Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[utgibbs]

Only gsvol could look long and hard for a Green Nazi.

 

[gsvol]

In September.

(Loads of great links within the text!!!)

Liberals like Al Gore who push human-caused climate
change like drug lords push dope, are gearing up to
mass brainwash America on September 14-15 with
24 hours of climate insanity and fraud.

Polling before and after the charade will report how
successful it was in brainwashing Americans. Just as
the wicked witch tested Hansel to see how successfully
she was fattening him up after she locked him in her
stove, this “Al Gore” test will determine how successfully
they have fattened American brains to blindly accept
climate propaganda.

If they find Americans are sufficiently dumbed down
to be roasted then they can then turn up the heat
and cook America until it is well done. At that point,
in unknown lavish surroundings, super rich will raise their glasses in toast to celebrate their successful century-
long plan to bring down and take full ownership of the
greatest nation on Earth, state by state.
--------------------------------------

But their “climate crisis” is a mirage. Extreme weather
events have not changed in frequency or intensity over
the last century nor over any longer interval of record.

These alarmist claims were resolved in ClimateClash
and on CO2 Science.
---------------------------------

The scam of climate change begins by creating a list
of unsubstantiated “facts,” like polar bears are being
wiped out, then blasting these “facts” into
innocent brains beginning with young children
and continuing through college.

With this false data firmly implanted into American
brains, climate change promoters then use reverse
logic known as the Argument of Ignorance to make
unwary, dumbed down listeners believe human carbon
dioxide is causing climate change. The Argument of
Ignorance goes like this:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

You will find this illogical reasoning to be the basis of
most climate change alarms. Then, of course, when
the alarmists have you convinced, they offer you
a “solution.” Pay more taxes, destroy your nation’s
productivity, and by emitting less carbon dioxide you
will save the planet from certain destruction.

Anyone with common horse sense can see Climate
Change Alarmism is not about science.

It is about politics, power, and money.

Never before in scientific history has it taken a massive
public brainwashing to gain acceptance of true scientific
facts and theories. If the alarmists were correct, we
would not have 1000′s of scientists and 1000′s of peer-
reviewed scientific papers saying the alarmists are
wrong.

It does not matter how many alarmists claim they are
correct. Until they can convince these 1000′s of
scientists they are correct then, according to the
method of science, the alarmists are wrong. And until
the alarmists so convince the realists,
it is unethical and immoral for
self-appointed climate alarmists
to promote their climate religion
on the general public or students.

The 321-page Climate Depot Special Report features
the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international
scientists, including many current and former UN
IPCC scientists, who have now turned against
the UN IPCC.

Heartland Institute’s Climate Change Reconsidered
demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the
position that the warming of the twentieth century
was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact
on human health and wildlife was positive, and that
carbon dioxide is not the driving factor behind climate
change.

Wonder how many carbon credits that cost him?

 

[gsvol]

Only gsvol could look long and hard for a Green Nazi.

And you called me 'threadkiller.'

I can keep a thread going forever,
given time and lack of biased board
monitors and greedy board owners
who sell out principles for money.

Weekend Libertarian: Green Nazis: Alwin Seifert (Exhibit Four)

(Oops, I missed exibit #3, where have you been,
on vacation?) This comment meant to inflame
the conspiracy crowd of IP and MG. :loco:

Anyway, I'll backtrack and pick up #3 later,
as one brainwashed young liberal noted, I'm
anything if not thourough.

The Who’s Who of Munich Cultural Life (1937)
proclaimed “all of Germany has become his garden”
for Alwin Seifert, the organic-first gardener was
fashionably green and fascist.

In How Green Were the Nazis? Thomas Zeller adds,
“Seifert, however, was constantly trying to extend
his influence. The chaotic style of governance in Nazi
Germany matched his strategy of molding alliances,
especially since he enjoyed the tacit protection of
his two most powerful patrons, Hess and Todt.”

As I’ve noted, there’s a wide difference between
peaceful made-for-television environmentalists and
reality, or power-hungry greens. “With Hess, he shared
an interest in Steiner’s methods of ‘bio-dynamic’
agriculture. Seifert designed a garden for Hess’s private
home and bragged to a colleague that he would do
likewise for Hitler ‘after the war.’ In 1939, Hitler awarded
Seifert the title of professor, and Todt issued a
document one year later declaring Seifert as his Reich
landscape advocate as a birthday present.”

Nor was it a coincidence that the concentration camp
Dachau, was home to an organic herb garden/farm. Like
Hess, nature-loving Seifert also appeared interested in
generating gas from the feces of inmates in
Auschwitz.

Moreover, he railed against impure dams.

Two really sick things.

We aren't just yet producing green energy from
concentration camp inmates, although the camps
have already been built, we are though tearing down
dams and cutting off water to previoiusly very productive
farmlands for the sake of delta smelt or whatever.


H4: The Battle of the Scientists | Climate Clash

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others
that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on
the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change (see Carbon Dioxide and
Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path).

That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of
all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing
in every case peer-reviewed scientific research
on the actual effects of climate change during
the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this
information due to its very recent posting, then we
call their attention to an even larger and more
comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate
Change Reconsidered:

The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has
been posted for more than a year in its entirety at Climate Change
Reconsidered: The Website of the Nongovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

These are just two recent compilations of scientific
research among many we could cite. Do the 678
scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science
document, or the thousands of studies cited in the
NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as
opposed to theoretical climate model predictions)
for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide
number and severity of floods?
No.

In the global number and severity of droughts?
No.

In the number and severity of hurricanes and other
storms?
No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s
seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe?
No.

Increased human mortality?
No.

Plant and animal extinctions?
No.

Declining vegetative productivity?
No.

More frequent and deadly coral bleaching?
No.

Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans?
No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports
provide extensive empirical evidence that these
things are not happening.

And in many of these areas, the referenced
papers report finding just the opposite response
to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects
of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

CO2 Science

(This link has a huge amount of information for the
skeptical or even for the true believer in AGW, try
to effectively refute the information if you really do
believe in AGW crap!)

But could the higher temperatures of the past four
interglacials have been caused by higher CO2
concentrations due to some non-human influence?

Absolutely not, for atmospheric CO2 concentrations
during all four prior interglacials never rose above
approximately 290 ppm, whereas the air's CO2
concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm.

Combining these two observations, we have
a situation where, compared with the mean
conditions of the preceding four interglacials,
there is currently 100 ppm more CO2 in the
air than there was then, and it is currently
more than 2°C colder than it was then,
which adds up to one huge discrepancy
for the world's climate alarmists and
their claim that high atmospheric CO2
concentrations lead to high temperatures.

The situation is unprecedented, all right,
but not in the way the public
is being led to believe.

The bottom line for any rational person who has
had access to the actual facts and not brainwashed
in some way is that either the climate alarmists are
stupid and ignorant knee jerk reactionaries or they
are purposely trying to decieve people for one reason
or another.

 

[MG1968]

I can keep a thread going forever,
given time and lack of biased board
monitors and greedy board owners
who sell out principles for money.



(Oops, I missed exibit #3, where have you been,
on vacation?) This comment meant to inflame
the conspiracy crowd of IP and MG. :loco:

wow, you calling someone else out for being part of the "conspiracy crowd" is like Joe Biden calling out Foster Brooks for drinking too much.

also, nice gratuitous swipe at the owner of this message board who allows you to spam incessantly and act as if volnation.com was your own personal blog.

I have serious doubts as to whether or not your parents were ever married.

 

[KiffinKiller]

wow, you calling someone else out for being part of the "conspiracy crowd" is like Joe Biden calling out Foster Brooks for drinking too much.

also, nice gratuitous swipe at the owner of this message board who allows you to spam incessantly and act as if volnation.com was your own personal blog.

I have serious doubts as to whether or not your parents were ever married.

You mean someone else's blog, right? None of the material is his own.

 

[gsvol]

1. wow, you calling someone else out for being part of the "conspiracy crowd" is like Joe Biden calling out Foster Brooks for drinking too much.

2. also, nice gratuitous swipe at the owner of this message board who allows you to spam incessantly and act as if volnation.com was your own personal blog.

3. I have serious doubts as to whether or not your parents were ever married.

1. In reference to you and IP saying that Gibby and I
are one in the same etc. You ususally check your
sense of humor at the door don't you?

2. That comment WAS NOT intended to refer to
the owner of THIS BOARD. Sorry if I wasn't more
concise, someone knows who I was talking about.

3. They were married 57 years to be perzact.
Is your comment supposed to be some sort of
insult or is that just the way you try to communicate??

States that don't cater to enviro nazis do a better
job of governing.

Collins Report enviro-nazis

While state after state moves toward bankruptcy and
plans to beg Washington for bailout money, at least
three states are showing America the way back to
prosperity.

None knuckle under to unions, enviro-nazis
or illegals.
----------------------------

This fight is being pushed to the back burner, but we
can’t let it stay there. We can’t sit by and watch as
the Democrats flush America down the toilet to sign
up illegals as new voters.

We have to tell the enviro-nazis to go pound
sand and we have to fight the “card check” scheme.

 

[VOLatile]

I have serious doubts as to whether or not your parents were ever not related.

fyp

 

[gsvol]

I have serious doubts as to whether or not your parents were ever married.

Another thing I can say for my parents, they came from two different familys.

I seriously think yours were related before they were married.

BTW, since you brought it up, did your parents ever get married?

 

[MG1968]

Another thing I can say for my parents, they came from two different familys.

I seriously think yours were related before they were married.

BTW, since you brought it up, did your parents ever get married?

I'm going to let you continue until you figure out what I meant.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Another thing I can say for my parents, they came from two different familys.

I seriously think yours were related before they were married.

BTW, since you brought it up, did your parents ever get married?

You literally just stole the joke from the post RIGHT before yours.

Jesus, you're mentally handicapped.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I can see the reply coming from a mile away.

 

[gsvol]

MG1968
I'm going to let you continue until you figure out what I meant.

I don't even care what you meant, I know it has nothing
to do with Al Gore's planned propaganda push coming
in September.

And another thing, your post is very contrary to
Freak's recent request that we try to clean up the
board and cut down on the board policy violations.

FWIW, I think my thread title; "coming events" should
have been left as a seperate thread instead of merged
into this one, as it has more to do with the use of
propaganda and the actual science that is discussed
in much of this thread.

I don't see where references to other people's parents
have anything to do with either.

You literally just stole the joke from the post RIGHT before yours.

Jesus, you're mentally handicapped.

If you want to see mentally handicapped, read your
own last dozen posts or so.

 

[MG1968]

.

 

[gsvol]

 

[myrobbins7]

Not a bad read..New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

 

[IPorange]

But bad science. The dude took real-world data and adjusted his model to it, and assumed the tweaks he made to make them match are the ones in the real world. His own conclusions in his paper are that the modeling of heat-loss can be "problematic" because it's based on all the assumptions of the rest of the system.

 

[utgibbs]

But bad science. The dude took real-world data and adjusted his model to it, and assumed the tweaks he made to make them match are the ones in the real world. His own conclusions in his paper are that the modeling of heat-loss can be "problematic" because it's based on all the assumptions of the rest of the system.

I've been meaning to ask:

1. Who is your avatar now? and

2. What was the story behind the 8?

 

[IPorange]

I've been meaning to ask:

1. Who is your avatar now? and

2. What was the story behind the 8?

1. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder the Republic of Turkey after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

2. Just picked a number. There's been a lot of 8's around this forum lately. Weird.

 

[gsvol]

So why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking??

Global Warming a Hoax? NASA Reveals Earth Releasing Heat into Space - International Business Times

With new data collected from a NASA's Terra
satellite, the previous model may be proven as
a hoax.

Hypothesis based on the satellite's findings show that
planet Earth actually releases heat into space, more
than it retains it. The higher efficiency of releasing
energy outside of Earth contradicts former forecasts
of climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua
satellite, studied a decade worth of satellite data
regarding cloud surface temperatures.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much
more energy lost to space during and after warming
than the climate models show...There is a huge
discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that
is especially big over the oceans," said Dr. Spencer.

Dr Spencers home page.

Actual real data for the last thirty years.

This shows Hansen to be the complete fool and
wild eyed alarmist that he really is and explains
why his previous boss described him as an
embarrassment to NASA.

Scientific DATA shows that the climate change models
predicting global warming due to human activity are
WRONG.

Yet, even in the face of this latest evidence, the MSM
is still promoting global warming and tries to suppress
this data — no wonder Obama cut NASA’s budget.

ABC and Salon among others denegrate Dr Spencer's
findings.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

(same link as Robbins)

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011
show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat
to be released into space than alarmist computer models
have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-
reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming
will occur than United Nations computer models
have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less
heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research
scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and
U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave
Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite,
reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite
contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist
computer models.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the
product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known
but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide
rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to
the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and
accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into
the sink of the cold ocean waters.

Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich
sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it
appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by
lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted
back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and
fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of
CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean
circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide
has neither caused nor amplified global
temperature increases.

Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of
global warming, not a cause [historically -etl].

Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

FOX News - Top Stories - Top Stories - Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space?

"Real-world measurements show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict,"

The missing hotspot « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

No Hot Spot can be found. A factor that Greenhouse
Theory itself says must exist to confirm "Greenhouse
warming."

Earth's temps are controlled by the sun's solar
cycles and by the earth's ocean's cycles...most
notably the PDO. The earth's temps rise and fall
on these. When the combine one way of the other
...you get extreme warming (like what happened
in '97) or extreme cooling (like the little ice age).

Hiding The Decline In Washington DC | Real Science

The closest USHCN station to Washington is at Lincoln,
Virginia. Since the mid-1990s, the thermometers say
that Lincoln has cooled about three degrees (blue
below) – while USHCN carefully adjusts the temperatures
in the opposite direction. Note that the adjusted (red)
trend is up by two degrees since the mid-1990s.

 

[golfballs]

it's been pretty hot here. i think al gore was right

 

[milohimself]

So is it finally turn for those of us who believe in man-made climate change to make those stupid "How bout that global warming, huh?" comments?

 

[IPorange]

gs, I've explained Mars' climate before to you. Search and you'll find it. We also discussed Saturn and Pluto.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

 

[VOLatile]

So is it finally turn for those of us who believe in man-made climate change to make those stupid "How bout that global warming, huh?" comments?

Heh... what a way to make a good impression, first day at my new job with a sweat-soaked shirt when I got there at 8AM.

 

[VOLatile]

3,816 Record Highs broken so far this year.

 

[KiffinKiller]

it hit 115 here.