From Climate Depot:
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears…
…Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”…
I know, I know – our liberals will swiftly discover that Giaever is just a shill for Big Energy, or some such…never mind facts and logic; Al Gore says anthropogenic global warming is true, and so it must be…
But, it isn’t. If the world is warming, then it is almost certainly not primarily caused by human CO2 emissions. Additionally, if it is warming there is no conclusive evidence that it will be a net detriment to life on earth. The whole thing of global warming is a double-edged scam…for leftists to gain political power in the name of saving the planet, and for con artists like Gore to make bags of money. That is it – never has been anything else, never will be anything else.
Blogs For Victory 
Here’s a great example of our fantastic democratic leadership:
Harry Reid: “Well, for most Americans, [bike paths] are absolutely important. It’s good for purposes of allowing people to travel, um, without burning all the fossil fuel on the highways. I got up this morning really early, and went out and did my exercise. I’m not exaggerating–scores!–at least 30 or 40 bikes–so scores may be a slight exaggeration–of people, not just for exercise, traveling to work. Backpacks on–they are going to work. That’s what bike paths are all about!”
I can’t think of any other current issue that Harry should be working on, can anyone else? And has anyone got an update on the cowboy festivals?
You know, if Liberals want to ride to work on a bicycle, good on them. I work out of my house and commute across the hallway from my bedroom to my office, so my carbon footprint is nil.
but you’re still exhaling spook!!!! stop putting co2 in the air! lol
RB,
Would it help if I held my breath while walking from my bedroom to my office?
It’s mind boggling to even think Harry would spend one second on this topic considering that he hasn’t produced a budget in nearly three years.
I am also beginning to think that liberals are right about their desire for an open border. After all, these fine people only want a better life, right?
(Reuters) – U.S. Border Patrol agents found a rocket launcher, assault rifles and explosives near the Rio Grande river in Texas, the agency said on Wednesday, a discovery that suggests a link to Mexico’s drug wars.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/idINIndia-59348720110914
I thought the idea of a border fence was to keep us in. At least that’s what Ron Paul told us in the last debate.
Just another reason why Ron Paul won’t ever be President.
Can’t disagree with you there!
They should not use rpgs. The chemicals that are released in the backblast are very enviroment unfreindly.
That would be really politically incorrect. What are these drug lords thinking?
The whole thing of global warming is a double-edged scam…for leftists to gain political power in the name of saving the planet, and for con artists like Gore to make bags of money. That is it – never has been anything else, never will be anything else.
First time I’ve ever agreed with you, Bodie.
Bodie has a rare moment of clarity
boobie
hitting the bong?
I actually agree with you.
Nah, Mark altered my post to hide from his own hypocrisy. Pathetic, isn’t it? But that’s just what he has do to: Lie. It’s his only recourse.
Dr. (Mc)Giaever won the Nobel prize for work on superconductivity. His main field is premised on the idea that ultra-cold temperatures (a few Kelvin above absolute zero) are important. Of course he is going to dismiss global warming, but one should note that he did so at the end of his career when it no longer takes courage, when he no longer has to look his colleagues in climate science in the eyes every day in the faculty lounge.
Of course he even hedged his little rant by saying his beef was with the way the scientific PROCESS was going forth and not the actual claims.
(jk)
Wouldn’t it be interesting to administer a polygraph to every scientist who has ever made a definitive statement on AGW?
leonard
poly graphs are about as accurate as AGW
IF liberals truly believed in science, they would let this theory of AGW play out and see where the facts lead them. As it is, liberals are in a rush to conclude that it is settled science and are insisting that we make “their” recommended changes. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
….when he no longer has to look his colleagues in climate science in the eyes every day in the faculty lounge.
Are you saying that there is peer pressure to adopt the group think on AGW? Interesting.
It sounds like that is EXACTLY what Bardolf is saying.
It IS exactly what I am saying. Of course there is PEER pressure. Not just for AGW but for everything on campus and everywhere else in the US. Why would you expect differently?
Of course it is liberal nonsense to believe that the facts somehow lead people on any issue.
Well Cory has certainly bought into the group think. Gotta be one of the concerned “cool” ones ya know.
Oh good idea. Right now we have evidence all around us of global warming that some insane portion of the populace rejects out of hand for no reason other than they read some blog on the internet. If only we wait for more evidence to build up, surely the same buffoons won’t continue rejecting it without basis!
corky
100% BS
“It just doesn’t pass the smell test.”
What a shocking statement for a scientifically ignorant hyperpartisan like you to make, cluster.
The cool thing about there being billions of people in the world is that you can find a single authoritative-sounding figure to speak on your behalf for almost any issue. In this case, you didn’t even find that, as Ivar is a physicist rather than a climatologist. I care what he has to say on the issue of global warming roughly as much as I care about my dentist’s opinion on my knee injury (even if he is one of the premier dentists in the world).
Meanwhile, a huge, vast, overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (for those too lazy to read, 97.4% of respondents who listed themselves as client scientists and published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject agree).
So yeah, go ahead and pat yourselves on the back that you found one Nobel Prize winner to lean on. But just remember that his Nobel Prize was awarded because of work on semiconductors. And for every climatologist you can dig up that say that humans are not a significant factor in global warming, there are 40 that say that we are.
Cory,
What is the normal temperature of the earth?
My best guess at the answer to your question is that all of these theories are comparative. Either they are compared to the control of what the world’s temperatures were at some previous date, or they attempt to compare current or predicted temperature readings to what they would have been without human involvement.
Beyond that, I don’t have the background knowledge required to give a more specific answer. Do you have the humility required to admit the same?
corke
US midwest
T-REX
Glaciers
Temperate
do TRY to keep up.
Cory,
Scientific truth is not decided by a poll…
I’m not saying that any of this is scientific fact (which is almost a straight up oxymoron). I’m saying that it is a very strong, supported theory with very strong consensus among experts in the field, which in turn means that we should be concerned and take steps to avoid potential global catastrophe. What are you saying? That it isn’t a well supported theory among scientists working in the discipline, or that you know better because of your climatology credentials?
Cory,
The consensus among experts holds that government spending can improve economic conditions.
I don’t go with consensus unless there is simply no other way…I prefer to use my reason to figure things out on my own.
Mark:
I’d be interested to hear your beliefs on how “scientific truth” is established.
And what exactly is your rationale for holding that government spending can’t improve the economy? Anything in particular, or just that you don’t like paying taxes? I’m interested to know why you think you know better than the majority of economists that, for instance, rate Obama’s stimulus at saving or creating millions of jobs.
“Scientific truth is not decided by a poll”
Exactly–it’s decided by science. Which backs climate change (and, it’s worth pointing out, evolution, which you always try to counter with…polls. Of course, you can’t exactly counter it with science because you’re admitted that you have none). Way to nullify your own argument, Mark.
Bodie,
You might want to look up the word “proved” at this point.
And you might want to look up the word “science,” Mark, not to mention the word “evidence.” You’re on the wrong side of both of them. Not that you care, of course–you’ll just lie regardless.
That would take a lot of electricity to administer those tests. Burn way too much coal seeing if they were lying or not would probably cause actual warming.
What happened to global cooling? That was all the rage in the early to mid 70’s
Wasnt that settled science too?
GMB,
There was enough concern back in the mid 70’s that we were headed into another ice age that credible scientists actually proposed using airplanes to blanket the polar ice caps with soot to cause them to melt. Good thing saner minds prevailed.
Japanese scientists are predicting another cooling period. Our current position in out orbit has us closest to the sun then we ever get, and soon we will, of course, be moving away from that position.
There was never as much scientific consensus on global cooling as there is on global warming. Even in the 70s, there were far more global warming papers than global cooling. Even global cooling papers frequently talked about concerns specifically with global cooling outpacing the effect of CO2 based global warming.
Additionally, climatology was a much less developed science at the time. Modern climatology is really only as old as about the 1950s.
On top of that, one of the main proposed human causes of global cooling was large scale emission of aerosols. Environmental regulations have since cleaned our emissions and radically reduced the number of aerosols we are putting into the atmosphere. In other words, concern about the problem went away because we solved it.
You could learn these things yourself if you decided to do a little bit of research on the subject, you know. It would be much more enlightening than asking the questions in an accusatory tone in the comments of a political blog.
Wasn’t phrenology at one time settled science?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Excerpt:
“Throughout, however, phrenology was rejected by mainstream academia, and was for instance excluded from the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The popularity of phrenology fluctuated during the 19th century, with some researchers comparing the field to astrology, chiromancy, or merely a fairground attraction, while others wrote serious scientific articles on the subject. The last phrenology book in English to receive serious consideration by mainstream science was The Brain and Its Physiology (1846) by Daniel Noble, but his friend, William Carpenter, wrote a lengthy review article that initiated his realization that phrenology could not be considered a serious science, and his later books reflect his acceptance of British psycho-physiology.”
Anything else I can Google/look up in Wikipedia for you?
Not really. Unless you can prove the earth is round.
Your sound very smart, Cory, and one of the reasons (aside from becoming unemployed) that I started blogging was to learn and expand my horizons. Global Warming/climate change has never been on my radar. I’ve always tried to live responsibly, conserve energy whenever possible, recycle, etc., but beyond that, I don’t see much that man can do to affect global climate and/or temperature. Do you think global warming is truly a crisis, and, if so, what are some of the things that you think mankind should be doing to confront the problem?
Leonard,
My opinion on whether global warming is a crisis is that I don’t know. I have not done the research required to have a meaningful, original opinion on the subject. I do know that the people who spend the most time researching the subject have such a solid consensus that it seems insane to me to not take heed.
It sounds like you are already doing more or less what can reasonably be expected of an individual to try to address the problem. I’m not necessarily the right person to speak to on individual conservation, either, though.
I am just a guy who gets frustrated when our scientific community gets overruled by demagoguery and sees the future of our entire species being put at potential risk just so some people can score some political points. The actual solutions are difficult enough to try to fathom, but we can’t even get to the point of discussing them reasonably because people take the word of random partisan hacks over people who study climatology professionally.
I am just a guy who gets frustrated when our scientific community gets overruled by demagoguery and sees the future of our entire species being put at potential risk just so some people can score some political points.
I can actually relate to your position, Cory. I’m just a guy who gets frustrated when science is hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats to further an agenda. All one has to do is go back to the beginning – well, almost the beginning, to see how this is the case. As you note, global warming was beginning to be discussed in the late 70’s and early 80’s, in connection with the green house theory, and the potential effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the end of the Industrial Revolution. It wasn’t until the summer of 1988 (a particularly hot summer, especially in Washington, D.C.) that the issue really got off and running. That was the summer that Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO) invited NASA’s James Hansen to testify before the U.S. Senate. Here’s a brief account of that day:
The rest, as they say, is history, and thus began one of, if not THE BIGGEST scientific scams in modern history.
Yes, you can indict the character of 1 person or even 10 who have taken my side in the debate. I’m sure there are all sorts of people of less than impeccable character that agree with you, as well.
Oh, did you think a random ad hominem attack on some guy I don’t care about was going to add to the discussion? Are you going to try to convince me that his theatrics are what convinced all the climatologists that made-man global warming is real?
“I’m just a guy who gets frustrated when science is hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats to further an agenda.”
So you must really be upset with creationists and climate-change deniers…oh, wait.
Modern climatology is really only as old as about the 1950s.
Then no wonder that a 60 year old discipline has nailed the climate facts of a planet that is tens of millions years old. I am surprised it took them that long.
Consensus is not science Cory, just FYI. You might want to read some other comments of scientists who are skeptical. Just saying.
There are dozens of sciencies that were in their infancy 60 years ago that you take for granted in your daily life. How mature was Computer Science in the 1950s? You are submitting that comment from a computer, right?
I’m pretty sure computers are magic, so computer science is a myth.
You could explain why a scientificlly accepted theory should equal fact. That one always gives me a chuckle or two.
Why would I do that? They aren’t equivalent. I’m not saying there is no chance that climatologists have this one wrong. I’m saying it is insane to not take the threat seriously when people who know the most about it do.
Who gets to decide who knows the most? Do you see what I am saying? If agw is a fraud there is no way anyone can know the most about a falsehood. What I have seen is that any scepticle data is just ignored by the consensus.
There is no money to be made on the other side.
GMB
this is simple…..
US Mid West
T- Rex’s
Glaciers
Temperate
Shiite happens with or without fossil fuels.
Morons like corky cant seem to grasp that, must be his public indoctrination camp “education”
THE FAT LADY SINGS THE A.G.W. BLUES
Carole “CJ” Williams
May 6, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
For well over a year now I’ve been blind-copied on electronic back and forth correspondence from some of the most brilliant and well-respected scientists on Earth. The stunningly informative missives have been passed on to me by Hans Schreuder whose ‘I Love My Carbon Dioxide’ Website contains a wealth of information that totally dispels the myth of Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW).
Basing their well-researched opinions on sound science methodology rather than garbage-in/garbage-out computerized modeling, the gentlemen are among hundreds of extremely well educated scientists who are digging in their heels against the UN invited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists and some of President Obozo’s government Obots who’ve no qualms about lying through their teeth to perpetuate Al Gore’s AGW Hoax. I wrote about some of that in my op-ed piece, ‘How the Environmental Extremists Manipulate the Masses’, posted at News with Views on 1/26/08, which is what prompted Hans (and many others) to contact me with an ‘atta-girl’ in the first place.
I won’t belabor the fact that AGW is a hoax by going into tons of ‘over-the reader’s head’ scientific detail; suffice it to say one of the greatest scams to be played out on mankind by some of the most deplorably self-serving and greedy individuals on the planet has been in the works for years. Those who still want convincing that AGW is a con game need only explore Mr. Schreuder’s website, as well as read his words here, words written so almost anyone can understand why the purported ‘global warming crisis’ is nothing more than anthropogenic globaloney.
As additional proof of intentional malfeasance, I offer the utterance of Democrat Timothy Wirth, a former Senator from Colorado: “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
rest here…….
http://newswithviews.com/Williams/carole113.htm
neocon,
I love how most of those hackjob op-ed pieces tend to play out the same way. They have only a few tactics tactics: appeal to a single authority in the field as if he overrides a strong consensus, implicate one or a few related people on the other side of the issue in wrongdoing (as if some random Senator using Global Warming for political reasons invalidates everyone who shares his opinion), and then link some organization that disagrees with you to some conflict of interest or evil that is at least 2-3 steps of indirection away. It’s all very Glenn Beck, and it amounts to a whole lot of lines of text that don’t actually say anything worth even cursory attention.
I mean, come on. I’m really supposed to take somebody who says things like “President Obozo’s government Obots” seriously? I think you need to reconsider some things in your life if that doesn’t scream “partisan hack” so loudly that you immediately question the value of the entire article.
corky
speaking of a partisan hack, refute it or STFU.
Really? There is no money to be made from being paid by fossil fuel companies to find that we shouldn’t be worried about global warming and should just keep on burning coal and oil? There is no money to be made by finding that industrial facilities don’t need expensive upgrades to limit their emissions? Have you ever looked at who pays for most of the contradictory global warming studies?
Also, we decide who knows the most the same way we do in any other field: examine their credentials. The people counted as knowing the most in the study I linked earlier were those who both self-identified as climatologists and published primarily climate-related peer-reviewed papers. That seems like a pretty good start. Also note that their field of study is not “global warming”, it is “climatology”. The study included climate scientists whether or not they had ever published a paper specifically on global warming, or even if they had specifically published dissenting papers on global warming.
You can come up with other metrics, too, if you want. But if your only metric for whether they count is whether they agree with you, you’re not going to be presenting a very convincing argument.
BS is BS is BS
seems you have eaten your share and like it….enjoy.
Not me.
PS
I have some land in Fla….
Didnt GREENLAND used to be GREEN?
and now is a glacier????
DAMN that CO2
No, Greenland was a misnomer intended to trick people into settling there. Here is the excerpt from Wikipedia, which I again was amazingly able to pull up in roughly 15 seconds of searching, on the issue:
“The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland (“Greenland”), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.[9][10]
Greenland was also called Gruntland (“Ground-land”) and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt (“ground”), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glaciers) is relatively green in the summer.”
Any more clever anecdotes?
T Rex midwest
glaciers mid west
temperate mid west
wikipedia tha,t and get back to us BEFORE we ALL BURN while we are being FLOODED AYEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Let me rephrase that. There is no taxpayer money to be had by the other side.
Used to be farms in Vinland. Not now its too cold to farm there. Why?
GMB
according to our latest troll corky, GLOBAL WARMING…it’s in wikipedia so it HAS to be a fact….
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960’s and 70’s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.
There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page.
13 Sep 2011 – Gore Turns Climate Rage Into 24-Hour Marathon: Plans Day-Long Presentation Aimed At Eradicating Disbelief In Disputed Theory [No matter what the FALSE PROPHET of the Cult of Global Warming says or does, the fact remains that a HOAX is still a HOAX]
02 Sep 2011 – Gore’s Latest Global-Warming Rhetoric ‘Desperate,’ ‘Troubling’ [More nonsense from the false prophet of the Cult of Global Warming!]
19 Aug 2011 – Global Warming Fraud: Iconic Polar Bear On Melting Ice Cap A Hoax
12 Aug 2011 – Gore Realizing ‘Global Warming’ Is Floundering
25 July 2011 – Why We Should Give The Cold Shoulder To A BBC Trust Review That Argues The Broadcaster Should Ignore Global-Warming ‘Deniers’ [The BBC is Not interested in truth, only in reporting upon what they want to]
25 July 2011 – Climate Change Sceptics Should Get Less BBC Coverage And Be Challenged ‘More Vigorously’, Says Report On Science Output [More proof as to how bias the media is and how one-sided the news they report upon is]
20 July 2011 – The Warmers’ CO2 Argument
15 July 2011 – Climate Cops Blame Ozone For Illness [The climate kooks have launched another bizarre bid for attention — this time claiming that global warming will cause millions of illnesses and cost billions of dollars]
12 July 2011 – Australian Children Are Being Terrified By Climate Change Lessons [More insanity and scare tactics brought to you by the Global Warming Cult]
12 July 2011 – Global-Warming Hysteria Hits Australia With Carbon Tax [Even more greed and more of your money being stolen by the Cult of Global Warming]
08 July 2011 – Coal-Burning China’s Rapid Growth May Have HALTED Global Warming [More lies and nonsense from the Cult of Global Warming. Just a short while back there were saying that this was the cause of global warming, not they are saying it is halting it. Just another typical cult tactic, when things go opposite of what you say, just turn your theology and teachings around so they fit with what is happening!]
08 July 2011 – Global Warming? A New Ice Age? The Only Certainty Is That YOU’RE Paying For The Hysteria Of Our Politicians [More nonsense, stupidity, and greed. All they are after is to get all of your money and tell you how you should live your life!]
08 July 2011 – Global Warning: Scientists In U-Turn As They Claim Extreme Weather And Climate Change Are Linked [The Cult of Global Warming has now decided to blame every weather event on global warming (sorry climate change). I don’t know about you, but I hadn’t noticed any reluctance on their part not to blame every shower on climate change previously]
05 July 2011 – ‘Climate Change Scam’ Has Nothing To Do With Science
23 June 2011 – Al Gore: Stabilize Population To Combat Global Warming [More INSANITY from the FALSE PROPHET of the GLOBAL WARMING CULT!]
21 June 2011 – Scientists Now Predict A New Little Ice Age Is Near [More NONSENSE from the Cult that brought you global warming. I remember back in the late 1970’2 and early 1980’s they were talking about an ice age by 1990. Obviously that never happened either. This just goes to prove what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (KJV): “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”]
20 June 2011 – Head Of Oregon Global Warming Commission Shuts Down Question And Media (AGENDA 21) [Has an embedded video on the web page]
16 June 2011 – Global Warming Not To Blame For 2011 Droughts
14 June 2011 – The New Religion Of Global Warming
13 June 2011 – UK: ‘We Must Stop Pandering To Climate Scaremongers’: Ex-Civil Service Chief Blasts Ministers For Global Warming ‘Evangelism’ [Global taxation (sorry warming)]
31 May 2011 – Stopping Global Warming Can Only Be Achieved By The Limitation Of Democracy! [More craziest from the Cult of Global Warming and its members!]
31 May 2011 – Global Warming Charlatans Feel The Heat
29 Apr 2011 – Brainwashed Kid Travels The World Promoting The Global Warming Hoax
25 Apr 2011 – Elementary “Earth Day” Indoctrination [Brainwashing of the young and innocent!] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
21 Apr 2011 – Global Warming Or Crucifixion Day?
18 Apr 2011 – EPA Official Says Jobs Don’t Matter [Has an embedded video on the web page]
18 Apr 2011 – Your Money’s Gone With The Wind (And Solar)
12 Apr 2011 – Simple Exercises To Promote Healthy Neck Muscles And Ligaments
04 Apr 2011 – Obama’s Limo Exempt From New ‘Green’ Policy
30 Mar 2011 – Got Problems? Blame Global Warming
29 Mar 2011 – The Global Warming Fleecing Of American Taxpayers
29 Mar 2011 – How Hot Is The Core Of The Earth? [Has an embedded video on the web page]
24 Mar 2011 – EPA Wrong To View Science As Settled
15 Mar 2011 – INSANITY: ‘Green’ Price Tag: $700 Trillion To Drop Earth’s Temp 1 Degree: Even EPA Admits Cost Of Regulating Greenhouse Gases ‘Absurd’
14 Mar 2011 – Once Again, Mum Nature Has Her Way!
09 Mar 2011 – Inhofe: Obama Trying To Kill Oil And Gas, Force Green
28 Feb 2011 – OU Professor Says Stormy Winter Nothing To Do With Global Warming Has
22 Feb 2011 – NOAA Says Al Gore’s Claim About Snow And Global Warming Is NONSENSE [More proof that this doomsday prophet and his cult are totally false!]
17 Feb 2011 – The Nazi Origins Of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory
10 Feb 2011 – Al Gore’s Incredibly Shrinking Credibility
08 Feb 2011 – Blow To ‘Global Warming’ – Study: Many Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing Or Stable [And this is after the Cult of Global Warming has been going on and on about how the glaciers there are shrinking. More proof that they are nothing but a cult of lies!]
07 Feb 2011 ‘Pulling The Plug’ On Green Subsidies
04 Feb 2011 – Gore’s Unending Blizzard Of Lies
04 Feb 2011 – How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
02 Feb 2011 – Snow, Freezing Rain Cancel Flights, Trains, School Across U.S. [So how long until the Global Warming Cult and its false prophet Al Gore come up with some hocus pocus nonsense about global warming causing this?]
02 Feb 2011 – Global Warming Skepticism Reaches White House
31 Jan 2011 – Another IPCC Global Warming Hoax Exposed—Glaciers GROWING In Himalayas, Not Melting!
18 Jan 2011 – The Great ‘Climate Change’ 2011 Taxpayer Rip-Off
18 Jan 2011 – UN Subterfuge…The Global Warming Hoax
13 Jan 2011 – 49 Of 50 U.S. States Have Snow [Hey Al Gore, How do you and your Cult of Global Warming explain this? This goes completely against your false teachings and theology! More proof that you are just another false prophet spouting lies!]
06 Jan 2011 – More Harsh Winter Weather On The Way [So what happened to the global warming? This weather goes completely against the theological teachings of the Cult of Global Warming and its false prophet Al Gore]
06 Jan 2011 – ENGLAND: Why The Met Office Didn’t Dare Tell Us It Was Getting Cold [The Met Office, being slaves to global warming computer models, seems that the results given to them for long term forecasts are wrong every time!]
Er, I’m not even sure what that means. You do know that there is no consensus on where the “Vinland” vikings described even was, right? There is at least one Norse map that has it drawn all the way down to touch Africa, and I’m quite sure someplace in there it is not too cold to farm.
corky
“I’m not even sure what that means
YuuuuP
OK I’ll put it this way. Vikings had farms in Greenland from around 900 ad to 1100 ad. They were not very good farms but farms that were able to provide enough food to survive. Now it is too cold to farm in Greenland. Why
GMB
because it isnt GREEN any more??? 🙂
A good video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Because the theory of man-made global warming does not preclude natural climate change. This should be obvious. The same scientists that believe we are warming the planet also believe that there have indeed been ice ages. Additionally, man-made global warming could only been an issue of the current potential scale since we hit the era of industrialisation, hundreds of years after Greenland became unsuitable for farming, so we certainly wouldn’t have been canceling out any natural cooling process. Why would you think that the two ideas are exclusive to each other?
corky
Yawn
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960′s and 70′s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.
You do know that the World Natural Health Organization is not the World Health Organization, right? Why on earth would I care what some random conservative activist has to say on the subject?
Cory,
Earlier I asked what you would suggest mankind do to respond to the danger of climate change. You apparently got side-tracked with Neocon1 and Green Mountain Boy, and I really haven’t heard anything from you that indicates you have any real interest in solutions to something you seem to think is a significant problem. From what little I’ve read about climate change, that seems to be the case with most who occupy what many call the “alarmist” side. It’s noble to be concerned about something that might cause human extinction, but less noble to care more about it as a debating issue than as something that can actually be addressed by policies that can be proven to be able to actually address the problem. Sorry for the awkward, run-on sentence, but I think you probably get my drift.
LOL, It never was very green to begin with. Greenland was just the name given by ericsson? to attract colonists.
Advertising works!! sometimes 🙂
GMB
shhh you’ll confuse the boy.
RUT RO
SOAS Professor: ‘Global warming is a myth’
Face it Neo, if we don’t spend trillions and trillions fighting global warming, DOOM!!!!!!!!!
GMB I think you meant to say “if we don’t tax carbon emissions by rich countries and give it to developing poor countries. then DOOOM!!!!!!”
Ok cory so how much time do we have left? 10 years 20? Whats the time frame here? I need to make some plans.
GMB
-5 years algore predicted we would all be dead by now, why do you think he bought a mansion and flies all around in his corp jet?
I mean being a super hero and “SAVING the PLANET” (echo chamber sound) is tiring.
Actually, it was in January 2006 that Algore made his famous “we only have 10 years left before it will be too late” statement. Four years and 4 months to go before the whole issue is a moot point.
Spook. you don’t think it’s time for a end of the world party yet?
GMB
only if barry gets re-elected.
corky
sooooo if the dinosaurs lived in lush tropical paradise, why were the woolly mammoths wooly?
Spook. you don’t think it’s time for a end of the world party yet?
Party? Where?
Party?
Im in,
maybe we could dress up as union thugs, hamas, NBBP, NOI and have it at the white painted house.
Time left before what? Substantial economic damage? The Maldives sink into the ocean? Extinction of the species? I’ll answer in two parts. First, you should be more specific when you ask questions. Second, I’m the wrong person to be asking even a more specific question, because it is not my field of expertise.
Interesting, so you are just taking the position that agw is real based on feeling? Your gut instinct?
I think the context of Algore’s statement was that we only had 10 years before we reached the point of no return, where no effort by man could stop the planet from becoming inhabitable. I don’t remember what his end time for human extinction was. The problem with putting a time frame on a dooms-day scenario is that time passes, faster than we’d like in most cases. Like him or not, Algore is the public voice of climate alarmism.
Spook, ever since I was a little kid it’s been one doomsday scenario after another from the left. Global cooling, nuclear winter, global warming, and the one thing that they all have in common is that we have to spend tons of money now to stop it.
I am taking the stance that it makes sense to take proactive measures to protect our world’s ecology because experts on the subject strongly agree that we’re heating up our world. I know that it’s a little too nuanced to be pidgeon-holed into a 5 word soundbyte that you need it to be to understand what I am saying, but I’m sorry, I can’t really make it any more simple.
I am taking the stance that it makes sense to take proactive measures to protect our world’s ecology because experts on the subject strongly agree that we’re heating up our world.
You’ve been beating around the bush all day, Cory. What “proactive measures” specifically?
What “proactive measures” specifically?
Leonard, you’ll learn after a few dozen climate hoax threads that the Lefty alarmists who come here don’t come for debate; they don’t come to offer ideas, and they certainly don’t come to offer solutions. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure exactly why they do come here, other than to muck up the conversation and call people names. Bodie/Monty/Jeffy/Slccr did admit at one point that he comes here to jerk Conservatives chains, but, as far as I can recall, he’s the only one who’s been honest about why he comes here. You can keep asking Cory legitimate questions until hell freezes over, but you’ll never get anything more than vague generalities and circular arguments. Just my 2 cents from over 7 years experience with literally hundreds of Corys and Thomases.
Spook:
Your criticism of Cory is absolutely astounding. neocon can call Cory names and otherwise make fun of him while posting links with absolutely no commentary, and, somehow, Cory is the one who will not engage in debate. That makes a lot of sense. Excellent analysis.
The actual specifics of solving the problem are complicated. National regulation can help. but it doesn’t prevent China from pumping out pollutants, and it doesn’t prevent American companies from going to China so they can get away with pumping out pollutants. Investment in technology is looking like a better answer. If we were all driving fast charging supercapacitor-based cars powered by nuclear/geothermal/hydroelectric/solar/wind power, we could cut emissions massively, avoid dependance on foreign oil, and excise increasing oil prices as a negative influene on our consumer price index.
Ultimately, though, talking about the solutions doesn’t matter if we can’t even convince everyone that there is a problem to be solved, so the whole discussion is orthagonal to the direction of the argument here.
dumdumdavid
corky is a troll, I feed him what he likes SHIITE sandwiches.
do try to keep up.
The actual specifics of solving the problem are complicated.
Ok, see, now we’re getting somewhere, Cory. I was beginning to think you were just here to muddy the water.
You’ve listed some pretty interesting specifics. Now my next question is how do you tie those specific actions to reducing the global temperature — scientifically? That’s the part that I don’t get.
The mechanisms aren’t that complicated. The whole idea is to limit the amount of pollutants we emit identified as contributory to global warming and also avoid damaging the natural mechanisms our planet has for taking the pollutants back out of the atmosphere. A large portion of the carbon dioxide that we emit comes from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, so a car running on electricity generated from a nuclear or solar plant generates virtually no CO2 while one running on internal combustion generates a substantial amount (and other pollutants: see smog). Drilling for oil in the ocean damages oceanic ecosystems, and a substantial portion of the work being done naturally to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen is being done by plankton in the ocean.
The best part about those solutions is that even if it does turn out that we aren’t causing global warming, they still let us stop emitting other pollutants that we are sure are causing harm and gain energy independence. On top of that, they are the sort of things we’re going to eventually need anyway, as fossil fuels are a finite resource. So we still get positive results from investing in alternative energy even if we turn out to be wrong, and if we’re right, we might just be saving our planet from catastrophe. It sounds like a win-win.
Don’t think there is much chance of that Neo. Even the flip flop king will probably beat barky Oscoamf 🙂
Just hope the world doesn’t roast on us before november 2012
How much did the london race riots contribute to AGW?
With nearly every major US city burned by racist looters and mobs in the 60’s 70’s 80’s 90’s ,no wonder it is sooo damn hot. Burn baaaby Burn!!
coming to a city near you compliments of barry, bwany, louie,and the teamsters.
I heard the mob bought carbon credits from owl bores carbon exchange before it closed down. So lay off the mob you wingnut! 😛
So lay off the mob you wingnut!
hoffa is dat U??
Ooooooooooo Noooooooooo Mr Billllllll
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
Published September 14, 2011
Planet Earth for Earth Day
NASA
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y4WjX700
Yupp, and just for you information I am that small bump on the home 35 yard line. I am not in the endzone!!!
LOL
maybe sonny can get the other end.
One paper I did, IIRC, back in the late 70’s ~ early 80’s was one on the the affect man had on the earth for a physics class where I calculated everything I could man has done since the creation of time / record keeping from fire, the combustible engine, all the way through atomic and nuclear weapons discharges. The total affect was less than 1% (closer to 2/10ths of 1%) of the output from a major volcanic eruption. People are nothing more than a gnat on a pimple of Mother Nature’s ass and the sooner people like Cory realize it the better.
This is a cap & trade Al Gore based scam–period. Cory, you can run around screaming the sky is falling all you wish as it is your prerogative but please–re-read your posts before you start calling other people hacks or partisan because you outright dismiss anyone and everyone that doesn’t tow your beliefs 100%. That is the absolute sign of a partisan hack.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
Or, to paraphrase, humans emit more than 100 times the CO2 that volcanoes do yearly.
I’m glad you’ve had a physics class and all (I took some college level physics and chemistry myself), but your numbers suck.
Yeah, I kinda got that I should just start ignoring Neo when I saw him link the same article that was linked in the original post.
Well then — we better start cutting down all of them evil forests and pave them over because they are the greatest producers of CO2. We should have never started a forest service because we now have more forested area than when we landed here (1942 anyway). Who knew–evil, evil forested areas and cow farts.
Opps-transposed again — 1492. And if you understood my numbers–people are responsible for 2/10 of 1% of all activity (AGW as you call it) on the face of the planet since recorded time.
Forests consume carbon dioxide, they don’t produce it. Given your fundamental lack of understanding of basic Biology, I’m just going to assume that you are making up numbers as you go.
I was gonna ask for a citation on the forest thing, and I don’t mean Ronald Reagan.
I think there’s a fundamental difference between “dismiss” and “presents contrary evidence.”
I do find it interesting that the only believable experts are on your side of the question. Why do you think that is?
there are a MAJORITY of experts on the right side you idiot. there are always going to be dissenters and that’s perfectly fine.
But when you and neostupid claim that those outliers are the norm is when we have problems.
Look green, go back to church and pray about it. I am sure it will fix everything. Just let the adults in the world fix it.
GMB
alinsky 101
Thomas. No. I am staying right here. You can leave if you want.