please explain?



gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

PS the 'hottest ever' is crap.

I wrote that 2010 was the hottest year ever recorded.  What is "crap" about that?  Which other year (besides 2005) had a hotter recorded average global temperature?


gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer than now.

Really!?!?!?  Globally?!?!?  Please provide evidence of this.  I think you are making things up again

And what does this have to do with my statement that  2010 was the hottest year ever recorded?
Are you trying to start a silly strawman arguement?  Please don't.


gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

Of course that is too hard for climate scientists to swallow so they invent the story that the MWP didnt happen. the MWP is the living proof of the lie of ACC. Im equally sure you dont believe it happened either.

Wow!!  So many straw men!

Why can't you keep on topic?  To embarrassed?

We are waiting for your explanation.

How is it you say there has been no warming for 16 years, when the hottest year ever recorded was 2010 - just 3 years ago?

Please explain.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 4:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:55pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Co2 has gone up exponentially. No correlation at all, never has been, never will be. Co2 has always been the effect, not the cause. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?  It is 100% wrong? On what do you base this silly claim that the planet hasn't warmed for 16 years?  Anything at all? The planet is warming.Every single one of the past 16 years has had a positive temperature anomaly with respect to the 30 year average. This means the planet is warming. And all of the related effects you would expect to see with a warming planet have been observed, Sea levels are rising. The arctic icecap is shrinking. Glacial mass balance is decreasing. This is because the planet is warming. Why do you keep trying to deny it? Why do you keep repeating this nonsense claim that the earth "hasn't warmed for 16 years"? Do you have anything to support that silly statement? I say the temperature anomoly is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago. Fact. Yes.  The temperature anomaly for this year may well be exactly the same as it was 16 years ago.  I will take your word for it. But you wrote: Yet it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. which is complete bollocks. How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain? Same. Hasnt warmed further. Anomoly the same. Same. You seem to be stuck on weather is climate type thinking. 2 years does not make up for 16 years now does it. It is all the years combined that makes up the trend and the trend is that the anomoly is exactly the same, 16 years later. No up tick, no co2 correlation.

THe 12 hottest years ever recorded occurred in the past 16 years.
The hottest year ever recorded occurred 3 years ago

You tell us the earth has not warmed for 16 years.

Please explain.

skippy. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future.

;D

More alarmist scaremongering.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ykwGElbbUk/UGyNCpoPbrI/AAAAAAAAQRk/0Zh7rNmsCmI/s1600/pic-1-think-of-the-children.jpg

Cracks me up.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: it is a very good point. Perhaps you should think about that for a while and consider the answer. Let me give you a starting point. not everything you read and hear is true. Yes it is.  Now, how about an answer? How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain? gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: PS the 'hottest ever' is crap. I wrote that 2010 was the hottest year ever recorded.  What is "crap" about that?  Which other year (besides 2005) had a hotter recorded average global temperature? gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer than now. Really!?!?!?  Globally?!?!?  Please provide evidence of this.  I think you are making things up again And what does this have to do with my statement that  2010 was the hottest year ever recorded? Are you trying to start a silly strawman arguement?  Please don't. gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: Of course that is too hard for climate scientists to swallow so they invent the story that the MWP didnt happen. the MWP is the living proof of the lie of ACC. Im equally sure you dont believe it happened either. Wow!!  So many straw men! Why can't you keep on topic?  To embarrassed? We are waiting for your explanation. How is it you say there has been no warming for 16 years, when the hottest year ever recorded was 2010 - just 3 years ago? Please explain.

refer the highlighted section. This is a reflection on your reasoning ability. I said that the MWP was 3-4 degrees HOTTER than today and then you ask how that affects your claim that 2010 was the hottest. are you dumb? are you that inadequate that you cant recognise the implicit logic in the argument? you don't have to agree but you cant call into question the logic without looking liek a dolt. and you do.

yes the MWP was warmer than now. get over it. the vikings did

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

for goodness sake you dumb simpleton. the IPCC itself states that a pause in temperature for 17 years constitutes s significant alteration in the temperature trajectory.

Please show us this quote.

And please explain to us which 17 years you are referring to.

You cannot be referring to the past 17 years, since it is clear that there has been no pause in the past 17 years.  The hottest year ever recorded occurred in 2010




gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

yes, I am implying scientific fraud and flat-out lying. Enough have been caught out at it now to have established a trend.

Funny you say that, since you are the one that has been caught telling lies here.


You wrote in another thread:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

FACT actually glaciers have stopped recending,

This is simply an outright lie.  Global glacial mass balance has not stopped declining at all.
You simply told a lie.

Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies?
We both know the answer to that, don't we.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

... This is a reflection on your reasoning ability.  ...

Hmm, I must have missed that.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we.

Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand?

:-/

Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:30pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: it is a very good point. Perhaps you should think about that for a while and consider the answer. Let me give you a starting point. not everything you read and hear is true. Yes it is.  Now, how about an answer? How exactly do you explain the fact that the 2 hottest years ever recorded (2005 and 2010) occurred in the past 16 years?  (In fact - the 12 hottest years ever recorded all occurred in the past 16 years) Yet you tell us that it hasnt warmed further for 16 years. Please explain? gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: PS the 'hottest ever' is crap. I wrote that 2010 was the hottest year ever recorded.  What is "crap" about that?  Which other year (besides 2005) had a hotter recorded average global temperature? gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer than now. Really!?!?!?  Globally?!?!?  Please provide evidence of this.  I think you are making things up again And what does this have to do with my statement that  2010 was the hottest year ever recorded? Are you trying to start a silly strawman arguement?  Please don't. gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:02pm: Of course that is too hard for climate scientists to swallow so they invent the story that the MWP didnt happen. the MWP is the living proof of the lie of ACC. Im equally sure you dont believe it happened either. Wow!!  So many straw men! Why can't you keep on topic?  To embarrassed? We are waiting for your explanation. How is it you say there has been no warming for 16 years, when the hottest year ever recorded was 2010 - just 3 years ago? Please explain. refer the highlted section. This is areflection on your reasoning abilty. I said that the MWP was 3-4 degress HOTTER than tonay

Yes, you did say that.  ANd that is complete bollocks.  Another of your little lies.
If it were not - you would be able to provide evidence to support your statement. You cannot.  You are making it up.

However - you only threw that in as a strawman.  It has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You were trying to run away from the nonsense you were writing about "no warming for 16 years".  Funny claim to make when the hottest year ever recorded was 2010.



gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

and then you ask how that affects your claim that 2010 was the hottest. are you dumb? are you that inadequate that you cant recognise the implicit logic in the argument? you dont have to agree but you cant call into question the logic without l;ooking liek a dolt. and you do.

All you need to do is tell us which year had a hotter recorded average global temperature than 2010 (and 2005).

How does your strawman about fictional MWP temperatures affect the simple fact that 2010 was the hottest average global temperature ever recorded?

Please explain.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

yes the MWP was warmer than now. get over it. the vikings did

Actually, there is very little evidence to suggest that the MWP was warmer globally than today.

But that is irrelevant.  Stop trying to run away from the question.

How can you claim that there has been no warming for 16 years when the hottest year ever recorded occurred in 2010?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission.

So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?!

Back in your box Greggery.
You have nothing to contribute here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:57pm: Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future. ;D More alarmist scaremongering. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ykwGElbbUk/UGyNCpoPbrI/AAAAAAAAQRk/0Zh7rNmsCmI/s1600/pic-1-think-of-the-children.jpg Cracks me up.

That's about the most substantial argument I can remember you bringing to the table.

Sad, isn't it.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

How about you link us to their peer reviewed papers.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission. So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?! Back in your box Greggery. You have nothing to contribute here.

He's dealing with someone who relies on colourful little graphs, shonky "science", and outright lies as a basis for an "argument".

One can hardly blame him for lowering himself to your level.

I'm sure if you were ever to come up with some credible, reliable evidence he may respond with something similar.

Until then, he's just pandering to the generally low intellect of the AGW alarmists (and doing a fine job).

MOTR wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:37pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 1:57pm: Some buggers still want proof the earth is not flat too. buggers that refuse the science of global warming are a danger to our children's future. ;D More alarmist scaremongering. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ykwGElbbUk/UGyNCpoPbrI/AAAAAAAAQRk/0Zh7rNmsCmI/s1600/pic-1-think-of-the-children.jpg Cracks me up. That's about the most substantial argument I can remember you bringing to the table. Sad, isn't it.

Yes, it's very sad when dementia takes away one's memory.

Very sad indeed.   Maybe it's all this heat.

MOTR wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:59pm: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS How about you link us to their peer reviewed papers.

why don't i link you to Einsteins???

oops cant. he was NEVER peer-reviewed. I can however link you to hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that were ultimately retracted after being shown to be complete crap.

but back to your point... they are all published scientists and you should recognise some of the names. google it yourself.

MOTR wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:59pm: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS How about you link us to their peer reviewed papers.

How about you just read the articl instead?

In August this year - when the North Pole is free of ice -

Longweekend will be forced to recant his climate change denials.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission. So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?! Back in your box Greggery. You have nothing to contribute here. He's dealing with someone who relies on colourful little graphs, shonky "science", and outright lies as a basis for an "argument". One can hardly blame him for lowering himself to your level. I'm sure if you were ever to come up with some credible, reliable evidence he may respond with something similar. Until then, he's just pandering to the generally low intellect of the AGW alarmists (and doing a fine job).

What outright lie have I told Greggery.

I have highlighted the outright lie Gold Medal told.  He lied with his implication that glacial mass balance was not decreasing globally.

Could you please do me the courtesy of backing up your accusation with an example?

Thanks.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:01pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission. So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?! Back in your box Greggery. You have nothing to contribute here. He's dealing with someone who relies on colourful little graphs, shonky "science", and outright lies as a basis for an "argument". One can hardly blame him for lowering himself to your level. I'm sure if you were ever to come up with some credible, reliable evidence he may respond with something similar. Until then, he's just pandering to the generally low intellect of the AGW alarmists (and doing a fine job). What outright lie have I told Greggery. I have highlighted the outright lie Gold Medal told.  He lied with his implication that glacial mass balance was not decreasing globally. Could you please do me the courtesy of backing up your accusation with an example? Thanks.

so you have moved on from denying the 16year temprature pause now?  ABOUT TIME!

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:01pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:59pm: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS How about you link us to their peer reviewed papers. How about you just read the articl instead?

How about you explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies?

Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance?

And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago.

And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:01pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission. So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?! Back in your box Greggery. You have nothing to contribute here. He's dealing with someone who relies on colourful little graphs, shonky "science", and outright lies as a basis for an "argument". One can hardly blame him for lowering himself to your level. I'm sure if you were ever to come up with some credible, reliable evidence he may respond with something similar. Until then, he's just pandering to the generally low intellect of the AGW alarmists (and doing a fine job). What outright lie have I told Greggery. I have highlighted the outright lie Gold Medal told.  He lied with his implication that glacial mass balance was not decreasing globally. Could you please do me the courtesy of backing up your accusation with an example? Thanks. so you have moved on from denying the 16year temprature pause now?  ABOUT TIME!

No - we are still waiting for you to explain it for us without trying to run away and hide behind strawmen.

Why do you claim the earth has not warmed for 16 years when the 12 hottest years ever recorded occurred in that 16 years?

How does that work?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

In August this year - when the North Pole is free of ice - Longweekend will be forced to recant his climate change denials.

lets hope someone puts this prediction on ICE>. ooops..we wouldnt want to forget it..

I dont come into these threads often.. not being an expert on the subject you understand...its a shame because neither is anyone else that comes into these forums its all about whom you believe... got nothing whatever to do with science..anymore than the ice melting has...

if science could stop the ice melting dont you think we would have stopped it by now??????


as for little old you and me stopping it... thats funny!

let nature take its course.... much easier to deal with..if we try to fight it we will lose... thats another prediction..

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

■“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
■“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
■“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

do you like this?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:01pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:59pm: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html read it and learn. and signed by ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS How about you link us to their peer reviewed papers. How about you just read the articl instead?

I think he likes pal-review because he doesnt think the weight of the peers in your link is worth anything.

Now if they were a bunch of pals instead and they were saying the opposite, then you would be on a winner.

[b]The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Bo

an impressive list of names at the end of that letter.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

an impressive list of names at the end of that letter.

We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies?

Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance?

And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago.

And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie?

Why do you keep running away and posting opinion pieces?
How about you explain why you need to lie?

cods wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:12pm: In August this year - when the North Pole is free of ice - Longweekend will be forced to recant his climate change denials. lets hope someone puts this prediction on ICE>. ooops..we wouldnt want to forget it.. I dont come into these threads often.. not being an expert on the subject you understand...its a shame because neither is anyone else that comes into these forums its all about whom you believe... got nothing whatever to do with science..anymore than the ice melting has... if science could stop the ice melting dont you think we would have stopped it by now?????? as for little old you and me stopping it... thats funny! let nature take its course.... much easier to deal with..if we try to fight it we will lose... thats another prediction..

Yes.  That is an excellent suggestion.  And it would be better able to takes it's course if we reduced the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 8:46pm:

cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:12pm: In August this year - when the North Pole is free of ice - Longweekend will be forced to recant his climate change denials. lets hope someone puts this prediction on ICE>. ooops..we wouldnt want to forget it.. I dont come into these threads often.. not being an expert on the subject you understand...its a shame because neither is anyone else that comes into these forums its all about whom you believe... got nothing whatever to do with science..anymore than the ice melting has... if science could stop the ice melting dont you think we would have stopped it by now?????? as for little old you and me stopping it... thats funny! let nature take its course.... much easier to deal with..if we try to fight it we will lose... thats another prediction.. Yes.  That is an excellent suggestion.  And it would be better able to takes it's course if we reduced the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere

CODS BELIEVES NATURE IS REGULATED 'FREE MARKETS' !!!!

DADDY LOVERS ONLY LISTEN TO DADDY!!  :o :o :o

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies? Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance? And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago. And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie? Why do you keep running away and posting opinion pieces? How about you explain why you need to lie?

THE ANSWER IS: GOLD MEDAL LOVES CRACK AND WILL DO ANYTHING FOR IT!

IN OTHER WORDS GOLD MEDAL IS A CRACK W______!!   :o :o :o :o :o :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: Why exactly is it that you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to lies? We both know the answer to that, don't we. Because lies are the only thing that AGW alarmists understand? :-/ Well, lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into submission. So...this explains why Gold Medal told lies about glacial mass balance?!?! Back in your box Greggery. You have nothing to contribute here. He's dealing with someone who relies on colourful little graphs, shonky "science", and outright lies as a basis for an "argument". One can hardly blame him for lowering himself to your level. I'm sure if you were ever to come up with some credible, reliable evidence he may respond with something similar. Until then, he's just pandering to the generally low intellect of the AGW alarmists (and doing a fine job).

You'll have to remind me of your last substantive argument. All you've got boils down to semantics.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

an impressive list of names at the end of that letter.

That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers.

MOTR wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 4:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers.

good grief MOTR... has your critical reasoning thrown a piston or something??? do you think that a professor of climatology might not have published a paper on the topic? Or perhaps the head of climate research at the federal govt might somewhere written something?

and you have inadvertently proven my point. it is not about the science per se but about the integrity, intelligence and ethics of the AGW alarmists/hysterics. to question the credentials, experience and integrity of this group of very respected scientists casts a long shadow over yourself. But do not feel picked on. You are in good company. You hysterics do it all the time. You question, criticise and ridicule ANYONE - absolutely anyone - who dares question the orthodoxy. Nobel prize winner? your opinion doesnt matter.

its a really bad look.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 4:06am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers. gold_medal wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 7:59am: good grief MOTR... has your critical reasoning thrown a piston or something??? do you think that a professor of climatology might not have published a paper on the topic? Or perhaps the head of climate research at the federal govt might somewhere written something? You would think.  But where is the "professor of climatology" on that list?  They all seem to be NASA engineers or astronauts. So can you please answer the question that was asked of you?  Can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers [quote author=gold_medal link=1356751940/146#146 date=1357423149] and you have inadvertently proven my point. it is not about the science per se but about the integrity, intelligence and ethics of the AGW alarmists/hysterics. to question the credentials, experience and integrity of this group of very respected scientists casts a long shadow over yourself. But do not feel picked on. You are in good company. You hysterics do it all the time. You question, criticise and ridicule ANYONE - absolutely anyone - who dares question the orthodoxy. Nobel prize winner? your opinion doesnt matter. its a really bad look.

So why do you tell lies?

That is not a good look either is it.  You cannot make a valid argument - so you tell lies.  ANd when accusations of lying are brought up - you try to change the subject.


We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies?

Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance?

And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago.

And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie?

How about some answers before you post more letters from astronauts?

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS. “These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.” Select excerpts from the letter: ■“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.” ■“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.” ■“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” do you like this?

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html What does NASA say? “NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

an impressive list of names at the end of that letter.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It looks impressive but it actually isn't


Quote:

The Signatories Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie? Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.

The 49 former NASA employees are also a pretty unimpressive number


Quote:

It's worth noting that their numbers are revealed as quite unimpressive.  For example, over 18,000 people currently work for NASA.  Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees).

This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).  But why exactly is this letter being treated as major news?  That is something of a mystery.  Or it would be, if the behavior of the climate denial community weren't so predictable.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 4:06am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers. gold_medal wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 7:59am: good grief MOTR... has your critical reasoning thrown a piston or something??? do you think that a professor of climatology might not have published a paper on the topic? Or perhaps the head of climate research at the federal govt might somewhere written something? You would think.  But where is the "professor of climatology" on that list?  They all seem to be NASA engineers or astronauts. So can you please answer the question that was asked of you?  Can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers [quote author=gold_medal link=1356751940/146#146 date=1357423149] and you have inadvertently proven my point. it is not about the science per se but about the integrity, intelligence and ethics of the AGW alarmists/hysterics. to question the credentials, experience and integrity of this group of very respected scientists casts a long shadow over yourself. But do not feel picked on. You are in good company. You hysterics do it all the time. You question, criticise and ridicule ANYONE - absolutely anyone - who dares question the orthodoxy. Nobel prize winner? your opinion doesnt matter. its a really bad look. So why do you tell lies? That is not a good look either is it.  You cannot make a valid argument - so you tell lies.  ANd when accusations of lying are brought up - you try to change the subject. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies? Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance? And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago. And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie? How about some answers before you post more letters from astronauts?

try the WSJ article signed by 16 emminent CLIMATE scientists.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

obviously you didnt read it the first time.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It looks impressive but it actually isn't Quote: The Signatories Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie? Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. The 49 former NASA employees are also a pretty unimpressive number [quote]It's worth noting that their numbers are revealed as quite unimpressive.  For example, over 18,000 people currently work for NASA.  Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees).

This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).  But why exactly is this letter being treated as major news?  That is something of a mystery.  Or it would be, if the behavior of the climate denial community weren't so predictable.
[/quote]

perhaps take a closer look at the credientials and experience of thes 49. it isnt the canteen lady or the cleaner or even the welder on the rockets. it is the creme de la creme of NASA staff. men who walked on the moon. astronauts. literal rocket scientiest, enginers, phsyicists, climatologists...

but as usual you dismiss out of hand any evidence contrary to your opinion.

You claim consensus all the tie but when the reverse is true you deny it.

your credibility and integrity are in serious question.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 7:59am: MOTR wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 4:06am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers. gold_medal wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 7:59am: good grief MOTR... has your critical reasoning thrown a piston or something??? do you think that a professor of climatology might not have published a paper on the topic? Or perhaps the head of climate research at the federal govt might somewhere written something? You would think.  But where is the "professor of climatology" on that list?  They all seem to be NASA engineers or astronauts. So can you please answer the question that was asked of you?  Can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers [quote author=gold_medal link=1356751940/146#146 date=1357423149] and you have inadvertently proven my point. it is not about the science per se but about the integrity, intelligence and ethics of the AGW alarmists/hysterics. to question the credentials, experience and integrity of this group of very respected scientists casts a long shadow over yourself. But do not feel picked on. You are in good company. You hysterics do it all the time. You question, criticise and ridicule ANYONE - absolutely anyone - who dares question the orthodoxy. Nobel prize winner? your opinion doesnt matter. its a really bad look. So why do you tell lies? That is not a good look either is it.  You cannot make a valid argument - so you tell lies.  ANd when accusations of lying are brought up - you try to change the subject. We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you are incapable of making an arguement without resorting to telling lies? Why did you lie about the decrease of glacial mass balance? And we are still waiting for you to explain why you think the earth has not warmed for 16 years - when the hottest year ever recorded was only 3 years ago. And why did you claim that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today?  Not that that statement is relevant to the discussion in any way - but I am curious...Any evidence to support that?  Or just another lie? How about some answers before you post more letters from astronauts?

well since you dont like my claim about the MWP then you go ahead and tell me about it. But remember your temperature increase has to cater for melting the ice around greenland's north. or you could just say that all the history of that period is bogus.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 4:06am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: an impressive list of names at the end of that letter. That was the intent, goldie. I guess you can tell us the collective amount of time these particular gentlemen have spent researching climate science. Perhaps you could link us to their most influential papers. good grief MOTR... has your critical reasoning thrown a piston or something??? do you think that a professor of climatology might not have published a paper on the topic? Or perhaps the head of climate research at the federal govt might somewhere written something? and you have inadvertently proven my point. it is not about the science per se but about the integrity, intelligence and ethics of the AGW alarmists/hysterics. to question the credentials, experience and integrity of this group of very respected scientists casts a long shadow over yourself. But do not feel picked on. You are in good company. You hysterics do it all the time. You question, criticise and ridicule ANYONE - absolutely anyone - who dares question the orthodoxy. Nobel prize winner? your opinion doesnt matter. its a really bad look.

Longy I think that it is your critical reasoning that has thrown a piston. You have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. I'm sure the group of "respected scientists" are very knowledgeable in their field of expertise  . Climate research is not their field of expertise however so why should their opinion carry any more weight than yours or mine? Why should a Nobel Prize winners opinion carry any weight if it was won in an unrelated field?

It is however good that you have admitted that it is 'not about the science per se' because in the end that is all that global warming is about. Its just a shame that it has been turned into a political football by people such as you and Progs for your own political agendas.

Quote:

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.[11] Warmth in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent levels of warmth in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

As I've said all along Long, the MWP was regional

The world has gotten colder on the East Coast of China:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-06/ships-trapped-in-ice-after-china-cold-snap/4454140



Quote:

Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend. Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius - 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration. Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

The world has gotten colder on the East Coast of China: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-06/ships-trapped-in-ice-after-china-cold-snap/4454140 Quote: Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend. Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius - 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration. Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported.

STOP IT bobby

according to the leftards

the water is freezing because the world is heating up

they are now saying that you no longer need a freezer to make ice

just heat water up and it should freeze

Maqqa wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 12:35pm: The world has gotten colder on the East Coast of China: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-06/ships-trapped-in-ice-after-china-cold-snap/4454140 Quote: Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend. Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius - 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration. Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported. STOP IT bobby according to the leftards the water is freezing because the world is heating up they are now saying that you no longer need a freezer to make ice just heat water up and it should freeze

According to the AGW alarmists, not lefties.

I'm a (far) lefty and I think these AGW alarmists are borderline retards.  Please don't associate me with them   ;)

Maqqa,

Quote:

the water is freezing because the world is heating up

Could be so.
Climate change can also cause extreme weather conditions -
sometimes an area can get colder.

If the Gulf stream stops Europe will be forced into a mini ice age.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Climate change can also cause extreme weather conditions - sometimes an area can get colder.

Yes, of course.  Climate change.  The change can be warming or cooling.  Nobody would argue with that.

However, the 'W' in AGW stands for 'warming', not 'change'.

The AGW alarmists twist their words to suit their"argument".

Pathetic bunch.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 1:29pm: Climate change can also cause extreme weather conditions - sometimes an area can get colder. Yes, of course.  Climate change.  The change can be warming or cooling.  Nobody would argue with that. However, the 'W' in AGW stands for 'warming', not 'change'. The AGW alarmists twist their words to suit their"argument". Pathetic bunch.

With all due respect you don't know about the Gulf steam.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 1:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 1:29pm: Climate change can also cause extreme weather conditions - sometimes an area can get colder. Yes, of course.  Climate change.  The change can be warming or cooling.  Nobody would argue with that. However, the 'W' in AGW stands for 'warming', not 'change'. The AGW alarmists twist their words to suit their"argument". Pathetic bunch. With all due respect you don't know about the Gulf steam.

With all due respect, it makes no difference to my last post.

The terms AGW and climate change are not interchangeable.  AGW alarmists think they are.  This is my point.