Global Warming Update
by Mark Noonan on November 16th, 2008 at 03:14am
Haven’t had one of these for a while - but as more and more evidence starts to come in that anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax in human history, we’ll start having a lot of them. Meanwhile, this particular story is of either exceptional boneheadedness or, alternately, a bit of global warming alarmist book-cooking which was caught:
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
Their biggest fear - that a year will come soon which shows a drop in average global temperatures. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that we’ve already had such, but the data has been so obscured by the global warming zealots that it hasn’t gotten out. Right now, the key for the alarmists is to keep the alarm up long enough for Executive and legislative steps to be taken under President Obama - they have to get global warming encoded in US law and regulation quickly, before the facts all come out. Once the laws and regulations are in, it will be exceptionally hard to get them out, even if we have 10 years of declining temperatures right after we’ve implemented the alarmist’s agenda.
I wonder, though, if we could work up a class action lawsuit against Al Gore and the entire environmentalist movement? Fraud must have a penalty, ya know?
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
November 16th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Noonan - my offer still stands. Get into any accredited community college program I and I will personally pay for you to take some science courses. Your utter lack of understanding of even jr high school science is so poor that I am quite sure my 4th grade niece would mop the floor with you on any science related quiz.
You see Mark - science doesn’t work the way you think it does. You go out and collect all the evidence and make a hypothesis which is best supported by that data and then you try like hell to disprove your hypothesis.
You - do not - for example rely on calculations that your Dad did to tell you if evolution is viable or not. You do realize that world don’t you? One of Mark Noonan’s reasons for not believing in evolution is that his Dad supposedly did a calculation that shows that it is improbable. Of course - he refuses to publish any of the details or assumptions of this. But its his Dad so we must believe him. Just utterly pathetic..
November 16th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Amazing, no answer on the news that a govt agency screwed up the data, just a lot of hot air. The talking points win - only if you are a fool.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Here’s a hint: when the url linking to the story has the word “opinion” in it, regardless of what comes before or after that word, It’s not science.
Your link has that word twice, just for good measure.
It’s an opinion. And we all know what opinions are like…
But you just keep arguing for ignorance. God will fix everything, anyway, so you really don’t need to conserve. As that one goofball claimed, Jesus already saved the earth, so we don’t have to.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:12 am
kj - the point is that if you look at the bulk of the scientific evidence cataloged it overwhelmingly points to anthropomorphic cause of global warming as a major if not the major cause. In the course of complicated scientific inquiry - such things happen and not every piece of evidence is the smoking gun - however its the collection of evidence and the theory that makes it best fit which defines scientific inquiry.
Mark consistently ignore all the evidence that points to this - and then every time there is even a minor point which may point to the conclusion that he wants he rants and raves about it. That is the point - if he were to put post for every piece of evidence provided or at least sampled it randomly you would find that 95% of the evidence disagrees with Mark’s thesis.
However - he doesn’t care because he has already reached the conclusion he wants and just picks the pieces that fit for his story. That is not science - that is (expletive deleted)
November 16th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“However - he doesn’t care because he has already reached the conclusion he wants and just picks the pieces that fit for his story. That is not science - that is (expletive deleted)”
Do you believe in irony libs?
November 16th, 2008 at 8:29 am
If man causes global warming then why have fossilized banana trees been found in Alaska. I believe it is egotistical to say man has any REAL effect on climate. If we can make it hotter we should be able to make it cooler as well. The fact remains that the sun is the major contributor to any change in climate. Another possible factor in climate is shifting magnetic poles.
I am not opposed to well thought out reasoned science, but the whole global warming thing is a movement not a science. If half of the energy and money that is used on this faux science was put to work to create new alternatives for energy we would all benefit. Every dollar that is siphoned off to prove something that is unprovable is taking a dollar away from research for meaningful solutions to our energy needs.
Quite honestly in order to put things in perspective you must ask yourself, would be better off if the earth was a little warmer or a little cooler. The evidence overwhelmingly points out that a cooler earth is worse for all living things than a warmer earth.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Danish and others - please please please take some time to review the subject. The vast majority of scientific evidence points to an anthropogenic cause to global warming. If you refuse to believe me - please go review the journal articles on the subject. If you refuse to believe the larger scientific consensus - then please present a detailed argument as to why anything you are saying makes any sense.
My god…
November 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I used to love to discuss this topic back when there was some uncertainty about it, but the theory that increases in atomostpheric CO2 have/will increase the global temperature by a dangerous amount just haven’t been validated by the “science”. LibS, try to keep up — if you can’t, go the the library and take notes. Better yet, some go somewhere else where your delusion is appreciated.
The global warming/climate change issue has gone the same route as the Iraq war — it’s winding down into, well as our Lib buddy, Cyberactor would say: a big yawner.
The poetic irony of the global economic meltdown is that there won’t be any more money to waste on this colossal piece of nitwittery.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Ahhhh, science.
Nothing political there…
November 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I might add that, not only has a CO2 — temperature correlation not be validated by science, it hasn’t even been validated by nature.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
well that is the icing on cake -you also thing the Iraq war is a glorious success that was absolutely necessary to save us from weapons of mass destruction, brought democracy peace and love to Iraq, and defeated terrorism..
This is the problem with you people - its like trying to explain to my 3 year old niece that i can’t buy her a live unicorn for her birthday. Just keep at it morons…
November 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Just keep at it morons…
Yeah, LibS, whatever.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I’ve got a great idea, LibS. Since you’re all into the science aspect of this topic, and since you have a PHD in Physics, how about if you provide us with a study from a reputable scientific journal that connects the correlation between global temperatures from 1998 to 2008 with the corresponding rise in (a) atmospheric levels of CO2; and (b) the corresponding rise in levels of anthropogenic sources of CO2.
That shouldn’t be too tough an assignment for someone with your credentials. Take your time — we’ll wait.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“The vast majority of scientific evidence points to an anthropogenic cause to global warming”
Consensus “science” is not science, and science is not consensus.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
spook - you act as if it is a difficult thing to do. The dates are not exactly the same as you specified
but the conclusions are the same. Take a look at
this recent article published in nature for example…
and references within
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11338.html/abs/ngeo338.html
SEW - the statement i made was that the vast majority of scientific evidence points to an anthropgenic cause to global warming.
I am not talking about consensus - I am talking about doing science - you know collecting evidence, forming hypothesis, trying to disprove them? If you don’t accept that the way that’s the way science works I don’t know what to say to you except that I could perhaps recomend some remedial science courses. My god..
November 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html
sorry wrong link
November 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“I don’t know what to say to you except that I could perhaps recomend [sic] some remedial science courses. My god..”
Perhaps you can recomend [sic] some remedial science for this guy as well!! I’ll say it again, consensus “science” is not science, and science is not consensus. Your “science” is politics. A form of religious fanaticism.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/corrupted_science_revealed.html
November 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
markeneheit:
you’re missing the planetary point
the big black hole picture
your blue planet isn’t saying
i’m too hot
or
i’m too cold
she’s saying…..
earthlings have ridden me way too hard
and put mother nature away too wet
for too long
use less
use more efficiently
re-use
i just got back from orbiting
what some would consider a sanctioned 3rd world country
you would be amazed at how resourceful
the humanoids were there
what americans could learn…..
quit being so greedy
run a lower overhead machine
please…..just 10% less?
November 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
i agree that consensus alone does not make science.
However that is not the statement I made.
The statement I made is that the vast majority of scientific evidence points to global warming be real and at least partially and probably mostly caused by man.
IF you have some other idea of how science can possibly proceed I would like to hear it.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
bagni—mother nature isn’t saying that, we earthlings are. And we agree there, but to wreck the world economy over the purely political “science” of carbon dioxide is absurd.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
LibS,
The study you linked to must be hidden behind a subscription firewall, but this statement from the abstract raises significant questions as to the study’s credibility:
As you can see from this study of Antarctic temperature trends covering the period 1951 - 2006, the ONLY areas of Antarctica that have experienced any warming are the peninsula closest to the tip of South America. Antarctic ice extent hit an historic satellite-era high last year, and even Arctic sea ice extent that has experienced significant melting in the last couple years (largely from shifting winds and not from increased temperature) is experiencing 30% faster recovery this fall than normal.
Now, to be fair, in the last year or two I’ve seen pretty convincing evidence that much of the increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 over the last half century or so is attributable to anthropogenic sources. But tying that increase to warming or climate change has proved to be a little tougher since the two trend lines diverged a decade or so ago. I think the most accurate thing that could be said about global climate right now is that we don’t know how much we don’t know. We certainly don’t know enough to throw trillions of dollars at a problem that may not even be a problem.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Sew
good to be away from obomanation, but the same Kool aid drinkers will argue this point to death also.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086
The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter, for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.”
There’s also the Petition Project, where 19,000 scientists have endorsed a statement questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism.
The whole idea of a consensus in science is dubious.
As economist John Kay recently wrote in an op-ed entitled “Science is the pursuit of truth, not consensus” (Financial Times, Oct. 10), “Statements about the world derive their value from the facts and arguments that support them, not from the status and qualifications of the people who assert them.”
This week, Al Gore attacked IPCC-er John Christy for a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Christy questioned the global-warming orthodoxy.
Appearing on NBC’s “Today” show, Gore described Christy as an “outlier” who no longer belonged to the IPCC and who is “way outside the scientific consensus.”
Gore also said that it was wrong for the media to pay any attention to opinions outside the consensus.
Christy told me that, as far as he knows, he remains part of the IPCC process.
As to being an outlier, it just so happens that Christy’s survey responses were within the 50 percent who didn’t think that a 1-degree Celsius rise in global temperature was uniformly undesirable and the 86 percent who didn’t think there was any such thing as an ideal climate.
The “climate consensus” notion functions primarily as a marketing tool for converting the public to a political viewpoint, rather than as a valid scientific approach toward understanding global warming.
But even then, the survey indicates that the claimed IPCC consensus is not nearly as monolithic as we’ve been led to believe. That alone is good reason for demanding that the IPCC scientists declare and defend their positions in a public forum.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
See Junk Science Archive
November 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Spook
If GW is caused by man and our production of CO2
Why at one time did our own west have T-Rex’s roaming, and later the Grand canyon was created by glaciers?
Europe had a mini ice age during the 1600’s
GREENLAND was just that…..Green!
when some of the ice recently receded in greenland ancient communities were found.
The people who buy into this HOAX are the same ones who bought an empty suit to fill the presidency.
NO one can or will convince them any differently.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
libS: “if you look at the bulk of the scientific evidence cataloged it overwhelmingly points to anthropomorphic cause of global warming as a major if not the major cause.”
That’s simply incorrect and broadcasts one of the most basic errors of reason: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The fact is that CO2 has displayed a negative correlation to temperature most of the past 15 years. Because of this GISS and other agencies have retroactively changed models, falsified current and recent temperature data, and falsified historical temperatures. Their fraudulent activities have increased conversely with accelerated cooling. They have staked their reputations on certain assertions which they know, or reasonably should know, to be false, to wit:
* AGW alarmists say that solar activity has little or no impact on atmospheric temperatures
* AGW alarmists say that atmospheric temperature has more influence on polar sea ice than underwater volcanic activity
* AGW alarmists say that previous warm periods in the past 5000 years have no natural correlation to the recent warm period (which is waning)
* James Hansen, in particular, not only refuses to consider the temperature facts returned from satellites, he refuses to even explain his reasons for doing so. And the guy works for NASA.
The answer to your and others’ fascination with AGW is not found in math–it’s found in psychology where mania and pathologies are studied.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’m a skeptic, I’ll admit, but I beleive that global warming is a real threat. I’ve lived in my town all my life, and when I was a kid, we’d get tons of snow. But as time progressed, there was less and less. Last winter we only got 4 inches for the month of January. But then again, I think that the term ‘global warming’ is a bit misleading. Looking at the weather data for the past century, I believe that ‘global climate change’ is a more fitting title, because it’s making weather not warmer or colder but more extreme. We can not make this a political issue. We need to work together on this.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
RightWingResistence,
Local weather certainly does change over time. And temperatures, overall, have increased in the past 100 years.
But the current warm period is very similar to previous periods.
What disturbs me most about the AGW alarmists is their refusal to admit that the correlation between CO2 and temps is very weak compared to that between several natural phenomena and temperature: PDO and sun spots in particular.
Here’s a fantastic explanation: http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1584
November 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
We can not make this a political issue.
Oops, too late — that horse was out of the barn a long time ago.
We need to work together on this.
Indeed we do, RWR; we just need to work smart. If mankind continues to work toward cleaner air, cleaner water and clean, renewable sources of energy, and we spread our technology to developing nations so they can clean up their acts as soon as possible, I think the planet will largely take care of itself. If, instead we divert trillions of dollars to carbon trading schemes, all we’ll do is make people like Algore rich and keep billions of people in the third world poor.
Bill Hennessy, excellent post.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Lib,
The calculation was on the odds of life generating from lifelessness, not on whether or not life could evolve once in existence. You really need to pay attention. Or, alternately, you can keep on with your fundamental believe that the universe accidentally created itself…and then, some time later, an egg laid itself.
Anyways…
If you go to your link you’ll find such words as “expected”, “sparse”, “insufficient”, “simulations”, “models”…and after putting in a huge number of qualifiers, they then go on to assert that all of this qualified-out-of-existence data certainly demonstrates AGW in polar regions. There’s a word for this, and I replaced it with “expletive deleted” in your comment.
I like science - its fascinating…but AGW isn’t science, its political propaganda dressed up as science…
November 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
spook - there is no firewall - just click on the pdf to get the article.
Further - we will spend a trillion dollars or more when all said in done on a worthless war in Iraq for absolutely no reason.
Nobody is proposing throwing trillions of dollars at global warming (please let me know of a detailed accounting if you think otherwise). I am not suggesting stopping all other research and just working on this or moving to the forest and living in the trees. Simply I am suggesting that we move to lowering our greenhouse emissions which we know a priori are bad for the environment…
November 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
sew
earthlings aren’t saying it
look at your planet
whether you’re blowing off the top of mtns
or finding pesticides in penguins
mother nature isn’t happy
agreed…wrecking your world’s economy over co2
would be bad
but using less
and using wisely
would actually improve your economy
right
there is more to life than more shopping and consumption
November 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Further - we will spend a trillion dollars or more when all said in done on a worthless war in Iraq for absolutely no reason.
Ok, now see, good people can debate that. History alone will decide whether or not the Iraq conflict was a “worthless” endeavor. You may end up being correct, and, if you are, it won’t be the first war in history that ended up being a waste of time, money and lives. If, OTOH, liberty takes hold in the heart of the ME, particularly in a country that, prior to the conflict, was one of the most destabilizing influences in the entire region, then it will easily be seen by future generations at the event that tipped the scale toward something good and positive, toward, dare I say it: WORLD PEACE.
Nobody is proposing throwing trillions of dollars at global warming (please let me know of a detailed accounting if you think otherwise).
It isn’t so much how much money will be thrown at the problem as how much global GDP will be lost as a result of Kyoto type efforts. I’ve seen estimates in the trillions, although, granted, any estimate is just that — an estimate. Evan Jones, a fellow that I met at WattsUpWithThat a while back wrote a great article recently that addresses the subject of the cost of global warming.
Simply I am suggesting that we move to lowering our greenhouse emissions which we know a priori are bad for the environment…
That is just a blanket false statement. Water vapor, which is given off in huge volumes from nuclear reactors and will be the sole by-product of hydrogen powered cars when they become a reality, makes up the vast majority of green house gases. CO2 is plant food, below certain levels of which life would cease to exist. Neither are pollutants in the traditional sense.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I agree with RWR. We do need to work together on this. Sppok, you say that the planet will take care of itself. True, it will, but if we continue the way that we are now, then the planet will flush us out in the process. There is a strong corolation between CO2 and temperature, and right now, CO2 is higher than ever before. It will take a while until temperatures catch up, but when they do, I will be laughing as you continue to support big oil while you sweat a lake. You know T. Boone Pickens and his plan, right? Well, he funded the swift boat thing in ‘04, and yet he thinks global climate change is real. Why?
Because it is.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
There is a strong corolation between CO2 and temperature
No there isn’t.
and right now, CO2 is higher than ever before.
No it’s not — not even close.
You know T. Boone Pickens and his plan, right? Well, he funded the swift boat thing in ‘04, and yet he thinks global climate change is real. Why?
I know Pickens owns thousands of acres of rightaway for providing water to Dallas-Ft Worth and would stand to make millions, perhaps billions if he could stick windmills all along that rightaway, but I have no idea what his position is on global warming, nor, since he’s not a scientist, do I care. Assuming you are correct, though, you batted .333 in one short paragraph — not too good unless you’re playing baseball.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Spook, where did you get theidea that Co2 has no corolation to temperature. Ice core samples from the past 1,000,000 years beg to differ with you. And yes, there has been ice around for 1,000,000 years, not just 4,004.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
If global warming is a hoax, then it would mean that every credible company, organization, university and government is in on this. Likelihood of hoax? 1/100000000000. Still, if it is a hoax, then you have the story of the century. Scratch that, try millenium.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Spook, where did you get the idea that Co2 has no corolation to temperature.
Sorry, I should have qualified what I said. The correlation is not what the AGW alarmist portray it to be. Historically, CO2 has followed temperature, not driven it. This has been pretty widely publicized, so If you were not aware of it, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Spook, according to your logic, the alarmists probably control everything. Look up global warming, and then look at how many credible sources confirm it. And don’t say any of that crap about consensus, this is too big for that.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
libS - your so called consensus is a group of scientists who cherry pick their results and IGNORE science that does not agree with their conclusions.
Taking ALL science facts about climate shows that there is no conclusive evidence of man-made global warming.
Gore’s hockey stick graph has been debunked. The temperature data has been incorrect and a correction has been recently admitted to. The means of collecting temperature data has been shown to be flawed. The climate models have been proven erroneous. The other eight planets of the solar system were showing signs of warming at one time - no chance of man influencing their climates. 30+ years ago we were headed for another climate crisis - the next ice age. The list goes on and on about the conclusions of the consenting scientists. The UN also chose not to include data that disputes their findings in the last GW “debate” and conference.
The extremely short time in which data has been collected (4 billion years).
Anyone who disputes the consensus is always “in the back pockets of big oil” and their findings are rarely disputed, but simply ignored. This “climate crisis” is nothing but a means to obtain wealth from productive countries and redistribute it to non-productive ones. Those countries that are the largest polluters , China for one, are not the target of the UN and its CO2 wrath, it is the US that is their target.
This is all to do with political “science” and not the real science. In short, it is nothing but a scam. Do try to keep up.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Well, it seems whenever we try to use a credible source, you call them liberal alarmists. As I’ve said, and I’ll say it to get your attention, NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE. NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE. Thankyou.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Hell, even NOAA, the source cited in the article, says that global warming is most likely real. Everyone is a part of your Liberal alarmist media, you quacks.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The hockey stick graph was not 100% accurate, but according to all leading sources, it was not far off the matk.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Don’t you realize-? As well as being a problem, global warming is a historic opportunity for. The vast majority of other advanced nations believe global warming is real. Let’s take advantage of that and build a new industry. We could have 5 million new jobs if we developed an energy technology industry. If climate change is fake, we’ll sure’s hell make a killing, and if it’s real, we’ll save the Earth in the process. After all, other nations look to us as an example, even China, so if we go green, so will they.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Isn’t O3 lighter than CO2? Isn’t the one about 10,000 feet + higher up in the atmosphere than the other? How exactly is CO2 eating up 03 as the weight of one is far lighter than the other?
November 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sturm, mass hs nothing to do with it. Now, if you’ll excuse me, NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE. NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Let’s take advantage of that and build a new industry. We could have 5 million new jobs if we developed an energy technology industry. If climate change is fake, we’ll sure’s hell make a killing, and if it’s real, we’ll save the Earth in the process. After all, other nations look to us as an example, even China, so if we go green, so will they.
DM, that’s basically what I said in post #27. Did you read Evan Jones’ article? It really puts the whole economic side of climate change in perspective. And just as a side note, Ricorun and I had some input into the article.
BTW, just out of curiosity, what would be your reaction if our civilization were to achieve carbon neutrality in say, the next 50 years, and CO2 levels returned to the levels that they were in the mid-1800’s? As a reminder, that was back when rivers in North America froze over 4 or 5 feet thick and crop yields were a small fraction of what they are now. Is that a time that you want to return to? I don’t. Yeah, I know crop yields have been increased by agri-science and modern fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, but increased CO2 has also played a part.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
NAME ME ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE.
No one (well, almost no one) is saying it’s false. It’s pretty well generally acknowledged that global temperatures rose about 1 degree C from the late 1800s to the late 1900s. Not so much since 1998. What’s false is that we have politicians telling us that we have to do something or we’re doomed. And the reason so many corporations have seemingly “bought into it” is pretty simple — MONEY. When you have a huge segment of the population convinced that green products are going to save the planet, then there’s a lot of money in green products. Why would you, as a businessman, not jump on that train, regardless of whether or not you believe GW is a real problem.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Our crop yields will be fine. In the mid-1800’s, there was little farmland once you got beyond the Mississippi. Today, we have enough food production out of the land west of the Mississippi to feed the whole world. No exaggeration. Not only that, but agriscience has made our plants much more hardy.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Democratic Mule, You aren’t providing answers, by asking me for credible sources and ignoring that the Ozone layer resides much higher up than CO2 can reach due to its weight.
I saw this on a PBS Special about scientists debating whether CO2 actually Effects O3 (Ozone) or not. I don’t remember the name of MIT scientist who said it or the other several who agreed that it is a weak point in the theory of CO2 effecting Ozone.
In the end, I think reducing pollution is a good thing. After one of the coldest winters on record in the northern hemisphere I doubt that Global warming effected by man made means is accurate or credible.
Please calm down in your capitalized yelling responses. You need to be wary of being whipped up into a “witch” burning frenzy by this theory.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I like science - its fascinating…
You don’t seem to understand science, though–how it works, what it does, what its parameters are. It’s great to like it–it is fascinating, after all–but don’t think your enjoyment of it constitutes comprehension of it.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
ylando
You don’t seem to understand science, though–how it works, what it does, what its parameters are.
You mean like the big bang?
havent there been at least 10 theory’s of how the universe was formed since 1900?
So much for scientific “evidence”
November 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Spook
We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Orlando,
Oh, I think I’m pretty certain how it works - understanding, of course, that I am layman in the realm of science.
Gotta remember, though, that I’m old enough to remember when human CO2 emissions were being blamed for the coming ice age. Given that the same theory was used to account for cold in the 70’s and heat in the 90’s, I was immediately mistrustful of AGW when first proposed.
I’m also old enough to remember how we were supposed to have a massive famine in 1974 and run out of oil in the 1980’s….
You see, I’ve been around this block too many times - until there is rock solid science - not computer models and not a series of suppositions unsupported by hard data - I’m just not going to buy AGW. And, now, we’re starting to see data indicating a cooling trend is in the offing. In other words, yet another “we’re all gonna die!’ environmentalist alarm is proving to be utter BS from start to finish.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Al Gore said we had 10 years to stop Global Warming, to prevent the seas from rising to disasterous levels.
That was about 6 years ago…Please show us where these levels have significantly risen.
In the meantime, Gore has seen his bank balance rise far greater than sea levels have.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“Democratic Mule, You aren’t providing answers, by asking me for credible sources and ignoring that the Ozone layer resides much higher up than CO2 can reach due to its weight.”
You are correct. In no way does carbon dioxide affect the ozone. Sorry about the mistake. But before you stop reading, it isn’t CO2 that’s the problem with the ozone. It’s clouroflourocarbons, a material found in old air conditioners and fridges. The U.S banned clouroflourocarbons, or CFC’s, years ago. However, today we are not worried about a hole in the ozone layer anymore. We believe that carbon is acting like a blanket, allowing heat in but not letting it out.