“Come in rabbit hut this is monkey wrench. Over?” Sorry, Consti here in the Bunker communications room trying to get the news out about the Global warming debate that was supposed to be over. I’d like to dedicate this post to Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr. The man who has spent his post political career pushing what is appearing to be a farce. Since most people have been inundated with this dogma I’d like to bring up just a few recent items to catch everyone up.
Now let me go on record here. Growing up in Chicago I know full well that SNOW is a four (4) letter word. Shoveling it as a kid made me swear I would never shovel it again. Anyone with a T.V. news paper, internet, or other media has seen the record setting crippling snow that has hit the East Coast. But record snow in Dallas? (24-hour snowfall record now at 12.5 inches! The previous daily record was 7.8 inches on Jan. 15, 1964, and Jan. 14, 1917 and the previous 24-hour record was 12.1 inches) Record snow and rainfall in Arizona even?
Now before you progressives try to remind me that “weather” is not “climate” let me just remind you of a few things your own Democrats have said in the recent past.
RFK Jr. – RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C. News alert for RFK Washington DC has had the most recorded snow in over 100 years! That’s the problem with predicting the future. You have half a chance of being horribly, horribly wrong.
Congressional statements –
BYRD 2002. We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we’ve had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons?
BOXER 2007. He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear.
KLOBUCHAR 2008. I heard it from the head of our snowmobile association who testified at a forum that I had with our governor on climate change in January because they’ve seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fishermen because they have seen that it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can’t put their fish house out.
FEINSTEIN 2005. The Sierra Nevada snow pack is the largest source of water. The snow pack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California’s man-made reservoirs. By the end of the century, the shrinking of the snow pack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people.
BOXER 2007. The potential consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for the world. Now we’re seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this floor and say whatever they want. We’ve seen melting of snow, we have seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, rivers, oceans, changes in the seasons.
DeMINT 2010. It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries “uncle”.
So for all those of you who will try to call me out for the difference between “weather” and “climate” all I have to say is this. Talk to your own people who haven’t got a clue FIRST! Then we can talk. Now let’s take a look at some of the science that is falling apart under the disinfectant of sun light.
The Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035 – Apparently this claim originated in a NEWS article and is not based on science AT ALL! The scientist credited with this finding has come out to admit that the information in the IPCC report is completely false. So why did it take him this long to admit this fact? Could it be funding grants? Also he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
Alaska Glaciers – Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008. When the glaciers GREW apparently to global warming? Hello…. Logic?
U.N. IPCC report (Global Warming Bible) – Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologize for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said. Um… HELLO! You are the HEAD of the IPCC! The buck stops with you pal!! That means YOU are responsible for the accuracy of the report YOUR panel releases. IT”S YOUR JOB!! Also background note by the IPCC said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the Dutch country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers. If this were my Public High School science paper wrought with these errors I would get an F- for a grade. Yet this report is touted as the guiding light in climate change. Irrefutable as the dogma of the religion of global warming goes.
Scientific cronyism – Accused of withholding information and obstructing counter scientific research, Professor Jones claims he has most likely LOST the relevant information related to manmade global warming. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. So the professor who FOUNDED the theory of global warming now says that it may not be manmade. Let me repeat that. The guy behind global warming ADMITS that there has been no measurable increase in temperature in the last 15 years. Once more the Professor behind the core of global warming theory says it’s NOT MANMADE. So much for unequivocal proof eh?
So when Al Gore and Joe Biden claimed that the debate was over well I guess they were wrong. There are BILLIONS of dollars at risk due to global warming legislation. Shouldn’t we be ABSOLUTELY SURE of the science first? I have a question for the readers.
Will Al Gore admit to the truth NOW and return the millions he invested in Green tech?
Consti.
Article by Consti Tution
Consti has written 92 awesome articles.
I was born and raised in two places. The Midwest and the west coast. You can say I have a mid-west core with a west-coast mentality. I was a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout, A Scout Leader, and a volunteer so I learned my civic duty at an early age. Well before mandated school curriculum required me to. Long before a sitting President made it "cool" and definitely before he "required" it of us. I am a product of the Public Screwl System!! I am like you a citizen of the U.S. I get up, go to work, come home, kiss the fiance pet my cats, have dinner, play Xbox, love the fiance, and go to bed. I pay my taxes, my healthcare, my car payment, rent, power, and the rest of my bills just like you. The difference you might ask is I use my voice to bring to light the corruption, hypocrisy, greed, graft, miss-management, and utter shenanigans of the government in power. Who so ever that should be. Like the late great Mark Twain, I am for the country, not it's institutions. I am for the Constitution, not the talking heads on T.V. I am for the people of this great country, not the power structure that is. The truth my friends is an ugly thing. However, only the truth will set you free. So look upon the face of the beast with me and laugh my friends. For that is what the face of truth requires. Humor. The reason I blog about politics and our American society is it is my way of participating in the dialog and democratic process that is our Republic. I urge all of you reading this to play your part in our society and make your voice heard. Which ever side of the political spectrum you are on. The government is not the boss, you the public are. Make use of it. I hope you find something here that makes you smile or laugh. If you do then I have done my job. If you find something here that makes you think or change your mind then I am truly blessed. Either way my friend let's buy the ticket and take the ride as Hunter S. Thompson said so eloquently.
Share This Post!
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
From your link-
“He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said THE INFORMATION WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FROM AMERICAN WEBSITES.
(The scientists who wanted to review this didn’t know where to get that data? Shame on them. Plus, this is nothing new, Jones said this before. The data was out there, if the naysayers didn’t want to see it so that they could throw a criticism, that’s not Jones’ fault. You’re not hiding something if it is publicly available…)
“And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.
Professor Jones, who was forced to stand down as head of the CRU last year, also insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust.”
This is based on the SAME batch of emails that were supposed to be a “smoking gun” and “death knoll” against global warning. Old news…Some “smoking gun”… Keep trying, Consti…
As far as standard practice- do you know that most funding agreements for studies in the US have a disclosure clause attached to them, so that the researcher cannot even release the RESULTS if they do not support the position the corporation funding the study wished to find, let alone the data…There is no written “standard practice” that requires full disclosure of all information in a study. If there was, then no company with a product with a proprietary formula would commission a study, because they would have to reveal the ingredients in its formula. Plus, it bears repeating- the information WAS ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE!
For those who don’t know, the Daily Mail is Britain’s tabloid paper- but it somehow becomes a reputable source for news? Look at what’s on the front page as “top news”…Would you go to the National Enquirer for your source about global warming?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html
HAHAHA!!
Laura,
I addressed your comments. IT’S CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. You are still spouting nothing more than DOGMA and your supposidly tearing down of my points only serves to further show your complete lack of understanding of GOOD SCIENCE. And since the IPCC report is cited ALL THE TIME BY GOVERNMENT it is the Global Warming bible. Just ask Alfonse Gore. My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Everyone else,
The UK which REQUIRES AL Gore’s move to be played in schools is now talking about pulling that piece of garbage from the classes. As they should. Flawed science is still no reason to write legislation. Despite what the global warming relegious zealots say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html
Consti,
The IPCC is not the only report that provides support for global warming. The IPCC scientists are not the only ones who support global warming. The IPCC report pull out statement DOES NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING.
“Additionally, the scientists who SAY it was happening NOW SAY it’s not, or can’t be proven.”
The articles, or “proof”, you presented do not say that the IPCC reversed their stance on global warming. The IPCC did not say that global warming cannot be proven. What they DID say is they were unsure as to the DEGREE OF IMPACT global warming was going to have over a definitive time period.
Since you seem to have missed them…
(BBC) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT global warming?
(Jones) Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. THIS TREND(0.12C per decade) IS POSITIVE, but not significant at the 95% significance level. THE POSITIVE TREND IS QUITE CLOSE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
According to the DailyMail (UK) article…..He further argued that this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
(BBC) Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
(Jones) NO. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/climategate_scientist_speaks_o_1.html
“Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”
This was from your Guardian link…
“The latest revelations don’t disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.”
This was from your New York Post link…
“To be sure, the IPCC has been forced to acknowledge errors and unsubstantiated statements in one of its landmark 2007 reports. The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. None of them, however, undermined the report’s consensus that the planet has warmed and that man’s activities have contributed to the warming.
For instance, buried in the report was an unsubstantiated assertion that it was highly likely the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The summary of the report was far less assertive. It said that “if current warming rates are maintained, Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”
Among other things, the article points out that according to Accuweather, January 2010 was the warmest January on record. While the East was getting snow, Alaska was unseasonably warm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/02/snowmaggedon-in-washington-spurs-climate-change-doubters.html
Again, please show me this supposed mass exodus of scientists away from global warming that is the lynchpin of your argument.
The facts show rising temperatures…and it only takes a SMALL change in global temps, a few degrees, to make a big impact.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Look at the map of planet temps, taken by satellite…See for yourself…
There is far less proof that men have played NO part than there is that men HAVE played a part.
Global warming and its effects will harm ALL of us, whether we WANT to believe in it or not, unless we do what we can to blunt its negative effects.
We Americans have turned a blind eye to numerous other threats to our health because corporate America manufactured and hid data so that we could continue to believe what we wanted to believe or do what was easy or cheap. Cell phones/microwaves, cigarettes, asbestos, lead paint, DDT are just a FEW examples of the ones we KNOW about. Global warming is yet another one. If you looked beyond trying to find half-assed links to “prove” the corporate talking points you are hoping in vain will prove you right and excuse your laziness, and really start looking around, you would be SHOCKED at what you might find…Go beyond the agenda…
Government is not your enemy; if government is done right it is our best hope and can be the weapon we can use against the true enemy. You’re barking up the wrong tree with all your propoganda and playing right into the hands of the ones who want nothing more than to divide us from ourselves and our government…And they don’t stop in this country…
Consti,
The IPCC is not the only report that provides support for global warming. The IPCC scientists are not the only ones who support global warming. The IPCC report pull out statement DOES NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING.
“Additionally, the scientists who SAY it was happening NOW SAY it’s not, or can’t be proven.”
The articles, or “proof”, you presented do not say that the IPCC reversed their stance on global warming. The IPCC did not say that global warming cannot be proven. What they DID say is they were unsure as to the DEGREE OF IMPACT global warming was going to have over a definitive time period.
Since you seem to have missed them…
(BBC) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT global warming?
(Jones) Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. THIS TREND(0.12C per decade) IS POSTIVE, but not significant at the 95% significance level. THE positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
According to the DailyMail (UK) article…..He further argued that this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
(BBC) Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
(Jones) NO. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/climategate_scientist_speaks_o_1.html
“Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”
This was from your Guardian link…
“The latest revelations don’t disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.”
This was from your New York Post link…
“To be sure, the IPCC has been forced to acknowledge errors and unsubstantiated statements in one of its landmark 2007 reports. The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. None of them, however, undermined the report’s consensus that the planet has warmed and that man’s activities have contributed to the warming.
For instance, buried in the report was an unsubstantiated assertion that it was highly likely the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The summary of the report was far less assertive. It said that “if current warming rates are maintained, Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”
Among other things, the article points out that according to Accuweather, January 2010 was the warmest January on record. While the East was getting snow, Alaska was unseasonably warm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/02/snowmaggedon-in-washington-spurs-climate-change-doubters.html
Again, please show me this supposed mass exodus of scientists away from global warming that is the lynchpin of your argument.
The facts show rising temperatures…and it only takes a SMALL change in global temps, a few degrees, to make a big impact.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Look at the map of planet temps, taken by satellite…See for yourself…
There is far less proof that men have played NO part than there is that men HAVE played a part.
Global warming and its effects will harm ALL of us, whether we WANT to believe in it or not, unless we do what we can to blunt its negative effects.
We Americans have turned a blind eye to numerous other threats to our health because corporate America manufactured and hid data so that we could continue to believe what we wanted to believe or do what was easy or cheap. Cell phones/microwaves, cigarettes, asbestos, lead paint, DDT are just a FEW examples of the ones we KNOW about. Global warming is yet another one. If you looked beyond trying to find half-assed links to “prove” the corporate talking points you are hoping in vain will prove you right and excuse your laziness, and really start looking around, you would be SHOCKED at what you might find…Go beyond the agenda…
Government is not your enemy; if government is done right it is our best hope and can be the weapon we can use against the true enemy. You’re barking up the wrong tree with all your propoganda and playing right into the hands of the ones who want nothing more than to divide us from ourselves and our government…And they don’t stop in this country…
Laura,
As usual you fail to understand my point even though I repeat it for you like a patient teacher would.
Are we as humans contributing to green house gasses? – Yes. However, the impact that has on the environment is minimal. Simple reason. We polluted MORE in the 19th century than today. Additionally, the scientists who SAY it was happening NOW SAY it’s not, or can’t be proven.
Finally, THE Himalayan glaciers portion of the report is based on a news article given by a group that is not scientists. They are environmentalists. Even the link I provided earlier attributes the scientists who wrote part of that report to saying that it was PUT IN FOR POLITICAL PRESSURE! Now I know you can read so omitting that little fact is typical. If it was put in there for political pressure… that’s not SCIENCE.
Now I know you are not a scientist. However I am around them all the time with my career. There is this little thing called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. That is the rule if you will for GOOD SCIENCE. Not political dogma. The method creates PROOF not SPECULATION. And now the supposed proof is being revealed as POLITICAL DOGMA. If a 15 year old wrote something SO FLAWED for their science report they would get an F-.
Now I know you are also an intelligent person. And personal feelings aside I am getting tired of having to point out to you that the IPCC report has MANY FLAWS. So when Al Gore said it was a settled issue it wasn’t. In fact he may be dragged to capital hill and made to answer for it soon. So his critics will actually get to debate him which he refuses via a proxy of congress.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive
Being that you are an intelligent person I find it hard to believe you would allow legislation to be written on FLAWED DATA instead of SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It leaves me to ask just how far your logic goes when pitted against your partisanship?
A politically motivated investigation by Washington means nothing- 9/11 conspiracy theories, Whitewater,et al- were all “investigations based on “facts” that were sketchy at best and that cost the American taxpayers money to tell us what we already knew. They are “proof” of nothing.
Please tell or show me where ANY of the scientists or the IPCC has said the global warming is not real. You seem to think that by shouting it, it will come true. Read your own links, read mine- NOWHERE do they say that these scientists have come back and said global warming does not exist. Where is the proof I have asked for that says that global warming unequivocally does NOT exist, especially evidance that is provided by a study funded and conducted by an independant third party. You know why you haven’t presented one? Because YOU CAN’T FIND ONE!
They have not backed down from the basic theory. Period. They have not said that it does not exist. Period.
There is very little question that global warming is real- heck Glenn Beck himself in the most recent copy of USA Weekend says “You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change” and that there is a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind. Glenn Beck! for crying out loud! The only disagreement in the community has been about degree of impact.
Are you a corporate shill? Because it seems that when it comes down to siding for the “regular guy” you claim to stick up for versus the interests of the corporations, you stick up for the corporations everytime and deflect and insult anyone who tries to point in the way of corporations as being corrupt, self-serving and un-trustworthy. The only time you stick up for the “regular guy” is when it coincides with or promotes corporate interests. Then you pull the flag out and wave it like ya just don’t care! The only other thing you are consistent about is in your anti-Obama rants.
Laura,
The more you fight it the more it falls apart….
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
Laura,
Corporations? Really? That old boogie man? THE SCIENTISTS WHO AUTHORED THE REPORT SAY IT”S WRONG. Period. There is no “hush money” as you rant about. What a complete fallacy on your part and typical I might add. I’ll repeat that since you are hard of hearing. THE SCIENTISTS WHO AUTHORED THE REPORT SAY IT”S WRONG. Period.
The whole hope of the corporate interests behind the debunking of global warming is to delay action as long as possible so that they can make as much profit as they can, while they can. Why don’t you ever question the science that is paid for from their pockets…oh, wait-because they cover their tracks. I’d love to see the donor lists to the institutions and foundations that are going full steam 24/7 to debunk global warming. Corporations don’t spread hush money, right? Look at what Toyota did with recall issues and regulations, the Big Three did with emissions standards, cigarette manufacturers did with the dangers of smoking and healthcare has done twice now with health care reform. Recent history is chock full of examples of where corporations squelched information, hid the truth, spread cash and lobbied in order to make a buck. Is it inconceivable they would do the same to save trillions? But it’s the GOVERNMENT that’s untrustworthy?
You say the science is not proven. Well, can you, or anyone else, PROVE that global warming DOESN’T exist? If it is not real, then how are all the phenomena that are occurring happening? Do you have an explanation for that? You are quoting POLITICIANS saying it is settled and your own links that you have used to “prove” that IPCC scientists are shying away from their own beliefs have not shown that they have walked away from their basic viewpoint that global warming is real and that evidence points to it being manmade. They have argued about the degree, but not the basic premise. None of these men have said “I changed my mind. I was wrong. Global warming does not exist.”
They are just arguing about HOW MUCH damage it is going to do, not IF it exists and will do damage. You have “proved” nothing.
The world takes the theory of relativity as fact. Has anyone ever traveled at the speed of light to test it? Einstein rigged and experiment that “proved” it, but has it been proven without a doubt? We may never have the technology to prove it. This is just ONE example of a great deal of the other scientific “facts” and “truths” that can never be definitively proven, but are taken as truth. Uncertain degree of scientific uncertainty about results is NOT flawed science. No one can prove how Ritalin works, how legal “speed” counteracts hyperactivity, but that doesn’t stop Americans from pouring untold pounds of the drug down the throats of their children. All “they” know is that it works.
If we- Amercians, humans, government- waited for dead certainty to act, then nothing would ever happen because there is very little that is certain except that we will all die someday. You, yourself, act on incomplete proof and evidence all the time- your columns are full of it. This country legislates on assumptions and half-truths ALL THE TIME. But this time it should be different? I’ll tell you what makes this different- you don’t have the trillions in profits of huge multi-national corporations being threatened like you do with global warming. They are working the scientific front just like they are working the GOP and friendly politicians- disseminating propoganda about how legislation will cost each taxpayer THOUSANDS of dollars when it is less than $200 BEFORE the savings kick in. The CBO has said it loud and clear.
Change and reform may not always be pretty, but that does not make it less important or necessary. I suppose we should bury our heads in the sand until things are absolutely screwed up, THEN try to do something. Then we would know for SURE how we have screwed things up. How are we going to refreeze polar ice caps? How are we going to pump away the seawater that will flood some of our most valuable real estate? How are we going to control the climate changes that will have a huge negative impact on water tables, affecting sewage treatment, agriculture, natural vegetation patterns and delicate ecological systems? We don’t have the science to do any of those things and that science would take decades to create, if we were able to develop it. I’m sure that you will be one of the throngs looking at the government and saying “Why can’t you fix this? Shouldn’t you have known? You had the evidence. This is YOUR fault…” It’s a line you’ve got down pat…
You know, it might be a good idea for this nation to be PROACTIVE for once, instead of waiting and being reactionary. Being proactive usually costs a lot less and saves a great deal of harm. But since this nation seems determined to make our children and grandchildren pay for the full brunt of our irresponsibility, just so that we don’t have to change our style of living or pay a couple extra bucks for non-immediate gratification, am I surprised? Isn’t the price we are paying now for the corner cutting and short term reactionary fixes of the past enough for us to learn? Apparently not for some of us…
ALL MEN are created equal, which means you are not any better or worth more than anyone else on this planet. Who are you to hold the survival of future generations ransom so you can save a few bucks and live the life that you have become accustomed to? Who are corporations to hold the future of this planet hostage for the sake of a human invention- money? Money is not real outside of the value we humans give it, but this planet and the creatures on it are. Ask if the information you are being fed is tainted by those entities that have the money and power to make sure that they will never have to pay the price. But then, since the full effects of global warming are 50-100 years away, you won’t be paying the price either…so I guess it doesn’t really matter then, does it, since it’s all about YOU?
Laura,
Yes I read the article don’t be a moron. And your view is one way to take it. The other way, which alot of people are waking up to is that THE SCIENCE AL GORE AND JOE BIDEN CLAMED WAS SETTLED IS NOT!
More and more original writers of the IPCC document are comming forward now and being honest. Yes it could rise more, it could rise less. Any intelligent person would take from that the impression that the scientific community DOESN’T REALLY KNOW. And until the science is settled NO LEGISLATION should be based on FLAWED science.
Simple as that, but apparently difficult for a dogmatic supporter to understand. And again, a 5 paragraph diatribe on a simple link in the comments.
BTW… haven’t heard from george since you came back to the site… interesting…
You’re patting yourself on the back for this link? Did you read the article? The stuy was criticised for being too CONSERVATIVE- meaning that the rise could be GREATER! The paper was pulled because they needed to make corrections to two peices of data that would render the paper’s findings uncertain. That is very different from them pulling the paper because it was flat out wrong. Draw conclusions much?
In case you mised these parts of the not very long article…
“At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results”. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.”
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
“In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.””
READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU LINK TO IT AND BRAG ON IT! Aren’t you tired of looking like an idiot from your OWN LINKS yet?!?!
HAHAHA!!! The harder you try to justify it the more it falls apart.
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Blah blah blah… that’ is AN EXACT quote from him. Why don’t YOU read the WHOLE thing. And as for OTHER scientists proclaiming global warming if the report is flawed 8 times then any GOOD science in it is tainted at best.
And I don’t recall mentioning liberals at all. So as usual you try to put words in my mouth.
Ignorance for you truely is bliss isn’t it?
If you read your whole link, as well as the links I provided, you will find that your assertion about what Professor Jones says is not accurate and has, at best, been taken out of context . Please read the WHOLE quote/context befor you go talking out of turn.
The fact that you are so spooled goes to show that you have been caught in your own web and are trying to wiggle your way out. I presented all the proof you ask for, if you would only look. The fact that you choose to ignore it shows that this has nothing to do with fact or “proof” and everything to do with bias and opinion.
Just admit that this whole thing has nothing to do with proof or fact with you and everything to do with wanting to find yet another supposed black mark against liberals. If global warming were being presented by the GOP and conservatives, your words and attitude would be MUCH different. You will argue against ANYTHING proposed by a liberal just to argue. We can all see you for exactly who you are on this issue…
sorry 15 YEARS!!
Let me repeat that….
THE LEAD SCIENTIST FOR THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING SAYS THERE HAS BEEN NO INCREASE IN TERPERATURE IN !% YEARS. AND THAT MOST LIKELY MAN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE.
Eh…
“NONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, UNDERMINED THE REPORT’S CONSENSUS THAT THE PLANET HAS WARMED AND THAT MAN’S ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WARMING.”
The guy behind global warming ADMITS that there has been no measurable increase in temperature in the last 15 years.
So really how ridiculous do you sound clinging to a lie?
“NONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, UNDERMINED THE REPORT’S CONSENSUS THAT THE PLANET HAS WARMED AND THAT MAN’S ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WARMING.”
The guy behind global warming ADMITS that there has been no measurable increase in temperature in the last 15 years.
So really how ridiculous do you sound clinging to a lie?
You obviously don’t read so I will repeat myself YET again. if the IPCC report is SO INFALLABLE then why are portions of it based on NEWS REPORTS and not HARD SCIENCE? Until you answer me that I see no reason to acknowledge your babble. No matter how you try to distract from the question, it still remains. Just because they “acknowledge” some errors doesn’t absolve them from BAD SCIENCE. And since LEGISLATION is to be based on a FLAWED REPORT why should we support that legislation?
Hard science, verifiable fact that is what science is. NOT BASED ON NEWS ARTICELS OR HEARSAY. In addition there are noted 8 errors in the IPCC report. If this was my high school report I’d get an F for so many errors. Yet you will still blindly stand by and spout this ridiculous dogma and pass legislation that will cripple the economy.
True believers willing to fall on their swords for their faith in global warming are only going to end up with stomach pain. I believe they are called radicals.
In case you missed it the first time and then missed it again when I referred to it…But then you wouldn’t have had a reason to repeat that brilliant response…
“To be sure, the IPCC has been forced to acknowledge errors and unsubstantiated statements in one of its landmark 2007 reports. The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. NONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, UNDERMINED THE REPORT’S CONSENSUS THAT THE PLANET HAS WARMED AND THAT MAN’S ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE WARMING.
For instance, buried in the report was an unsubstantiated assertion that it was highly likely the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The summary of the report was far less assertive. It said that “if current warming rates are maintained, Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”
Among other things, the article points out that according to Accuweather, January 2010 was the warmest January on record. While the East was getting snow, Alaska was unseasonably warm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/02/snowmaggedon-in-washington-spurs-climate-change-doubters.html
Please, repeat your irrelevant response again that does nothing to answer any of the valid points and evidence presented. I guess having the last word is just that important…
Usually though a punch line is only repeated if it is a good one…LOL
Once more….if the IPCC report is SO INFALLABLE then why are portions of it based on news reports and not HARD SCIENCE? Until you answer me that I see no reason to acknowledge your babble.
Take the time to read not only the quote I provided from the LA Times article, but the article itself. Have you read th IPCC report yourself to see what it said, or are you just taking your assertions from the headlines as you have most of the comments you have made or points in your articles, all of which have been shot down…mostly from quotes in your own links.
Again….if the IPCC report is SO INFALLABLE then why are portions of it based on news reports and not HARD SCIENCE? Until you answer me that I see no reason to acknowledge your babble.
Not only did the Daily Mail run a headline that did not match what they then printed as quotes from Dr. Jones in the article, they did not quote Dr. Jones correctly. One has to wonder, if their headline was correct and valid, why did they need to go so far to misstate Dr. Jones both in print and in context?
Daily Mangle
15 February 2010
Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.
The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.
The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”.
Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”. Jones stated in his BBC interview that “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia” and that “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”
These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).
Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.
Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We’ll report further such developments as they happen.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
Dr. Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the heart of climategate was just recently interviewed by the BBC.
Jones is the director (not currently acting director) of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which was at the center of the hacked e-mails back in December.
I have posted just a few of the questions and answers from the BBC article. You can read the whole article right here.
———–
(BBC) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
(Jones) Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
According to the DailyMail (UK) article…..He further argued that this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
(BBC) Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
(Jones) No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/climategate_scientist_speaks_o_1.html
A mass exodus of scientists away from global warming?
Acting CRU Director hits back at Skeptics
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/acting_cru_director_hits_back_1.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Look at the map of planet temps, taken by satellite…See for yourself…
An article from The New Republic that explains how the snow is not inconsistent with global warming. In fact, it was PREDICTED by global warming scientists…
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/what-the-snowpocalypse-says-about-global-warming
“To be sure, the IPCC has been forced to acknowledge errors and unsubstantiated statements in one of its landmark 2007 reports. The irregularities had to do with predictions of the expected effects of warming. None of them, however, undermined the report’s consensus that the planet has warmed and that man’s activities have contributed to the warming.
For instance, buried in the report was an unsubstantiated assertion that it was highly likely the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The summary of the report was far less assertive. It said that “if current warming rates are maintained, Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”
Among other things, the article points out that according to Accuweather, January 2010 was the warmest January on record. While the East was getting snow, Alaska was unseasonably warm.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/02/snowmaggedon-in-washington-spurs-climate-change-doubters.html
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=2
and if the IPCC report is SO INFALLABLE then why are portions of it based on news reports and not HARD SCIENCE? Until you answer me that I see no reason to acknowledge your babble.
Laura,
how do you type when you are so blind? MANY scientists are speaking out about the global warming myth. Only narrow minded blind people are still pushing the global warming myth. Even the indian scientist who was sourced for the melting of the snow caps has admitted errors.
Now tell me if the science of Global warming is so infuteable then WHY ARE THE SCIENTISTS BEHIND IT BAILING OUT?
Seriously. Attacking me personally doesn’t prove global warming. It just proves you are as partisan as you accuse others of being. People in glass houses…. something…. something.
Get a life Laura. For someone who said they would never blog here again I see your convictions are self serving.
Here is some great food for thought on the Subject. Just take your cup of cold coffee, put it outside for a few minutes so it will get hot, and enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related
From your own NEW YORK POST (!) OP-ED (not news) column:
“The latest revelations don’t disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0fjdKPkei
Again, you have presented NO PROOF that global warming does not exist, even by admission by the author of the OP-ED (!) column from that bastion of quality, objective jouranlism the New York Post. Should I answer your claim with an op-ed post from the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post? I’m sure I could do that…
Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame (Jones) sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”
Also, read your quote again. In it, Jones says that the vast number of scientists, himself included, do not feel the debate about climate change is over. How does that equal him saying that global warming is not true or that he now does not believe it is true?
PLEASE do yourself a favor- READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE you are quoting and READ the quotes you are quoting. Your own “proof” is not only failing to support your conclusions, but in many cases is outright refuting your claims. Do yourself a favor and just don’t bother with quotes and links then unless you can find credible ones that don’t come from an op-ed in a gossip rag that STILL does not support your claims.
Laura,
When faced with THE WORDS of the man who authored the report you still INSIST in being factually wrong. Dogma is dogma religious or global warming doesn’t matter.
Pray at the alter of Al Gore and see how fast your knees ache.
These aren’t random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact.”
Jones also noted that there’s been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn’t been statistically significant, either.
Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame (Jones) sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0fjRsjPK2
Laura,
As always your diatribes are welcome and encouraged. They are also expected. Glad to see you are as predictable as I supposidly am.
I can lead the mule to water but if it’s too stubborn to drink… well then it’s the mules problem. Not mine.
And as you would be more than happy to point out, since when are politicians experts on scientific issues? Why are they even relevant and why are you asing them as some kind of “proof”? Use politicans quotes all you like…as my link showed the GOP in VA jumped on snow as prof of no global warming weeks ago…
If you are going to quote Professor Jones and say that he said that he is pulling his claims, could you please get your facts from more than the headline. This all came from the very same article you used as “proof.”
“Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’…”
“…Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’…”
“… But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend…”
“…Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions….”
“…Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
“…Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made….”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fjJz78Jn
Again, your “proof” proves NOTHING that you claim in your post. Please stop using links until you have read the whole thing…
Laura,
As always you are welcome to your opinion and I strongly suggest you keep up commenting. As usual it’s a good example for me of exaclty what I am saying.
Thanks.
BYRD 2002. We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we’ve had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons?
BOXER 2007. He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear.
KLOBUCHAR 2008. I heard it from the head of our snowmobile association who testified at a forum that I had with our governor on climate change in January because they’ve seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fishermen because they have seen that it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can’t put their fish house out.
FEINSTEIN 2005. The Sierra Nevada snow pack is the largest source of water. The snow pack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California’s man-made reservoirs. By the end of the century, the shrinking of the snow pack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people.
BOXER 2007. The potential consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for the world. Now we’re seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this floor and say whatever they want. We’ve seen melting of snow, we have seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, rivers, oceans, changes in the seasons.
DeMINT 2010. It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries “uncle”.
So for all those of you who will try to call me out for the difference between “weather” and “climate” all I have to say is this. Talk to your own people who haven’t got a clue FIRST! Then we can talk.
Consti,
Please read ALL of your own links before you post them. I think you will find that they do not bolster your case and planting a bunch of links for the sake of putting them in your post does not make you or them right. When people read what you link to in your post and it negates your main point, it does you no favors. Consti, do you really want me to go through all of your links and expose this? This is the second time I have looked at your links and found this to be true. I highly recommend everyone clicks on your links and reads ALL of what they have to say before making judgement. They will find they are not “proof” of what you have to say at all.
“The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.”
This was in your first piece of “proof” about the professor and his u-turn. Sound like they are biased to you? I thought you used unbiased sources, or at least you like to accuse others of not using them.
“Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.” “
This was buried at the bottom of his second link in that paragraph.
And if you want to talk about logic- the data in Alaska does not change the fact that there is distinct NET decrease in glacial ice. If a man fell off a building and hit an awning, bounced up a few feet and then continued falling to the ground, is it logical to point to the milliseconds he bounced up in the air and say he’s not falling?
And I notice you didn’t even try to comment on the El Nino issue. Don’t worry, I accept your apology…
Accused of withholding information and obstructing counter scientific research, Professor Jones claims he has most likely LOST the relevant information related to manmade global warming. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. So the professor who FOUNDED the theory of global warming now says that it may not be manmade. Let me repeat that. The guy behind global warming ADMITS that there has been no measurable increase in temperature in the last 15 years. Once more the Professor behind the core of global warming theory says it’s NOT MANMADE. So much for unequivocal proof eh?
Um, it IS an El Nino year. Please get YOUR facts straight, Consti…
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090709_elnino.html
One possibility is that so-called glacier cycles are not necessarily related to cycles of carbon and methane in the atmosphere.
http://io9.com/5470031/underground-caves-suggest-climate-change-is-weirder-than-we-thought/gallery/
Oh and laura there hasn’t been an El Nino this year… try getting your facts straight.
Laura,
Weak Laura, just weak. And again you fail to address ANY of the obfuscation on the part of the IPCC chief scientist. Saying you LOST the data is like saying “my dog ate my homework.” In addition to that you are not a scientist you are a writer. Moisture? Really? Weak Laura just weak. There is A LOT more to it than just that, but I don’t expect you to admit to any of it. For someone who makes noise about personal responsibility you sure do let people you agree with pass on responsibility.
Try living in a desert and you will learn a few things about moisture first hand.
Take the Blue pill Laura and stay in the happy little progressive Matrix. Those with an open mind will take the red pill and get out of the machine.
Laughable Laura… just laughable.
Consti, your “forest” of irrefutable evidence will always be challenged no matter how convincing it is. Even if you have between 10 and 20 “trees” that have been obviously carefully researched. When man-made global warming proponents (or, what has now become outright global warming) are abandoning ship, yet there are people who will step forward to stubbornly vouch for the “science”, it likely means that you are effectively exposing the folly.
Keep on keepin’ on.
.-= Erik the Red´s last blog ..Obama: Just What the Doctor Ordered – Unless You’re a Doctor =-.
Consti,
Good write-up.
Please correct me if I’m wrong because I may be grotesquely naive. But over the course of my lifetime, I learned that for something to “warm” means that the temperature increases and for something to “cool” means that the temperature decreases. It really isn’t rocket science. Therefore, regardless of the amount of moisture in the air, if North America is getting slammed with the worst winter on record in addition to the past 10 years NOT being the hottest on record over the course of the past 2 millenia, then there is writing on the wall that not only is man-made global warming a hoax (which has long been determined) but that global warming and cooling is cyclical and has been since temperature change has been analyzed. Of course, I realize that you understand that. But there are other people on this site who, after performing a viciously condescending departure in December, have the audacity to stick their head above water again and try to tell us lowlifes how the universe really functions when, in reality, THEY DON’T HAVE A SINGLE CLUE.
I saw this one coming from you. Predictable…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599196229400
Global warming caused the excess moisture that is in the air, which causes snow. That and the El Nino conditions contributed to the snow. That does not change the fact that the last decade was the hottest on record. The devastation from climate change does not take a huge temperature change to cause its damage- only 2 degrees or so. If it snows in winter when its under 32 degrees, doesn’t matter if it’s 28 or 30- you still get snow. But if there is moisture in the air that normally isn’t, then you get snow you never would have had before.
Forest for the trees, yet again…
Next Comments →
{ 1 trackback }