Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[volinbham]

It would not be wise, IMO, to use any one season's temperature as any measure of GW, AGW or not. It just isn't statistically significant. If, over 5-10 years, you begin racking up record months, you can begin to assign more value to the data. With that said, I thought IP was just pointing out the hot July as sarcastic fodder against the record cold December crowd.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

okay - wasn't sure if serious

 

[gsvol]

Read much?

How could you infer that assertion from what I posted?

Posted via VolNation Mobile

I just wondered whether you were talking about some
theoretical forcing or tipping point of feeding a bunch
of crap into a computer and getting a crappy answer.

Did you read my post about the NASA scientist talking
about "La Nada?"

I have before. You're a broken record.

If there is a broken record here, it would be you.

That real climate crap about the melting polar ice
caps on Mars is a real hoot! lol:

My frustration with IP is that, while I don't doubt his credentials, his default position that anyone who voices an opinion, no matter how well informed, that is contrary to his own is either ignorant and emotional (me) or in the pockets of big oil (overseasorange2). If we are to take IP seriously, he is going to have to at least engage the debate from an intellectually honest perspective and not a rigid "settled science" stance.

WHAT FREAKING CREDENTIALS???

All I've been able to ascertain is that he is an amateur.

I have yet to see any evidence on any credentials
that would even remotely establish that he has the
faintest claim to being any sort of expert, on AGW
or anything else for that matter.

Maybe the king of naivete or queen pollyanna of la la land.

okay - wasn't sure if serious

THE SKY IS FALLING!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

Oh wait, I meant to say;

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING!

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING!

Oh wait, not yet.

Where were any of you people back in the seventies
when we were battling these same marxists who were
trying to shut down American industry, stop American
petroleum recovery and do any and all damage they
could to our free economy by claiming that we were
causing an ice age?????

So what if the Arctic Ocean melts, then the Rockefeller
controled EPA couldn't stop drilling on the north shore in
Alaska using the excuse that the Shell ice breakers were
omitting too much CO2.

Know where that $5B they had invested in the project
will be recovered???

Hint, at your local quick stop.

Know why the gasoline price has doubled under the
Obama administration??

Awaiting an intelligent answer. :whistling:

Clue, ever hear of Standard oil.

Someone should read up on Teddy Roosevelt and
the Rockefellers and Standard oil.

ps; I see today ham that I have been giving you way
too much credit for intelligence. Maybe you will come
around the curve someday, maybe not. :loco:

 

[KiffinKiller]

I don't see how a looney old man with zero credibility questioning the credentials of someone in the field makes any sense.

 

[IPorange]

I thought this was temperature not climate?

What are the rules on using a specific season's temperatures as evidence for or against GW? I'm asking seriously.

Technically, one should be looking at annual global avg, and considering it in at least 30 year blocks. I'm just tossing some of the stupid **** that gets posted on here in February back out.

 

[IPorange]

I just wondered whether you were talking about some
theoretical forcing or tipping point of feeding a bunch
of crap into a computer and getting a crappy answer.

Did you read my post about the NASA scientist talking
about "La Nada?"






If there is a broken record here, it would be you.

That real climate crap about the melting polar ice
caps on Mars is a real hoot! lol:





WHAT FREAKING CREDENTIALS???

All I've been able to ascertain is that he is an amateur.

I have yet to see any evidence on any credentials
that would even remotely establish that he has the
faintest claim to being any sort of expert, on AGW
or anything else for that matter.

Maybe the king of naivete or queen pollyanna of la la land.





THE SKY IS FALLING!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

Oh wait, I meant to say;

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING!

THE ARCTIC IS MELTING!

Oh wait, not yet.

Where were any of you people back in the seventies
when we were battling these same marxists who were
trying to shut down American industry, stop American
petroleum recovery and do any and all damage they
could to our free economy by claiming that we were
causing an ice age?????

So what if the Arctic Ocean melts, then the Rockefeller
controled EPA couldn't stop drilling on the north shore in
Alaska using the excuse that the Shell ice breakers were
omitting too much CO2.

Know where that $5B they had invested in the project
will be recovered???

Hint, at your local quick stop.

Know why the gasoline price has doubled under the
Obama administration??

Awaiting an intelligent answer. :whistling:

Clue, ever hear of Standard oil.

Someone should read up on Teddy Roosevelt and
the Rockefellers and Standard oil.

ps; I see today ham that I have been giving you way
too much credit for intelligence. Maybe you will come
around the curve someday, maybe not. :loco:

Care to comment on the new Arctic shipping routes that Russia is able to use for many months of the year that didn't exist even 30 years ago?

 

[IPorange]

If we are to take IP seriously, he is going to have to at least engage the debate from an intellectually honest perspective and not a rigid "settled science" stance.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to act as if some aspects of the science are not as rigid and settled as gravity. I have never claimed total understanding or 100 % clarity in all aspects of modern climate. Not once. There are realities about changes to our atmosphere, changes to the Earth's surface, and changes in climatic conditions, however. What those things mean now and in the future is not as crystal clear or obvious. Distrust anyone who says otherwise. But while conclusions may be malleable, facts are not.

But there is a lot of information that is posted on here that is outright wrong and intentionally deceiving, and it begins to wear one down. The fact that the relationships between tropical storm frequency/strength and climate warming is not fully understood was beside the point, as you posted we were having a below-avg year when so far, we are most decidedly not. Even if we were, one year does not make a trend. And the relationship isn't certain.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

My frustration with IP is that, while I don't doubt his credentials, his default position that anyone who voices an opinion, no matter how well informed, that is contrary to his own is either ignorant and emotional (me) or in the pockets of big oil (overseasorange2). If we are to take IP seriously, he is going to have to at least engage the debate from an intellectually honest perspective and not a rigid "settled science" stance.

IP lacks respect of other peoples ideas, and that turns people off from his "message(s)" His "My way or the Highway" tone just makes him sound GS-esque

 

[KiffinKiller]

I wouldn't put him on that level. I wouldn't say he lacks respect...looks more like frustration to me.

 

[IPorange]

IP lacks respect of other peoples ideas, and that turns people off from his "message(s)" His "My way or the Highway" tone just makes him sound GS-esque

I'm rubber, you're glue?

 

[gsvol]

IP lacks respect of other peoples ideas, and that turns people off from his "message(s)" His "My way or the Highway" tone just makes him sound GS-esque

My way or the highway???

I think not!

Let's focus on the topic:

1. consensus?

Professor: Skeptics of Man-made Climate Change Aren't a Fringe Group [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

For nearly 20 years George Taylor, former Oregon State
professor of climatology, has been one of the more vocal
skeptics of man-made climate change.

Like other climatologists, such as Patrick J. Michaels in
Virginia, Taylor lost his title as a “State Climatologist”
in 2007 after refusing to jump onto the man-made climate change wagon.

Taylor was also actively involved with the American
Association of State Climatologists, which ran afoul
of the U.S. Congress and lost funding for not going
along with climate alarmists.
-------------------------------

CC. There are those who describe climatologists who
don't believe in man-made climate change as being on
the fringe. Is that true?

“Absolutely not. It's very much in the mainstream now.
There are many, many climatologists who are skeptical
about it (man-made climate change). I don't know if it's
more than 50 percent or not. But in science that really
doesn't matter. Science has nothing to do with who has
a consensus or a majority.
----------------------------

CC. The various charts that show the history of climate
change over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years; is there
much dispute about them? Don't they all show basically
the same history of changes – the spike of the Medieval
Warm period and the Little Ice Age we've been climbing
out of?

“They'd show that about a thousand years ago it was
a lot warmer than it is now. That was the Medieval
Warming period. Then around the 1300s it started to
cool as the Little Ice Age began.

“But I guess we'd have to say this was all still in
dispute. Michael Mann came along and drew the
Hockey Stick graph for Al Gore, which completely
changed modern climate history. It didn't have the
Medieval Warming period or the Little Ice Age on it.

“He used tree rings and proxies to support this. Of
course this goes against almost every other piece
of historical evidence.”
-------------------------------

CC. Are you upbeat about eventually being proven right
about doubting man-made climate change?

“In the end I believe the evidence will show that I was
right.”
-----------------------------

CC. To what extent did you feel like you were standing
alone in resisting the man-made climate change theory
back in the 1990s?

“It was difficult. I knew that many of my colleagues at
the Association of State Climatologists agreed with me.
But many of them wouldn't say anything because
they were worried about losing their jobs or just
plain having their professional lives made difficult.
Frankly there's a lot more money supporting the other
side. Things would be easier if you just go along
with them.”



CC. “You'd say that now there's a lot more money
supporting the man-made climate change side of the
issue than there is on the side of the skeptics?

“Oh yes, it's been that way for a long time.”

Read the whole interview for an enlightened view of the
AGW hoax.

More to follow.

MUCH MORE!

 

[IPorange]

All those guys get tons of money from like-minded activists. To pretend otherwise just shows how phony that whole little climate minority group is.

 

[gsvol]

IPorange
Care to comment on the new Arctic shipping routes that Russia is able to use for many months of the year that didn't exist even 30 years ago?

Yes.

It is a given that the Earth is in a warming phase.
It is a given that in the short term these phases
operate on a thirty year cycle.

Now, would you care to comment on your source for
that information?

Would you care to comment on the fact that it
was far warmer a thousand years ago and there was
more navigating going on then in Arctic waters than
now and that the Vikings has farms and ranches on
Greeneland then??

Would you care to comment on the fact that there
were a record number of ships trapped in the Baltic
Sea ice last winter.

Would you care to comment on the fact that from the
chart I produced above that Arctic sea ice has just
increased quite a bit recently this summer? (compared
to other years.)

Would you care to comment on how the Russians being
able to use Arctic ports is a bad thing??

After all they have been seeking and wars have been
fought so they could have a warm water port and that
is one of the reasons they are now supporting our
avowed enemy Iran, although they have Black Sea
ports, the Dardenelles could be closed as easily and
quickly as the Suez or the Panama and Turkey has
been our ally for a while now.

KiffinKiller
I don't see how a looney old man with zero credibility questioning the credentials of someone in the field makes any sense.

I have yet to see any credentials that IP is even in the
field or any field for that matter.

Who are you to say anyone is looney???

You are about as looney toons as it gets.

I'm rubber, you're glue?

No, you're plastic, he is airplane cement.

IPorange
All those guys get tons of money from like-minded activists. To pretend otherwise just shows how phony that whole little climate minority group is.

Not near a phony as Al Gore and his ilk and their little
water boys like you.

Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory? Hot Air

Two stories have dropped that may blow big holes in
the anthropogenic global warming argument — one of
which is literally sky-high. Forbes reports on a peer-
reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the
effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly
exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into
space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an
outcome that started long before AGW alarmists
predicted:

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 dioxidetrap 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.

The link does on into more detail plus detailing info
about drowning polar bears which was another hoax.

The following two articles take Greenhouse Theory at
face value and by the criterion set up in the theory
itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of
greenhouse effect.

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

The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet that
warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km
above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it
ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to
greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models
predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint
of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to
warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic
effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or
ozone depletion etc etc.

No smoking hot spot | The Australian

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building
models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the
rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model
(FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the
Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry
sector.
-----------------------------

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that
carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty
good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data,
no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until
we were certain when it appeared we needed to act
quickly?

Soon government and the scientific community were
working together and lots of science research jobs were
created. We scientists had political support, the ear of
government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important
and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were
working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened
the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of
global warming, and by 2007 the evidence
was pretty conclusive that carbon played only
a minor role and was not the main cause of the
recent global warming.

As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change,
I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes
of global warming and most of the public and our
decision makers are not aware of the most basic
salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have
been looking and measuring for years, and cannot
find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea
that carbon emissions cause significant global
warming.

None.

There is plenty of evidence that global warming has
occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions
should raise temperatures (though by how much is
hotly disputed)
but there are no observations by anyone
that implicate carbon emissions as a
significant cause of the recent global
warming.

Now, most of the information produced above is
stated by people ho formerly supported AGW theory
but are just produceing the science involved.

Are you a big enough man to change your mind given
the scientific facts????

 

[golfballs]

Further snowfalls expected tonight - National - NZ Herald News

 

[utgibbs]

My frustration with IP is that, while I don't doubt his credentials, his default position that anyone who voices an opinion, no matter how well informed, that is contrary to his own is either ignorant and emotional (me) or in the pockets of big oil (overseasorange2). If we are to take IP seriously, he is going to have to at least engage the debate from an intellectually honest perspective and not a rigid "settled science" stance.

Is gravity "settled science"? Does someone on here doubt the wavelengths of energy that carbon dioxide absorbs and then re-emits? Does anyone doubt carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere?

I actually think this is an important debate - it touches upon the very limits of democracy. The real world outside the back door doesn't care if you don't believe in gravity - if you jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, you fall.

When does one actually not have an "intellectually honest" argument? When does one have viewpoints so contrary to reality, they are not worthy of democratic consideration? Do we really debate that two electrons repel one another? Is there an intellectually honest argument to be made?

It seems to me that no one denies carbon dioxide absorbs heat radiation and reemits it.

No one denies carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmsophere. If they do, does their opinion even merit consideration? Does it have any value?

Even if you don't believe its anthropogenic (and again, does this even merit consideration?), the consequence is you have to change the parameter you can control.

Difficult questions - perhaps some of the most important philosophical and practical questions of our own historic age.

 

[gsvol]

 

[TennTradition]

Are you just throwing that out there, or do you have any data to support the point?

First, while it seems fairly straightforward to conclude that higher temperatures equal higher ocean temperatures and that higher ocean temperatures equal more energy for hurricanes, the true relationship is a matter of ongoing study. Even Kerry Emanuel, who famously published a paper on the link between global warming and increased hurricanes just before Hurricane Katrina has since published that potential correlation is difficult to pin down. A common thought is that hurricane intensity may increase, but frequency is a big uncertainty.

Second, and more importantly.....this year was forecast with a 65% probability to be an above normal year and a 25% probability to be an average year with respect to tropical activity. The climate prediction center forecast (produced in May) was:

12-18 Named Storms,
6-10 Hurricanes
3-6 Major Hurricanes

So far, we have had 5 named storms and 0 hurricanes. If you look at the historical record (Table 1) you will see that as of August 1st, the historical average for named storms is two and hurricanes is 0. By August 13th, the historical average would be 3 named storms and 1 hurricane, but 0 major hurricanes. In other words, as of August 1st, we were 3 named storms ahead of an average year (and at 0 hurricanes, which is still average).

The most active time for Atlantic hurricanes is from late August through September. The likelihood of a major hurricane coming anytime before late August (or a Cat 1 or Cat 2 hurricane before early-to-mid-August) is very small. This year may end up being below normal in tropical activity - but the data do not support making such an assertion at this point. The data support that this is an above-normal year so far.

We now have our first hurricane (Irene - the 9th named storm) - and it will more than likely become a major hurricane. That is pretty much right on schedule for an above-average year (9 storms by this date is actually very active). These predictions are somewhat spotty, so I don't want to act like they're fullproof, but the activity to date is certainly in line with the predictions.

 

[golfballs]

It's pretty chilly here this morning. Global warming is bogus
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

It's pretty chilly here this morning. Global warming is bogus
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Blasphemy!

We all know that if it isn't written in the holy book of
Gore that it is BS!

TennTradition

We now have our first hurricane (Irene - the 9th named storm) - and it will more than likely become a major hurricane. That is pretty much right on schedule for an above-average year (9 storms by this date is actually very active). These predictions are somewhat spotty, so I don't want to act like they're fullproof, but the activity to date is certainly in line with the predictions.

Is there any evidence of increased hurrican activity
during the medieval warm period which was warmer
than now??

Let's say I have a theory that bicycles cause hurricanes.

The fact that there are more or less hurricanes proves
nothing, other than I have a theory.

Although atmospheric activity has something to do with
the forming of tropical storms, some of which become
hurricanes, ocean currents also play a large role, and
there is nothing other than flimsy evidence and paranoid
theory that either are caused by human activity.

Consider the following:

http://www.morningside-heights.net/uncatalogued/contemporary/al_gore_at_columbia.jpg

In a new paper published yesterday, climate scientists
described a newly discovered deep, cold current flowing
off Iceland’s coast that appears to make the ocean
conveyor belt that warms the northern Atlantic less
sensitive to climate change than previously thought.

In other words, another one of Al Gore’s
doomsday predictions has proven false.

More significantly, scientists now have no understanding
why the ocean conveyor belt shut down during past ice
ages, as their most favored theory now appears insufficient.

The conveyor belt exists because the northern Atlantic
has a higher salt content than most of the ocean. Put
more salt in water and you increase that water’s
density, thus causing it to sink to the ocean floor.
The dense water then flows south along the ocean floor
around Africa and into the Indian Ocean, where it rises
and begins its journey back north, bringing with it warm
weather to the northern latitudes of North American and
Europe.

The consensus theory has been that fresh water from
melting Arctic glaciers — caused by man-made global
warming — would lower the high salt content of the
northern Atlantic Ocean, which in turn would lighten the
water, stop it from sinking, and thus cause the conveyor
belt to turn off. With the conveyor shut down the flow
of warm surface water to the northern hemisphere would
cease. Thus, you not only would get a much hotter
world, global warming would make Europe much colder
and less habitable.

This new data says no, Arctic glaciers don’t produce
enough fresh water. The newly discovered current
dominates instead, acting to stabilize the conveyor
belt.

What complicates this complicated and confusing
climate science is that there is evidence in the
paleoclimate record that the conveyor belt has shut
down repeatedly in the past. Unfortunately, scientists
now have really no clear understanding why.

 

[gsvol]

NASA-affiliated scientist, Shawn Domagal-Goldman of
NASA's Planetary Science Division and two colleagues
from Pennsylvania State University, the official "Hockey
Stick Graph" University have said that we should
"prepare for actual contact" to avoid a "pre-emptive
strike" by an otherwise benevolent alien race that is
in agreement with Al Gore Doctrine.

Now to compound that idiocy, the moonbat Soros -
Hitlerry Clinton organization, media matters, has taken
up the defense of Domaga-Goldman.

What is is about hyphenated names??

Wonder why that thread wasn't merged?

 

[TennTradition]

Is there any evidence of increased hurrican activity
during the medieval warm period which was warmer
than now??

Let's say I have a theory that bicycles cause hurricanes.

The fact that there are more or less hurricanes proves
nothing, other than I have a theory.

Although atmospheric activity has something to do with
the forming of tropical storms, some of which become
hurricanes, ocean currents also play a large role, and
there is nothing other than flimsy evidence and paranoid
theory that either are caused by human activity.

The fact that my post on the matter appeared in the global warming thread was only because the discussion started here. The activity of this hurricane season was not intended to be tied in any way to global warming. There are some potential ties, but that is only in strength (and that's a maybe), not frequency (as far as we can tell).

 

[gsvol]

The fact that my post on the matter appeared in the global warming thread was only because the discussion started here. The activity of this hurricane season was not intended to be tied in any way to global warming. There are some potential ties, but that is only in strength (and that's a maybe), not frequency (as far as we can tell).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[gsvol]

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating.

The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Read the whole article to learn how threatened the man-made global warming crowd was over CERN, and how they attempted to shut them up…to no avail, finally

 

[gsvol]

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times

Research findings published by none less than CERN,
the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in
the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and sun,
and not human activities, responsible for global
warming, isn't exactly what Al Gore would welcome
right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron
Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that
precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European
and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic
rays promote the formation of molecules which
grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making
it cloudier and cooler.

Someone notify Al, the Earth is not flat, the Earth
rotates around the sun and AGW is more laughable
now that ever!!

Oh Wait, Al is renewing his propaganda campaign
with new vigor.

The Al Gore Show: 24 Hours of Denying Reality Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

There have been no weather events observed to date
– including Hurricane Irene — which can be reasonably
claimed to be outside the realm of natural climate
variability.

Now, you can believe – as Al Gore claims – that the
present warm period we are experiencing has caused
more hurricanes, more tornadoes, too much rain, too
little rain, too much snow, too little snow, etc., but
those are matters of faith, not of observable
scientific reality.

Until a month or so ago, we were near record lows in
global tropical cyclone activity, after a precipitous 6-
year drop following the most recent 2005 peak in
activity (click for full size version):
----------------------------

Also, we have not had a Cat 3 or stronger hurricane
make landfall in the U.S. in almost 6 years now, which
is the longest ‘drought’ for U.S. landfalling major hurricanes on record.

There is even published evidence that the 1970s and
1980s might have experienced the lowest levels of
hurricane activity in 270 years (Nyberg et al. 2007
Nature 447: 698-702), and that the 20th Century (a
period of warming) experienced less hurricane activity
than in previous centuries (Chenoweth and Divine 2008
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems).

Claims that warming “should” or “will” cause more
hurricanes are based upon theory, that’s all. What I
have listed are based upon historical events, which
suggest (if anything) periods of warmth might also be
periods of fewer hurricanes, not more.
-----------------------------------


I especially dislike Gore’s and others’ use of the
pejorative “denier”. Even some climate scientists
who should know better have started using the
term.

What exactly does Mr. Gore think we “deny”?

Do we deny climate? No, we were studying climate
since before he could spell the word. (I would
question whether Al can spell it yet, given his
academic rechord and the fact that he looks
buzzed out of his mind on coke all the time.)gs

Do we deny global warming? No, we believe it has
indeed warmed in the last few hundred years, just
like it did before the Medieval Warm Period around
1000 AD:
-------------------------

So what do we deny, if anything? Well, what *I*
deny is that we can say with any level of certainty
how much of our recent warmth is due to humanity’s
greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate
variability.

No one pays me to say this. It’s the most obvious
scientific conclusion based upon the evidence. When
the IPCC talks about the high “probability” that warming
in the last 50 years is mostly manmade, they are talking
about their level of faith. Statistical probabilities do not
apply to one-of-a-kind, theoretically-expected events.

I could have done better in my career if I played along
with the IPCC global warming talking points, which would
have led to more funded contracts and more
publications.

It is much easier to get published if you include phrases
like, “…this suggests anthropogenic global warming could
be worse than previously thought” in your study.

In contrast, Mr. Gore has made hundreds of millions of
dollars by preaching his message of a “climate crisis”.

I would say that it is Mr. Gore who is the “climate
denier”, since he denies the role of nature in climate
variability. He instead chooses to use theory as
his “reality”.

Oh well, he is just a point man for Barry these days
and the height of his accomplishments was being Slick
Willy's yes man, what can you expect?

 

[gsvol]

The Greatest Hoax.
by - James Inhofe

Interview:

Podcast: Sen. Inhofe on 'The Greatest Hoax' of Global Warming

He brings out a lot of facts and his coverage of the topic is the best yet.

To me the most odious segment of the whole discussion is how government grant funds are being used to indoctrinate (brain wash) small children into buying into this gigantic hoax at ever younger ages.

Criminal really.

The game plan has to be the destruction of this nation as we know, how can anyone come to any other conclusion?

 

[trevols81]

I can count on two hands the number of times the temperature dropped below freezing here in north AL.