[SeMissourian.com] Fog/Mist ~ 50°F  
River stage: 16.85 ft. Rising
Saturday, Dec. 27, 2014
Post reply Read replies (617) More threads Create thread

Experts Cool On Global Warming
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:35 AM:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/08/...

"Global warming has stalled and will not raise world temperatures over the next five years, according to a new prediction from the British national weather service.

"The updated computer model of the planet's climate lowers by about 20% an earlier prediction of how much hotter the coming few years will be than the long-term average since 1971.

"The new prediction "does not necessarily tell us anything about long-term predictions of climate change," the Met Office said in a statement, and it is "actively researching potential causes of the recent slowdown in global warming, including natural variability."

"I suspect a lot of modelling groups are going to have to start revising their forecasts down, because most of them are running too hot," said Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph economist who was instrumental in debunking the famous "hockey stick" graph of rising global temperatures. "There are so many models that are now so far off that it suggests a wider problem with the technique."

"Over the next five years, "global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 degrees celsius and 0.59 degrees celsius above the long-term (1971-2000) average ... with values most likely to be about 0.43 degrees celsius higher than average," reads the new Met Office report. A previous prediction said they would be 0.54 degrees higher.

"Likewise, the Met Office's earlier prediction that "about half" of the years 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than 1998 (which was the warmest year since records were kept, at 0.40 degrees above average) is now unlikely under the new model.

"It's like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment," Prof. McKitrick said. "Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn't fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over."



Replies

From the article:

"Bruce Pardy, a professor of environmental law at Queen's University, said such predictions are especially dangerous because the common understanding of climate change remains simplistic on all sides. He cited the impulse to blame Hurricane Sandy on global warming as an example of wrong-headed thinking.

"In an ideal world, the policy that's put in place should not be designed to change what's going to happen in the short term. But the game that everybody is playing is to emphasize short-term things so as to produce pressure in the direction they prefer," he said.

"If the impetus required for a universal, binding, international commitment is to have the sky falling, this [new report] doesn't say the sky is falling, at least not tomorrow. It doesn't change the idea that the sky might fall, or be in the process of falling, further out. But if what is missing in these international negotiations is a crisis, this doesn't help paint it as a crisis, or at least an immediate crisis," Prof. Pardy said.

"It all depends upon your policy preference, and frankly a lot of policy preferences exist before the data."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:38 AM

"It all depends upon your policy preference, and frankly a lot of policy preferences exist before the data." -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:38 AM

I think that statement sums up my opinion of "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever they will call it next month. It's a global taxing ponzi scheme to take money out of the producers and give it to the entitled.

And liberal democrats like Obama have show their "policy preference" before the data. So have 50.6% of the American people unfortunately.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:50 AM

It is no different than the current gun control debate. the 'solution' existed before the problem, and they seek every opportunity to advance their proposed solution regardless of the lack of evidence to support it as workable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 8:57 AM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 9:29 AM

I have read a number of studies and news reports on the subject. Unfortunately for you "peer reviewed" studies are quite wrong and fraudulent. If you read the news at all you would know that many "peer reviewed" studies have been debunked some the most revered from East Anglica were outright fraud.

Al Gore was considered the expert on this for many years. Universities embraced his claims and he's made millions on the very approach you have to "global warming" yet his hockey-stick couldn't have been more wrong.

I have a question for you. Why was there ice 1-mile thick over the Cape Girardeau area at one time? Why did the Mississippi River end at Cape Girardeau at one time? I've read the "peer reviewed" reports on this in National Geographic that I've subscribed to since 1983.

One time ice 1 mile thick here? One time the ocean (or "Gulf") was here? Yet no humans or "SUV's?

Why Spaniard?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 9:37 AM

"I would love to hear how many peer-reviewed scientific studies Dug and Shap have read on this subject."

I've read several, and posted a link to a large number of them that run contrary to the standard thnking on global warming.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM

Too many people assume that 'Global Warming' and 'Anthropomorphic Global Warming' are synonymous. They also assume that evidence of global warming automatically validates all assumptions related to the consequences thereof, as well as validating the proposed approaches to alleviating it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 9:49 AM

"...large number of them that run contrary to the standard thnking on global warming."

That's one of the beauties of the internet, look around and you can always find agreement, no matter what your position.

Go back to an international consensus of scientists and you get a more accurate prediction. Should you not believe them, rent a plane and fly over the Arctic and see what's left of the ice sheet, or book passage on a cruise ship that travels the Northwest Passage and stops at Point Barrow without having crossed the Pacific.

A less expensive alternative would be to check a satellite photo...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/0...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:02 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:02 AM

Funny you would choose the Artic to point to and not the Antarctic - which has set records in both the amount of ice there and the speed at which it is growing. I could post a dozen articles and scientific "peer reviewed" research on the subject. Even the NY Times jumped in on the record cooling and ice growth in Antarctica.

From the scientist:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM

"Go back to an international consensus of scientists and you get a more accurate prediction."

Obviously, you have ignored the gist of the article. Consensus does not equal accuracy, and the article notes that the predictions have largely been wrong, which is why they are being scaled back. They all used the same basic model, and that basic model was flawed.

"Should you not believe them, rent a plane and fly over the Arctic and see what's left of the ice sheet, or book passage on a cruise ship that travels the Northwest Passage and stops at Point Barrow without having crossed the Pacific."

Which will prove what? As noted, evidence of global warming does not necessarily equate to evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Nor does a reduction in the ice sheet today equate to its disappearance tomorrow.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:32 AM

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/vi...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:36 AM

how else are they going to justify the need to tax and profit from a natural phenomina? -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM

Exactly.

The only "Inconvenient Truth" is that Al Gore was never about saving the earth. Ever. He postulated the hockey-stick theory that couldn't have been more wrong. He lived in a mansion with $6,000/month utility bills. And then he sold his crappy TV channel to an oil Emir in Qatar for massive profit.

The inconvenient truth is that suckers are born every day and many fell into the ponzi scheme of "send me money". Global warming or climate change or whatever is a religion and they desperately need your money. That's why the "solution" to global warming is government taxation instead of keeping liberal elites from living the high life on yachts, private planes and Malibu California coastal mansions.

I seriously wonder what it would take for a liberal to realize that this is such a scam. No one can ever explain the huge climate changes that have occurred in Cape in the last 100 million years with no humans around. I've never seen a triceratops fossil dug up with it sitting in a Yukon Denali. How did "climate change" happen without humans?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:54 AM

From the article:

"This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid '70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation."

"He called the revised prediction "a return to the humility that we probably should have had right from the start," and a reminder that the climate is harder to predict than scientists once "naively" thought.

"The short-term prediction has always been dodgy. It's really hard to say what's going to happen in five years. Global warming is about what's going to happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years," Mr. Lomborg said."

________

This merely supports what I've expressed all along, which is skepticism directed towards those who claimed that 'all the science is in' and that there was no refuting their claims, because 'consensus has been reached'. The laws of Physics are not imposed by democratic action. Consensus does not make theories into facts.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 11:45 AM

"If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places."

"Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet."

I'm sure you did read the entire link, but others may not have, so I added quotes from your reference.

Clearly there are only three options, global cooling, constant global temperatures, and global warming. If the Arctic and Greenland are losing ice and the Antarctic is warming at a slower rate, it does not take a climatic scientist to conclude warming is a fact.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 11:52 AM

Yes - I did read the entire article and noticed the contradictions. Here's a 2nd grader question for you. If Antarctica is warming "slower" then why is the ice getting larger? The largest in recorded history?

That's why I had no problem posting the link. And of course the record shows that the earth has cooled in the past decade or so.

And then in the 70's all the so-called experts and "peer reviewed" research predicted massive cooling and a new ice age if we didn't do something. They must not have made much money on that concept so they floated the global warming thing and got Algore to be the medicine show salesman.

You may conclude that global warming is a fact. You have never concluded the cause and why we need a massive world tax effort to stop it.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 11:57 AM

"Clearly there are only three options, global cooling, constant global temperatures, and global warming. If the Arctic and Greenland are losing ice and the Antarctic is warming at a slower rate, it does not take a climatic scientist to conclude warming is a fact."

I've not challenged that warming is a fact. I've questioned whether anthropomorphic warming is a fact, and I've questioned whether the solutions proposed are valid, workable, and justifiable.

The scientists cited in the article are merely noting that the models have been shown to be wrong. Thus, all proposed policy based upon them should be questioned. In any case, the urgency with which they screamed has been dulled by this admission.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 12:03 PM

Look, for example, at the zeal to proclaim 2012 the 'warmest year on record', which is actually true only for the Continguous United States, and only based on preliminary data, which may be revised.

As of the latest I can find, 2012 is expected to come in at about the ninth warmest globally, but that is usually omitted in the articles.

That it is not the the warmest year on record globally, or that none of the years since 2005 or 1998 (depending on the dataset used) have been the warmest year on record, points to a continuation of the leveling off of global temperatures, which is at odds with the computer models. That is what the article is about. While the supposed generator of rising temperatures, Carbon Dioxide emissions, continue to rise, temperatures do not.

That some cling to their fear-based policy demands with a religious fervor is expected. It is, after all, human nature to cling desperately to that which one has accepted as factual, even when the 'facts' behind it begin to fall. We humans are stubborn like that.

Keep in mind that one of Al Gore's predictions, that record numbers of hurricanes and named storms would become the new norm has not been born out. This, despite the changing of the criteria for naming storms in an obvious political ploy to increase the number of 'named storms' recorded (prior to the change, tropical depressions were not named).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 12:26 PM

"I've questioned whether anthropomorphic warming is a fact, and I've questioned whether the solutions proposed are valid, workable, and justifiable."

There is a man-made component to global warming and there are questions as to the extent and impact.

There is no one that claims that "humans will destroy" the earth in a matter of decades. The prediction is that sea-level rise and climatic changes will present significant challenges to the entire world. It would appear to be practical and sensible to take action to counteract what is going on.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 12:35 PM

It would appear to be practical and sensible to take action to counteract what is going on. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 12:35 PM

How are we supposed to take action against that large yellow ball in the sky? Solar activity and flares have a direct correlation to climate change. Google "Maunder Minimum" and you'll learn a lot about "climate change".

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 1:08 PM

"It would appear to be practical and sensible to take action to counteract what is going on."

This is the usual line from 'the left', and their solutions are always seen by them as 'practical and sensible'. The idea that they may be wrong, that the solutions may not be worth the cost, that the solutions may actually cause more harm than good (Food-based Ethanol, anyone?) - never occurs to them. Even when, as in the case of food-based Ethanol, they are shown to be wrong-headed, they are loathe to let go of them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 1:58 PM

"The idea that they may be wrong..."

Then I guess we might as well stick our collective heads "in the sand" until it is too late to do anything.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 2:41 PM

"Then I guess we might as well stick our collective heads "in the sand" until it is too late to do anything."

That was the Democrat's approach to the Social Security problem when Mr. Bush tried to fix it. It was also their approach to the housing problem when Mr. Bush tried to fix it. It's always 'their way or the highway'.

The point is, as this news item shows, the 'crisis' atmosphere which was driving their push for expensive and potentially damaging fixes has been shown to be overblown. There is clearly time to have a rational discussion of the issue and to seek affordable, sustainable, and logical solutions in the long term, rather than being forced to accept a ready-made policy choices which seem to be pushed by certain factions regardless of the data they use to justify it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 2:47 PM

The common theme among all these 'practical and sensible' actions is that they grow the power of government and raise taxes.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 2:49 PM

"The liberals have all kinds of solutions, just waiting for the proper "Crisis" which they will not let go to waste."

That was the essence of the closing line in the article, methinks:

"It all depends upon your policy preference, and frankly a lot of policy preferences exist before the data."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 2:59 PM

As I see it, 'the left' is not kean on the idea of doing something to head off the disasters over which they actually have some control, but are in a hurry to do something to mitigate disasters over which they don't.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 3:31 PM

"...not kean on the idea of doing something to head off the disasters over which they actually have some control..."

Like deficit reduction? The left has always promoted a balanced approach with tax reform, discretionary spending reductions and revision to Social Security and Medicare to reduce costs without destroying the programs.

"...in a hurry to do something to mitigate disasters over which they don't."

Like taking sensible steps to reduce CO2 emissions, for example better fuel efficiency, stack emission reductions, planting trees and re-forestation, replacing dirty coal with natural gas, initiating renewable energy sources, implementing clean coal technology, etc. And spreading these initiatives world wide.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:00 PM

"Like deficit reduction? The left has always promoted a balanced approach with tax reform, discretionary spending reductions and revision to Social Security and Medicare to reduce costs without destroying the programs."

No, they have not. They have promoted more taxes. They have proposed military cuts, but only reductions in spending growth to other discretionary budget items, and have yet to propose changes to Medicare or Social Security that actually produce savings.

As far as reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 'the left' has avoided that like a plague.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:20 PM

"Like taking sensible steps to reduce CO2 emissions, for example better fuel efficiency, stack emission reductions, planting trees and re-forestation, replacing dirty coal with natural gas, initiating renewable energy sources, implementing clean coal technology, etc. And spreading these initiatives world wide."

THere you go again with that word 'sensible', tossed about as if it has some magical meaning. Their proposals have been to raise taxes and spend the monies thus raised on programmes of questionable benefit, such as wind power and solar farms (usually owned by wealthy contributors to their campaigns), while boosting the cost of living through higher costs on fuel, automobiles, and energy.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:24 PM

"I think it cost something like $116 billion in 2008 to bail out Fannie and Freddie's bad home loans...."

The potential liability from their loans is well over $1 trillion. The government stepped in to halt foreclosures and to press for refinancing, not so much to protect homeowners as to kick the can down the road in hopes of hiding the actual liability to which they have exposed us.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:26 PM

"I dis-agree .

They mandated the Affordable Act to increase even more taxes , a huge change...per the Supreme Court ruling in June , 2012..."

But, I wrote: "...that actually produce savings."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:28 PM

I Googled "Democrats Propose Raising Elibility Age" and recieved zero hits. I removed the quotation marks, and received many hits, all stating that the Democrats oppose raising the eligibility age.

Just because commonsensematters has spoken in favour of it, does not mean 'the left' has done so en masse.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:36 PM

Don't want to intrude on great discussion but I thought you all would be interested in the results of a recent poll. Obama was voted the 4th best president in history.

Reagan and 9 others tied for first.

15 tied for second

19 tied for third

Obama came in fourth.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM

Then I guess we might as well stick our collective heads "in the sand" until it is too late to do anything.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 2:41 PM

Sound like some of that paranoia you Libs are always accusing conservatives of.

Rick has it right. All in all the earth will snuff us out as it has done to other species just a few years back. I guarantee it end us before we kill it. But we will probably do one big boom and get it over with real quick.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 6:09 PM

Uh,no typo .rick. Didn't quite grasp the joke,eh?

I was wrong one time but found out later I'd made a mistake.

-- Posted by dab1969 on Wed, Jan 9, 2013, at 10:20 PM

"Bush and the GOP congress had the chance when it truly mattered. Lip service was all it got."

Lip service is more than it has gotten from 'the left'.

Mr. Obama was one of the flawed system's most vocal defenders when he sat on the Senate. He's not a likely candidate to reform it now.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:40 AM

"Another right-wing talk radio myth."

Not so.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warm...

"In September 1958, Harper's wrote an article called "The Coming Ice Age".

"On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age -- Scientists See Ice Age In the Future" which stated:

"Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends.

"In 1972, two scientists -- George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) -- wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:

"Dear Mr. President:

"Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

"The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.

"The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.

"Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man's interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.

"The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

"(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

"(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.

"With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research ...

"With best regards,

"George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)

"R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

"The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.

"On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:

"Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.

"Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.

"As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:

"There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.

"A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.

"The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.

"On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" which stated:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

"Telltale signs are everywhere ...

"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

"(here's the printer-friendly version).

"Science News wrote an article in 1975 called "Chilling Possibilities" warning of a new ice age.

"A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:

"The most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years.

"On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

"Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.

"Newsweek discussed its 1975 article in 2006:

"In April, 1975 ... NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling...

"Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.

"New York Times science columnist John Tierney noted in 2009:

"In 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama's science adviser, in an essay [titled] "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

"They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:

"The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.

"A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:

"Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.

"The American Institute of Physics -- the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article -- notes:

"For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with "clean" thermonuclear explosions.

***

"The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.

"A 1994 Time article entitled "The Ice Age Cometh?" stated:

"What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet's history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one -- for there will be a next one -- could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.

"The Register reported last year:

"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth -- far from facing a global warming problem -- is actually headed into a mini Ice Age."

______

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:58 AM

"Which ones have you read? Please list them. Not just a link. Which scientific journals? Please list them."

Do you want them in alphabetical order? Do you need a note from my librarian that I have actually checked them out? Do you want need a handwritten review of each and every one?

Funny that you ask from others that which you do not provide yourself.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:01 AM

Since I have not kept a log of everything I have ever read on the issue, I rather consider Spaniard's request, or should I say demand', rather absurd. I doubt that he, either, has retained such a log of his own readings.

Here, however, is one I recall, which I read a few years back:

'An empirical evaluation of earth's surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem. by S. B. Idso'

I read that on in 2009, because of an ongoing discussion at the time. It was recommended to me by one of the participants in the discussion.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:24 AM

Another that I read was entitled:

"Do deep ocean temperature records verify models?"

by Richard S. Lindzen

I read that one because I was curious as to how and where ocean temperatures were measured today, and how they were measured 50 or 100 years ago. I also wanted to know how the scarcity of samples 50 or 100 years ago was compensated for purposes of comparison with more accurate samples of today.

Think of it this way: In my house I have a thermometer that measures the temperature of the house. But it only measures the temperature in the direct vicinity of the thermostat unit that operates the HVAC unit.

Now, if I look at that, I can say the temperature in the house is, let us say, 69 degrees. That is reasonably accurate, since the thermometer can be adjudged to be so.

But, if I add two more thermometers, say one in the kitchen and one upstairs, and then average the temperature, it will probably give me a different result. That does not mean the temperature in the house is no longer the same as it was, it merely means I now have a different sample. The more thermometers I add, the more accurte my average temperture may be, and the more it may deviate from my original 69 degree value. But, at the same time, the same furnace is set at the same value is maintaining the same temperature, which the orignal thermometer still reads as 69 degrees.

So, does that mean I have a cooling trend or warming trend, if the addition of new and more accurate thermometers shows an decrease or increase in temperature? Does it indicate a need to change my furnace setting or replace my furnace?

The fact is, I would have to interpolate the data derived from the larger sampling set and compensate for the difference in order to determine how much difference was due to my new sampling and how much due to actual temperature change. This is the same problem seen by scientists faced with larger and more accurate sampling which has to be compared with the older, smaller and less accurate samples. I read the report to see how that was done and how much faith we could put in the interpolation provided.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:40 AM

I am fairly sure that your referenced scientific predictions from 40 to 50 years ago will confuse a group of our fellow contributors.

I would suggest that the advances in scientific methods and research have had the effect of increasing the accuracy and reliability of forecasts made with the benefit of polar studies, satellite measurements and records, and computer modeling.

Just because data projections from the 70's drew one conclusion, does not mean the current predictions are incorrect.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 3:22 PM

"I am fairly sure that your referenced scientific predictions from 40 to 50 years ago will confuse a group of our fellow contributors."

Just because you're confused, that doesn't mean everyone will.

Spaniard said the ice-age predictions from 40 to 50 years ago were a myth created by the right. The article shows him to be wrong on that account.

Furthermore, the article also notes that articles ran as recently as 1994 and 'last year' (I believe that was 2009, if I recall the copyright year on the article correctly), stories ran in Time and The Register, respectively, based on scientific journal entries predicting the return of the ice age.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 4:18 PM

Scientists can usually tell us what has happened with a fair level of accuracy.

The can usually even tell us what is happening fairly accurately.

It is when they try to tell us what will happen that they their accuracy tends to fall off the mark.

Like economists, their usual modus operendi is to analyse what has already happened, and then to tell us why it was inevitable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 4:22 PM

"Just because you're confused, that doesn't mean everyone will."

I am not confused but you might check a few of the posts above.

The 2009 article is about temperature recording.

The world-wide net of temperature devices provides a systematic record of surface, altitude and water temperatures. While you are correct about science being proficient in the analysis of past and current information, the future is based on the investigation of trends, not just matching earlier events with upcoming situations.

At the same time I do not believe anyone claims inevitability, but global warming is going on and there is an extremely high probability it will continue.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 7:32 PM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM

Do you just make stuff up? I'm beginning to think so. You couldn't be more wrong. Of course I researched my post before publicizing it knowing you or common or kcklown would find a couple of links that dispute it.

Fact is - they *did* predict global cooling in "peer reviewed" research and articles (your standard right?). The inconvenient truth for you is that today global warming snake charmers have suddenly began spinning the 70's articles and claiming the global cooling prediction was a myth. Shapley has easily taken care of discrediting your point with a wealth of information. Thanks Shapley.

Climate change is a joke and a weak point for you to hang your hat on. The climate changes every day, week, month, year, decade. That's why your liberal friends have switched from "global warming" to "climate change". So that suckers like you can still "believe"...

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 7:38 PM

Spaniard - another story from experts that refute the "global warming" data - or is it "climate change"?

Quit drinking the kool-aid. The story:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/1...

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 7:56 PM

It is funny how Fox always scours the country for someone that will agree with them.

Do you think maybe measurements today are more accurate, and reflect a trend that was not there in 1938?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:15 PM

I think the 1938 measurements made in 1938 are better than the 1938 measurements adjusted by a global alarmist in 2012. Do you seriously believe that someone today can adjust the actual temperature to what they think it should be better than the temperature the day it was taken?

You're way way out on a limb. Image someone 80 years from now saying "I know the temperature was recorded as 55 degress in 2012 in Cape Girardeau but I think (80 years later) it really was 45 degrees". Really Common?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:24 PM

"At the same time I do not believe anyone claims inevitability,..."

Inevitability is the entire basis of the argument. Are you saying you're willing to require investments of billions or trillions of tax dollars based on guesstimates?

'An Inconvenient Truth' also attempted to state the inevitability of global warming. 'All the Science is in', we have been repeatedly told.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id...

"The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable. It is not a question of whether the Earth's climate will change, but rather by how much, how fast and where."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:25 PM

"Do you think maybe measurements today are more accurate, and reflect a trend that was not there in 1938?"

That was the question I was seeking to answer when I read the article I cited earlier on deep ocean temperature records. The conclusion I seem to find is that the interpolation of the data may be suspect. That was, in essence, the gist of the comment in the famous 'hide the decline' statement in the leaked emails seen later.

Scientists, in comparing newer and more accurate temperature records have to compensate for the lack of accuracy of prior measurements if their data is to have any meaning. However, being human (and with millions of research dollars hinging on the outcome), the tendency to interpolate that with a bias towards the desired outcome exists. The question becomes one of whether they have succumbed to the temptation to tilt the data. The infamous 'hockey stick' suggests that they did, in fact, tilt the data towards the desired outcome.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:33 PM

"Do you think maybe measurements today are more accurate, and reflect a trend that was not there in 1938?"

That was the question I was seeking to answer when I read the article I cited earlier on deep ocean temperature records. The conclusion I seem to find is that the interpolation of the data may be suspect. That was, in essence, the gist of the comment in the famous 'hide the decline' statement in the leaked emails seen later.

Scientists, in comparing newer and more accurate temperature records have to compensate for the lack of accuracy of prior measurements if their data is to have any meaning. However, being human (and with millions of research dollars hinging on the outcome), the tendency to interpolate that with a bias towards the desired outcome exists. The question becomes one of whether they have succumbed to the temptation to tilt the data. The infamous 'hockey stick' suggests that they did, in fact, tilt the data towards the desired outcome.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:33 PM

And of course the East Anglica scandal of modified data to match their lies. From England on the scandal:

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is -- what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction -- TO LOWER PAST TEMPERATURES AND "ADJUST" RECENT TEMPERATURES UPWARD (my emphasis), in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

The full story. An excellent, short read on the criminal modification and hiding of data that contradicted their religious belief in "global warming":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 9:51 PM

Lets go back about 10K years.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/t...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:00 PM

We Regret - awesome article that sums about most of the writing I've seen on the subject. Thanks.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:05 PM

It all boils down to Al making a billion dollars (which he gets a pass on) and our great nation getting more tax revenue. Cap and trade is just on the horizon and it will get everyone including the poor.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:44 PM

"The 2009 article is about temperature recording."

No. I recall reading the 2009 article. It concerned a journal report by a Russian Scientist (and it was peer-reviewed) who claims global warming is ending, that the leveling of temperatures seen since the end of the 20th century is indicative of our having reached the peak, and that we were beginning to move into a cooling phase.

I don't believe he predicted an 'ice age', that was the journalist's take on it.

The journal entry was difficult to follow, being largely an exercise in complex mathematics (but it was peer-reviewed).

It may still be available to read for free online. I'll see if I can find it later.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:06 AM

My mistake. The one I was remembering was from 2011, and it does specifically predict a coming ice age. You can read it here:

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr...

"4. Bicentennial Decrease of the TSI Leads to the Little Ice Age

"From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of TSI variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate (Fig. 2), and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically the same rate (e.g., Fröhlich, 2011; Abdussamatov, 2007b, 2009a, b). Average value of TSI in the 23rd cycle was by 0.17 W/m2 less than in the 22nd cycle. Smoothed value of TSI in the minimum between the cycles 23/24 (1365.24 ± 0.02 W/m2) was by 0.26 W/m2 and by 0.33 W/m2 less than in the minima between cycles 22/23 and 21/22, respectively. However, forming from early 1990s long-term deficit of TSI (see Fig. 2) was not compensated by decrease in the emission of the Earth intrinsic thermal energy into space which practically remains on the same high level during 14±6 years due to thermal inertia of the World Ocean. Since the Sun is now entering a bicentennial long-term phase of low luminosity (e.g., Abdussamatov, 2004, 2005, 2007b; Penn

and Livingston, 2010; American-astronomical-society, 2011) such energy imbalance of the system (E < 0) will continue further for the next few 11-year cycles. As a result, the Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance (E < 0) in the energy budget. This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the

World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 14±6 years because of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to the rise of Earth albedo, the

drop of atmospheric concentration of the most important greenhouse gas -- water vapor, as well as of carbon dioxide and other gases. Let us note that water vapor absorbs ~68% of the integral power of the intrinsic long-wave emission of the Earth, while carbon dioxide -- only ~12%. As a consequence, a portion of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth will gradually go down together with manifestations of the greenhouse effect caused by the secondary feedback effects. The influence of the growing consecutive chain of such changes will cause additional decrease of the global temperature exceeding the effect of a bicentennial TSI decrease.

"Since the Sun is now approaching the phase of decrease of bicentennial luminosity on the basis of observed accelerating drop in both the 11-year and bicentennial components of TSI from early 90s, we can forecast its further decline similar to a so called Maunder minimum down to 1363.4±0.8 W/m2, 1361.0±1.6 W/m2 and down to a deep minimal level 1359.5±2.4 W/m2 in the minima between the cycles 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27, respectively

(Fig. 3). Assuming an expected increase in the duration of the eleven-year cycles during the phase of decline of a bicentennial cycle (Abdussamatov, 2006, 2009a,b), we can expect the approximate moment of minimum between the cycles 24/25, 25/26 and 26/27 in 2020.3±0.6, 2031.6±1.2 and 2042.9±1.8, respectively. Under these

circumstances the maximal smoothed for 13 months level of sunspot number in the cycles 24, 25 and 26 can reach 65±15, 45±20 and 30±20, respectively (Abdussamatov, 2007b, 2009a,b). Hence, we can expect the onset www.ccsenet.org/apr Applied Physics Research Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2012

182 ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647

of a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in approximately 2042±11 and of the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years -- in 2055±11 (Fig. 4). In the nearest future we will observe a transition (between global warming and global cooling) period of unstable climate changes with the global temperature fluctuating around its maximum value reached in 1998-2005. After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11. Thus, long-term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback

effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long-term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:24 AM

Shapley - you're missing the entire point.

How can the UN tax the US with a "global warming" or "climate change" tax if you keep posting facts? How could Al Gore pay his $6,000/month utility bills if the earth isn't warming? Or make payments on his oceanside Malibu, California mansion? What would these elites do if "climate change" had nothing to do with people?

Keep it up and Al Jazeera will be visiting you... :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:51 AM

Dug,

Now that they've changed the terminology to 'global climate change', they reckon they can't miss. Climate change is inevitable (with our without our help, be we needn't mention that inconvenient truth).

Thus, given that the people now accept that climate change is inevitable (which they should have been taught in school absent any mention of anthropogenic forcing), they need merely be convinced that the government can do something about it, if they are only willing to sacrifice their money, their freedom, and their lifestyle to make it all better.

They've apparently won over a lot of them. I'm just a lonely voice in the wilderness...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:57 AM

The problem with the 'can't miss' scenario is that it sometimes misses.

Consider the 'named storms' issue.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article...

They've changed the criteria under which they name storms, ostensibly to help fulfil their prediction that there would be more 'named storms' as a result of global warm... err. global climate change. The problem, unfortunately, has been that this hasn't been born out since the change.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-NOAA-Hu...

Apparently, because extending the naming criteria to include tropical depressions wasn't enough, they've now decided to name winter storms, as well.

http://www.weather.com/news/why-we-name-...

This way they apparently hope their prediction of more 'named storms' will come true.

Will the people fall for it?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:14 AM

Oops! I apologized too soon. There was a 2009 Russian article predicting a new ice age:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/1...

This predates the 2011 article I posted earlier, though this Pravda article does not link the source for their report.

At that same time, the New York Times reported that global warming could be a good thing, as it may actually reduce the impact of the cooling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/scienc...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:24 AM

I heard the exact same thing.

"If you think global warming is bad, global cooling is a real b****".

Global cooling would be far, far more devastating for civilization. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the table turns to "global cooling" the UN, Al Gore and Spaniard/Common will be screaming "We've got to stop use of carbon based fuels because they are cooling the earth! We need a global tax and a ban on oil to stop the earth cooling!".

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:29 AM

That's true.

Most of the World's population lives in the tropics. There's a reason for that: it's warm. Food grows there. Life thrives in the warmth.

Ice ages are bad for plants. Bad for animals.

On a positive note, the Polar Bears will likely come back from the brink of extinction, so we can quit worrying about them...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:42 AM

The bottom line is, Spaniard was wrong about the global cooling theory being a myth spread by the right.

Maybe if he'd read a few peer-reviewed scientific studies, he'd have known that...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM

It's interesting to note, also, that all of the climate monitoring on which the global warming scare is based was brougth about by President Nixon's response to the global cooling concerns in the letter sent to him.

I repeat that part of the article I linked:

"The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.

"On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:

"Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.

"Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 9:48 AM

"It is funny how Fox always scours the country for someone that will agree with them."

Actually, the news is generally made available to all the news networks. Fox is simply willing to report news items the others ignore, for good or ill.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 2:31 PM

"Fox is simply willing to report news items the others ignore, for good or ill."

I would suggest that Fox is highly selective in what and how it reports events.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 3:37 PM

"I would suggest that Fox is highly selective in what and how it reports events."

Which makes them no different than the other networks, except in the selections they choose.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM

Locally, been tracking the average daily temperatures as part of the household energy consumption reduction quest. Temperatures taken from the University of Missouri Extension Office's weather station at Delta - http://agebb.missouri.edu/weather/histor...

Yr_____AvgDailyTemp______StandardDeviation

2012______59.75_____________16.15

2011______57.80_____________17.79

2010______57.39_____________19.57

2009______56.31_____________16.96

2008______55.78_____________17.78

2007______58.39_____________17.93

2006______57.57_____________16.01

2005______57.81_____________17.04

2004______56.77_____________17.02

2003______56.14_____________17.32

2002______56.92_____________17.63

2001______57.39_____________17.22

2000______56.62_____________18.13

Granted, 13 years is an insufficient length of time for the 'global change' argument. Still, found it interesting with all the media noise goings-on that temperatures pretty much stayed within a 56-58 degree band until last year. Also, the standard deviation, a measure of variation from the average, seems to be decreasing, suggesting that the 'hots' of summer and the 'colds' of winter aren't as far apart. Ahhh, so many things that make me go 'hmmmm'. Don't consider myself to be an expert in these matters, unless one is intending a former overrated drip. :-)

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 7:26 PM

Well said Rick.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM

"...2 decades of "warm" weather will not destroy Mother Earth..."

Again, no one claims that to be the case.

What you ignore is that during past "ice ages," with climate changing over thousands of years, sea levels rose and fell, animals and plants migrated as necessary, and changes were accommodated by all living things.

Climate changes today effect coastlines, cities built on low areas, entire countries vulnerable to sea level rise, traditional crops that will no longer grow in some areas, flood and drought at abnormal levels, increased intensity of storm systems, etc.

While there is an cost to trying to lessen the impact of the man-made component of climate change, there is an equal or possibly greater cost of doing nothing or aggravating the situation.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM

Mankind seems to flourish in warmer climates, and during periods of warming weather.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 1:51 PM

"traditional crops that will no longer grow in some areas, flood and drought at abnormal levels, increased intensity of storm systems"

Which traditional crops?

Abnormal? Over how many years.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 2:12 PM

"Climate changes today effect coastlines, cities built on low areas, entire countries vulnerable to sea level rise, traditional crops that will no longer grow in some areas, flood and drought at abnormal levels, increased intensity of storm systems, etc."

Actually, they've inflated the levels of sea level rise, as has been reported numerous times:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...

With few exceptions, cities built along the seaboard are built high enough to accomodate such variations, since tidal forces and storm surges have a tendency to reach those levels anyway.

Additionally, the sea level rise, assuming it even occurs as predicted, will occur over the course of 100 years or so. During that time, many of the cities will undergo demolition and rebuilding as the normal course of business, during which time opportunity to build higher and drier will present itself.

In the 20th century, peoples along the Mississippi River began the construction of a massive system of levees to curtail flooding. The result of this levee system: the reduction of floodable plain, resulted in even higher river levels in the areas not so protected. As more levees were built, the river level continued to peak ever higher. Yet, life along the Mississippi River has not died out. Quite the contrary.

"What you ignore is that during past "ice ages," with climate changing over thousands of years, sea levels rose and fell..."

Which means, of course, that even if we are able to contain the human element of global warming, it will not mitigate the inevitable rising and falling of the seas, the warming and cooling of the Earth, or the expanding and contracting of the ice sheets.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 2:13 PM

"commonsensematters

I am through with you."

Great!!

But first a couple of minor points...

As for manufacturing, my only point was that labor costs are a more significant factor than than tax on profit.

As for the Sioux nation, I merely stated that the vote in Shannon County was 94% for President Obama. I believe there are native American voters in Shannon County.

As for the Affordable Care Act, it is not socialized medicine, no matter what your personal opinion may be.

And finally, with extremely rare exceptions, changes in the earth have always occurred very slowly, but that does not mean that man has zero impact.

"I'm done with it."

Thanks anyway... So am I.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 8:48 PM

"As for manufacturing, my only point was that labor costs are a more significant factor than than tax on profit"

Labor is significant but taxes across the board including labor taxes, healthcare costs, and corporate taxes together is the problem. Manufacturing $1 widgets can't be made here with $30 per hour labor costs. If you want to by cheap stuff at WalMart this is the way it is.

If you remember Romney wanted to start making the playing board even but Obama said he would also. Lets see if Obama does it. I think he's going to be too busy asking for more money to worry about it. He needs another $10 Trillion to cover what they call investments.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 10:28 PM

I suspect it's a case akin to the acid rain being a natural phenomanon like the haze over the blue ridge mountains.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 1:26 AM

"A fool and his money are soon partying!"

______________

Many business decisions are made with tax issues in mind. 'The left' alternately denies this and complains about it. One of their talking points on Mr. Romney was that he kept his earnings offshore to avoid taxes. At the same time, they argue that high taxes won't drive business offshore. Go figure.

High labour costs do drive some business offshore, low-tech manufacturing jobs being the most noted. So do regulatory costs and product-liability costs. However, this is helpful to the economy at the same time that it harms it. That is to say, while we lose low-paying manufacturing jobs, such as clothing manufacture, we also benefit from lower prices for the items so manufactured, which leaves more money in the pockets of American consumers to spend on other products. That spending provides jobs for Americans in the manufacturing or importing, shipping, handling, and retailing of the items we might otherwise not be able to afford.

That is, if we have to pay $50 for our shirts that we buy from China for $15, we would probably both buy fewer shirts and buy fewer of the items we buy with the $35 per shirt we save when we buy the Chinese ones. The proposed solution, raising tariffs on the Chinese shirts so they, too, cost $50, would likely stir us to buying more American-made shirts, while putting a bit more money in the government's coffers from that would still buy the Chinese shirts, but it does nothing to promote the manufacture and sale of those other things that we buy with the savings.

When I was a young man, we complained that we were losing those low-tech jobs to Japan, and we complained of the shoddy merchandise we received from them. Then those jobs moved to Taiwan, Korea, China, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. The economies of each of those nations has benefitted from the jobs. Improvement in quality of merchandise and quality of life in them has also driven up their costs, to the point they, in turn, traded those low-tech jobs to other nations in exchange for higher-tech jobs.

The solution is to adapt to the changing market conditions. Methinks our efforts to 'fix' them have done as much damage, if not more, to our economy than the market conditions themselves.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 10:36 AM

"In ice sample cores, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures."

Ice core samples show CO2 levels of 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution in the late 1800's. From 1958 to 2006 the levels have risen from 315 ppm to 380 ppm. During a similar period (1900 to 2010) the world average temperature has risen by almost 2 degrees

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM

I'm waiting for avowed communist and former Obama Czar Van Jones to return to the administration.

We'll see more of the far-left extreme from this president. He truly believes he can do about anything he wants. He has broken numerous federal laws (failing to file a budget - a law) and refuses to enforce others (immigration and drug laws). He is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of the US government.

He's a radical community organizer. Count on it.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 9:52 AM

The latest on global warming? Now "global cooling" may be caused by co2 emissions. You know, the stuff you exhale when breathing. This article includes some of the top global warming so-called "experts" from NASA and the IPPC. They say that current temperatures are now falling off their charts - into a much cooler time. The story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fea...

The say they are "puzzled". The only thing they're puzzled about is how to change their models to get more money out of us. How to claim that we need money to stop global cooling now. What a joke. All the time ignoring the sun and it's activity.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 9:33 AM

"...12 inches of snow last week about global warming..."

Sounds like you know little about the difference between climate and weather. In fact, the warmer the climate, the more moisture the air mass can hold, and therefore a greater snowfall.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 7:40 PM

FWIW, if you haven't received your electric bill yet, be prepared. March 2013 has been much cooler than March 2012 - meaning the utility bill will be much closer to last-month February's than it will be to last March.

On 30May2012, the rolling one-year average daily temperature hit its highest values since I started trending this in Jan2000, at 60.22 degF. Today, the rolling one-year average daily temperature is 57.94degF, still above the 13-year average of about 57.2.

Also of interest is that the standard deviation, a measure of the statistical difference between the hotter-hots and the colder-colds is increasing - suggesting here that when the average annual temperature rises, the difference between the heat of summer and the cold of winter decreases.

Further suggesting a solution to global warming is to figure out how to make the summers even hotter and the winters even colder. :-)

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 7:55 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 7:40 PM

Hence the change from years and years of pontificating about "global warming" to the new, slick marketing campaign of "climate change". Now regardless of what happens we must deal with climate change! We must tax people for climate change!

Which of course occurs every year and every month and every day.

These marxists get more clever every day.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 9:49 PM

"In fact, the warmer the climate, the more moisture the air mass can hold, and therefore a greater snowfall."

So that explains the greater snowfall seen in South Florida.

I will not argue the idea of climate change, global cooling or global warming, just don't think it is caused by mankind's doings.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 11:00 PM

I would appreciate your opinions ..

A storm system that originated in Canada and the U.S. has formed into one of the largest storms in recent memory setting record low temperatures . -- Posted by Rick..... on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 9:12 AM

Rick - what Common is saying is that global warming is causing global cooling. Can't you understand the logic of that? :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 10:44 AM

Global warming is another issue where many groups (unfortunately, they are primarily conservatives) look at fairly clear facts and leap to absurd conclusions. It snowed in the midwest last month, so our Speak Out experts conclude that global warming is a hoax. Man has never produced a volcanic eruption, so they conclude that people cannot influence the climate. There have been ice ages in the past so they conclude that all global cooling and (since we are not in an ice age now) global warming are cyclical in nature and not dangerous to man.

Global warming "deniers" conveniently ignore numerous and obvious essential facts. A photo from the 1930's of a mountain valley in South America clearly shows a long-standing glacier filling the picture. Over the past 75 years, subsequent photos show the glacier retreating and today it is gone. A German cruise ship visits Point Barrow, Alaska, having traveled the "Northwest" Passage north of Canada, that explorers since Henry Hudson were unable to find. An ice floe with an area of 12 square miles floats northward from the Antarctic. Face it, global warming is a fact.

The question of how much or to what degree it is being influenced by man follows. Even the "hoaxers" would have to agree that man's activities on the planet (vehicles, industries, power plants, etc., etc.) are not counteracting global warming. A personal observation provides further substantiation of man's contributions. When I first flew in airliners in the 1960's, I could see the ground directly below me, and (on a day without cloud cover) I could see from horizon to horizon. Today and for the past 25 years or so, it has been virtually impossible to see any horizon from a aircraft at 30,000 feet over the United States. However, just a few years back, while flying over Australia I could clearly see from horizon to horizon. The pollution sources in our country are obviously tremendously greater than those in Australia, therefore creating significant man-made pollution, smog and greenhouse gases.

The final question is naturally, why should we be concerned. After all if the temperature rises a few degrees, it will make southeastern Missouri a bit more comfortable, and we are over 500 feet above sea level. Since the seas have risen and fallen for thousands of years or more, means that it is nothing to worry about. This may be true, if you neglect the fact that thousands of years ago, people and animals simply adjusted to the changing conditions. Today, however, there is something to worry about, namely that there are millions and millions of people living on islands or along shorelines within a few feet of ocean tide levels. There are hundreds of cities, industries, and farming communities that could be adversely affected. If anything can be done to reduce or even slow these changes, it should be done.

Doing something needs to be pursued, and there are thousands of options that can and should be looked at, many of which may be counter-intuitive. At one time my father (who was an atmospheric scientist) asked if I thought that the oceans during an ice age were warmer or cooler than normal. My response was that they would obviously be cooler during an ice age, and I was wrong. He explained that during actual ice ages, north-flowing, cold water rivers were blocked by ice sheets, while southern rivers continued to deliver warmer waters to the oceans. What may be needed, is a completely new approach, but we also need to remember the first rule of "getting out of holes" which is stop digging. This also applies to adding carbon to the atmosphere.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 11:46 AM

"Doing something needs to be pursued, and there are thousands of options that can and should be looked at, many of which may be counter-intuitive."

And if a few rich liberals get a lot richer in the process, it balences out the counter-intuitiveness. :)

All the Iraqi oil wells afire and Mount Helen's spew should have cast us into the dark ages according to the scientist who have been proven to manipulate data to make their case for the need of carbon taxes and other means of wealth confiscation.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 12:34 PM

"...I watch the animals on Mother Earth..."

That's all well and good, but as you surely know, animals basically live from day to day with extremely limited ability to see into, predict or estimate the future. Theoretically, humans are able to do better and are able to take actions that affect their future.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 1:55 PM

Were animals to have an actual say, I predict they would side with Mother Earth over the oil companies.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 4:32 PM

fairly clear facts and leap to absurd conclusions. It snowed in the midwest last month, so our Speak Out experts conclude that global warming is a hoax. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 11:46 AM

More common spin.

The article referred to TEMPERATURES - not snow in the midwest. Try reading some times - you learn more than watching TV. You take fairly clear facts about lower temperatures and then you leap to an absurd novel posting defending the defenseless. Global warming and cooling are not a hoax. People like you advocating money-making tax schemes to pay for something that has been going on since time began is the hoax.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 4:56 PM

"...animals , and plants really , know things we will never understand..."

Those types of behaviors are readily explainable. Some animals are sensitive to slight vibrations in the ground. Many are aware of air pressure changes that preceed changes in weather. None(except man) are able to record past events and make reasonable predictions on what's over the horizen.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 5:06 PM

When you are in the business of dealing with human misery, you want the human plenty miserable. That way you are in line to make him comfortable again. :-)

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 30, 2013, at 8:13 PM

Amen brother!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 5:48 PM

Were animals to have an actual say, I predict they would side with Mother Earth over the oil companies.

-- Posted by commonsensematters

So common does have a sense of humor! Now that's funny!

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 12:31 AM

"Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold: it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city.

"This theory reverses a standard chronology of human origins, in which primitive man went through a "Neolithic revolution" 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In the old model, shepherds and farmers appeared first, and then created pottery, villages, cities, specialized labor, kings, writing, art, and--somewhere on the way to the airplane--organized religion. As far back as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thinkers have argued that the social compact of cities came first, and only then the "high" religions with their great temples, a paradigm still taught in American high schools.

"Religion now appears so early in civilized life--earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct--that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that "the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture," and Göbekli may prove his case.

"The builders of Göbekli Tepe could not write or leave other explanations of their work. Schmidt speculates that nomadic bands from hundreds of miles in every direction were already gathering here for rituals, feasting, and initiation rites before the first stones were cut. The religious purpose of the site is implicit in its size and location. "You don't move 10-ton stones for no reason," Schmidt observes. "Temples like to be on high sites," he adds, waving an arm over the stony, round hilltop. "Sanctuaries like to be away from the mundane world."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...

________________

Why am I reminded of Conan the Barbarian?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 6:43 AM

I've been trying to get a handle on this global warming stuff and I think commonsensematters finally got through to me.

So if its too warm it's global warming. And if its too cold it's global warming. Now I get it. Glad that's cleared up.

-- Posted by bothedog on Sat, Apr 27, 2013, at 9:58 PM

It may be helpful to try learning the difference between climate and weather.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 28, 2013, at 7:09 AM

An article today on a "green" dutch newspaper's in-depth story on the coming "global cooling" and that research clearly shows the LACK of influence of CO2 on global weather and the HUGE influence the solar activity has. A very good read if you want to learn about the coming cooling and it's causes.

When will the global warming fools switch? Or did they already by claiming they need taxes for so-called "Climate Change"? An interesting quote:

"Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. ... Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun's activity will also have influence the coming many years. ... The unusual thing right now is that sun's activity is decreasing while there's a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity. ... The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease."

The link: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/m...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 9, 2013, at 10:38 AM

The liberals have to have money to feed their elite life styles (Al Gore, the UN, Obama) so they'll now have to tax the sun. Maybe we should send them to the sun to talk about it?

As the layers of the "global warming" scam peel away there will be another liberal tax-scam coming. You can count on it.

Wouldn't it be ironice if windmills caused global cooling? What to do then?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Aug 9, 2013, at 11:57 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...

What if you threw a party and no one came?

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Aug 13, 2013, at 8:09 PM

It may be helpful to try learning the difference between climate and weather.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 28, 2013, at 7:09 AM

Sigh .

The weather is different at the Poles then it is at the Equator causing different foliage and different animals due to a different climate .

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "global warning !!" cry . "Global warning !!" is caused from burning fossil fuel and is man made , remember ?

Again , would you have the same panic if the cry were "Global Cooling" ??

.........

Rick,

I used the words "Global Warming" purposely to remind the Left Wingnuts, that was their battle cry in this "war"...

Yup , I figured that . I reckon it isn't just the Left though , it's coming from all directions as the wind blows...

-- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 4:56 AM

I get my science from Rush Limbaugh

-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM

This is sad .

Rush don't know shat from shine oil .

-- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 8:21 PM

"The thinking goes like this: Over the years, radioactivity decreases, meaning there is less risky material to transport and ultimately bury at an approved waste site."

Much of the radioactive material produced through fission has a relatively short half-life. Cobalt-60, for example, has a half-life of about 5 1/4 years, so 25 years from now, the majority of it will be depleted. Cobalt-60, while it has medical and metalurgical uses, is considered a dangerous radionuclide because it emits radiation at a level considered particularly damaging to human tissue. Better, then, to leave it in place until it is diminished than to transport it and risk a transportation accident that might release it to the general public.

Keep in mind that, during that mothball period, little or no additional Cobalt-60 is being produced.

There are other isotopes with similar short half-lives, which will diminish in a couple of decades. The long-life isotopes will still have to be dealt with, which is the goal of places such as Yucca Mountain, but the general rule is to keep the short-life material on site until it is depleted or near-depleted to minimize the amount of material to be shipped to long-term facilities.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 28, 2013, at 2:41 PM

By the same token, we generally do not get rid of the by-products of coal plants while they are glowing hot and and present transportation difficulties. Instead, we let them cool and then get rid of just the cold ash that is left behind.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 28, 2013, at 2:43 PM

"...alone defending their mistake."

Claims that "the man-made argument is a lie" are unsubstantiated. So far, what you've offered is that Dug, Rush, and some lawyer don't understand or accept the facts of global warming.

Therefore, based on what Dug and Rush believe is "discredited," the scientists of the world should be rushing back to their labs to "tap" their thermometers, recalibrate their equipment, recalculate their data, so as to conform to the beliefs that the non-scientific "hoaxers" are vainly endeavoring to pass off as the new "truth."

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following [see link] is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-conse...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:11 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:15 AM

An article today on a "green" dutch newspaper's in-depth story on the coming "global cooling" and that research clearly shows the LACK of influence of CO2 on global weather and the HUGE influence the solar activity has. A very good read if you want to learn about the coming cooling and it's causes.

When will the global warming fools switch? Or did they already by claiming they need taxes for so-called "Climate Change"? An interesting quote:

"Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. ... Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun's activity will also have influence the coming many years. ... The unusual thing right now is that sun's activity is decreasing while there's a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity. ... The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease."

The link: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/m...

I don't believe Rush wrote this. Keep on with the deflection and attacks. It's your only strength. Sad. As usual, you invoke Limbaugh more than anyone in SO! Glad to see you're keeping him in money.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:17 AM

And if scientific concensus is not enough, try thinking for yourself...

A German cruise ship stops at Point Barrow, without passing through the Pacific.

The northwest passage, that has been sought ever since Hudson, is ice-free.

Mountain glaciers in the Andes, the Himalayans, Greenland, have retreated to the greatest extend in recorded history.

Ocean levels are rising.

Huge sheets of Antarctic ice have broken away.

Are these really certain signs of "global cooling?"

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:20 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM

If the IPCC admission that their models were all wrong and the earth has "paused" in global warming - if that isn't enough for you, try thinking for yourself:

"Whenever the ice at the North and South Pole is mentioned, it is mostly in the context of melting ice triggered by global warming. However, the sea ice in Antarctica -- in contrast to that in the Arctic -- has proved to be remarkably robust. New measurements have now confirmed that. As the U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of ​​19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979."

or

"Contrary to popular impression, the melting of sea ice does not cause a rise of sea level, since the ice is already floating and displacing its weight in water." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/scienc...

or

"[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level." - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Quit listening to Al Gore Common. The NY Times, Washington Post and National Geographic dispute you and Al on the ice melt and the sea levels rising.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM

"....the melting of sea ice..."

Glad to see that you admit that warming is causing sea ice to melt. I am very well aware that this has no effect on the sea level.

"Rush wrote this."

It comes as no surprise that some don't "get it." I have never "invoked Limbaugh" for any purpose other than to demonstrate how absurd and outlandish his views and positions are, and how closely Dug's attitudes, outlooks and beliefs parallel those of his idol, Rush.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 9:57 AM

Both articles you linked also mentioned that melting land ice will cause sea levels to rise. -- Posted by miccheck on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 10:04 AM

Yes. And an ice asteroid the size of the moon would also cause sea ice to rise. Neither of which is likely to occur. Is this the same land ice that was supposed to evaporate off the Himalayans by 2035?

"Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist. IPCC report said ice would vanish 'perhaps sooner'. Panel head apologises for unsubstantiated assertion" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...

The bottom line is this. The IPCC predictions, Al Gores predictions - all the expert predictions - on global warming have been MASSIVELY wrong. Way off the chart wrong. Yet you still believe their predictions.

And many many articles and journals are now questioning why has "global warming" hit a 10 year "pause" yet emissions are at their highest levels in recorded history?

-IPCC and global alarmists like yourselve(s) have been terribly wrong

-the link to human-caused global warming is dissipating rapidly as increases in CO2 over the past decade have not caused warming

As I've said in the past, I've admired your passion. It's too bad it's so deep into the wrong causes and misinformation campaigns. You propagate the misinformation even when your sources admit their mistakes.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 10:13 AM

"...late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s..."

However, explorers have been searching futilely for the Northwest Passage since John Cabot tried in vain in 1497. Now is has been used by commercial shipping.

Per Wikipedia...

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903--1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 4:16 PM

BC,been watching this thread. Interested in the answer.

-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 5:10 PM

"Mountain glaciers in the Andes, the Himalayans, Greenland, have retreated to the greatest extend in recorded history."

A trend that began at the end of the last Ice Age.

"Are these really certain signs of "global cooling?"

The trend towards global cooling was predicted several years ago by Russian Scientists. I posted a link to their peer-reviewed findings. It is a prediction of long-term climate change, and thus would not be represented by the events of past warming.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 6:21 PM

"since water expands as it warms"

It also expands as it freezes, which is why sea-ice floats instead of sinking to the bottom. Water is almost unique in this quality, and it is a quality that makes life possible on Earth. If the frozen water sank, the entirety of our oceans would likely be frozen, except for a thin layer of water at the surface.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 6:30 PM

"However, explorers have been searching futilely for the Northwest Passage since John Cabot tried in vain in 1497. Now is has been used by commercial shipping."

But the possibility that it could have been used in the 1920s and 1930s exists, had there been ships sufficiently designed for it at the time. Most ships of that era were coal-fired, and needed to carry vast amounts of coal for such a journey, since refueling ports did not exist. Also, metal ships of the time were frequently of riveted construction, which were susceptible to breaking apart in cold seas. Wooden ships, of course, would have a hard time making the journey even today.

Modern ships of welded steel construction are beter suited for such a journey, and the commercials ships using the passage are reinforced to withstand the impact of ice.

Ice-breakers, which were not available in the 1920s and 1930s in sufficient quantity of sufficient design to maintain a shipping lane through the passage simply did not exist, either.

The fact that it is usable today is more a testament to the skills of ship-builders and the wonders of logistics than it is as proof that the ice today is of lesser extent than in the 1920s and 1930s.

I mentioned "Warming Island" some time back. It is an island off the coast of Greenland. Scientists claim that the fact that it is now clearly an island is evidence of the extent of warming, claiming that it has always been assumed to be a peninsula, since an ice-bridge connected it to the main body of Greenland "as far as anyone can remember". Alas! the oldest known map of the island clearly shows it to be an island, drawn by an explorere (Norwegian, I think) who sailed those waters in the 1920s or 1930s (I forget which). The scientists who used "Warming Island" as evidence of Global Warming, when presented with this evidence, dismissed it as a mapping error, preferring to rely on the testimony of locals whose memories might be faulty, if they even visited the island during that time. Methinks it would have been difficult, in the 21st century, to find Inuit people who would have been of sufficient age and have had sufficient navigation skills to recall with certainty that they were there at that time and knew for certain such an ice bridge was extant during the entirity of that era. Methinks the map would be be more reliable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 6:44 PM

Because water reaches its maximum density at about 4 degrees centigrade, we would expect the melting ice to actually reduce water levels, rather than raise them. That would be the case for the shirt term, at least.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 8:36 PM

That would be the "short term", not "shirt term". Sorry.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 8:46 PM

"In 2006 the cruise liner MS Bremen successfully ran the Northwest Passage, helped by satellite images telling where sea ice was."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 7:53 AM

97% of scientists studying climate change are big dummies or are communist al gore wackos. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Dec 7, 2013, at 10:46 AM

98% of the scientists studying the planets thought the world was flat a few centuries ago. And thought the sun orbited the earth. And they were completely wrong and their belief was based on myths and bad science.

Good thing there were a few brave people at the time to dispel the false science of the time - despite the sheep that believed them at every word and threatened to kill or jail those who disagreed.

Haven't come very far have we?

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 10:25 AM

"The area's maritime microclimate generates a prevailing fog belt that may cover up Reynolds Island (180 meters high) but will leave Murray Island (480 meters high) visible in rough outline. Warming Island with its high mountain walls invariably rises above the fog to show its rock outline while the connecting ice shelf along the entire oceanic straight is completely buried in fog. If I were to make a sketch of the region on such a typical summer day I would come up with pretty much the same blank spaces that I see in the Hofer document. The same mountains, headlands, peninsulas, glaciers and ice shelves would be missing from my sketch."

That's simply his excuse for dismissing the only non-anectdotal evidence of the island's outline, a map drawn by an explorer who visited the region and recorded his findings. Unfortunatly, Mr. Hofer is no longer around to tell us what he saw, so the only evidence we have is his map. That is more evidence than the "Warming Island" proponents have.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 12:15 PM

8. Ship navigation. A ship passing through an ice region is not always an indication of greater or lesser ice abundance of that region. The proper choice of course and time of passage may assure the success of the operation while an incorrect choice of these conditions by a ship of the same type may create the impression of great quantities of ice.

...

... accumulated knowledge and experience make present-day [1943] navigation considerably easier. We may nevertheless point out a number of ship voyages which could hardly have been accomplished in the preceding cold period. Among these are: our voyage on the sail- motorboat Knipovitch around Franz Joseph Land in 1932, the rounding of Severnaya Zemlya by the icebreaker Sibiryakov in the same year, through passages by ordinary steamships of the whole Northern Sea Route in 1935 (no ice being found on the route), etc. Further we know that starting with 1930 there was not a single year when it would have been Impossible to round Novaya Zemlya from the north even in a ship which was entirely unsuited for navigation in ice. At the same time we know that the icebreaker Yermak in 1901 attempted to round Cape Zhelania from the west and was unsuccessful, although the Yermak spent almost a month in a struggle with the ice while waiting at the northwest shores of Novaya Zemlya.

N.N. Zub0v: "Artic Ice" 1943

Zubuv reported extensively on the retreat of Artic Ice as a continual process observed since the 19th Century.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 12:41 PM

"...thought the world was flat..."

The climate change deniers are the modern day "flat-earthers."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 6:48 PM

Is climate change really a "hot" issue? None of us will be alive if and when global warming ever occurs. Seems like a non-issue. "Scientists" need to work on today's problems, not fret over the future or lament the past.

-- Posted by RELee on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 7:47 PM

The reason this is such a political issue is Mr. Gore and the UN has made it so with the help of the liberals.

The "hockey stick" idea broke to pieces, the polar bears didn't drown, and the promised rise in hurricanes the last 6 years didn't happen. Every time there is a weather event they say it is because of global warming like it has never happened before. In reality it is less than the last 50 or 60 years.

This is all about the UN wanting control and al needing to sell carbon credits.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 8:13 PM

"global warming" that is "man-made" ?

That's what the "hoaxers" keep overlooking. Certainly there are natural aspects of climate change that lead to global warming, but there is also a human factor that is under our control to change. That's the intent. Taking positive action is preferable to "sticking our heads in the sand" and whining how "there's nothing we can do."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 8:45 PM

The climate change deniers are the modern day "flat-earthers." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 6:48 PM

Another straw man. You never change.

The climate has been changing forever. Your belief and attempt to link it to "man made" causes is the problem. You're losing that debate based on your emotional, factless responses (rush limbaugh, flat earthers, etc.) and so you switch to "climate change deniers". I've yet to see a single climate change denier on these threads.

You've learned well from your socialist master.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 9:12 PM

Yep - noticed it Rick.

Common's trying to shift the point to something else! I'm shocked! :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 9:55 PM

"Taking positive action is preferable to "sticking our heads in the sand" and whining how "there's nothing we can do."

Actually, it's about increasing government control. The selling of "Carbon Credits" (Al Gore's get-rich-quick scheme) has already been addressed. Carbon taxes and the rewarding of political cronies through "Green Energy" incentives which go overwhelmingly to those who contribute to the politicians' financial backers.

There are few who are whining "there's nothing we can do", but it is hardly unrealistic to question the Science (Science should always be scrutinized, lest it cease to be Science). Also, it is worth noting that, just because someone has identified a problem, it does not follow that they understand the correct solution. Some proposed solutions, such as Corn-based Ethanol, have already been shown to create mor problems than they solve.

The shout of "Flat-Earthers" is akin to the shout of "Heretic", and indicates that you do not believe your Science can withstand scrutiny, prompting you to ridicule rather than challenge those who have the audacity to raise questions.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 6:33 AM

"Question for those who do not believe climate change is man-made: What bad could happen if we assume that it is?"

Loss of economic activity, even loss of life, as has been pointed out before. If we assume incorrectly that it is, and enact proposed solutions (such as corn-based Ethanol), we stand to endanger both the economy and the lives of innocents.

"In other words, what is gained and for whom by lying about the origins of climate change, as you assert most scientists are doing?"

Political funding for their research. Some UK scientists, for example, are now claiming they knew all along that the current "leveling off" would occur, but kept quiet about it. After all, if the threat is not perceived as "eminent", the response (and the funding) will come more slowly. Both politicians and scientists rely on that sence of "urgency" to keep themselves employed.

It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 6:39 AM

What specific actions would cause loss of economic activity and life, and how?

I've already asnwered that.

Corn-based Ethanol, pushed as an incentive to curb global warming by offering alternatives to fossil fuels, caused a rise in the price of corn, resulting in a rise in the price of other foods. This makes supplying food to poorer nations more costly, and deprives many of food resources.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/423...

The shift of food production to corn for Ethanol production reduces overall food production. Nor is it limited to corn, since the rise in corn prices raises the price of such commodities as beef and poultry (which are fed with corn and corn by-products) and the price of other foods which are substitued for corn as corn prices become less affordable. It's very simple economics.

Raising taxes is known to decrease economic activity. So do rising prices. Many of the proposed "fixes" to combat global warming involve increased taxation, such as increased taxes on fossil fuels and other forms of "Carbon Taxes", and artificial inflation of the costs of energy-intensive methods in order to make the higher costs of alternatives more palatable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 12:14 PM

"America no longer has cities full of factories spewing soot into the skies . Urban residents no longer use coal to heat their homes . Autos have gas converts to decrease emissions . Nuclear power is now being used for power ."

While those who used to work at those factories and those who mined the coal are bemoaning the loss of jobs, while ordinary citizens have seen the price of automobiles driven upward by the mandates on them, driving automakers to relocate for cheaper labour and automation to reduce costs. Again, one does not have to be a scientist to recognize the correlation of these factors, and to understand that such impositions on economic activity need to be completely justified before persuing them, rather than simply asking "What bad could happen if we assume they are true?".

In a free country, the onus is on the government to prove the need for regulation before imposing it, rather than placing the onus on free citizens to prove they have a need to be free from it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 12:20 PM

Algore isn't even a scientist.

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 9:00 PM

He's a business man and doing very well at it. He has harnessed to green people to do the hard work for him. All he had to do is pump them up with speeches and a movie. BTW how are those polar bears doing?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 4:17 PM

"...price of automobiles driven upward by the mandates on them, driving automakers to relocate for cheaper labour and automation to reduce costs."

Automation to reduce costs. Yes, ever since the assembly line.

Cheaper labor to reduce costs. Yes, ever since globalization.

Emission controls as a factor increasing costs. Insignificant. Was it worthwhile? Of course it was. Ask Angelinos. It was completely justifiable.

The auto companies did not move production overseas because of catalytic converters.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 9:35 PM

"The auto companies did not move production overseas because of catalytic converters."

They moved production overseas to reduce costs. Costs were driven upward by mandates, included those designed to reduce global warming. Obviously it was not Catalytic Converters, which were installed before the global warming hype and are required on all vehicles sold in the U.S., regardless of where they are manufactured. But, there are regulations which you do not see - mandates on the factories and facilities which do not apply to overseas facilities. These also played a role in the drive to reduce cost. It is an oversimplication to suggest that labour costs alone drove them to relocate facilities, though they are a major factor.

The point, which you choose to skirt, is that mandates which raise cost drive businesses out of business, or cause them to seek alternatives to reduce costs, there or elsewhere. The idea that we can continue to heap additional costs on manufacturing and not lose manufacturing jobs has been shown to be wrong - manufacturing is and continues to move to locations where there are fewer mandates and lower costs.

The question is "what harm is done" by enacting legislation to combat global warming even if there is no global warming. I suppose, to those who now argue that "what harm is done" in enacting legislation to help reduce healtcare costs even if it doesn't actually reduce healthcare costs, that sort of question makes sense. I've pointed out the harm, but you continue to take your "flat Earth" approach to ignoring the realities of economics and argue that the loss of manufacturing and the increase in the costs of automobiles is insignificant and not connected in any way to the mandates imposed.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 10, 2013, at 6:32 AM

Algore isn't even a scientist.

Don't think it's been proven yet that Gore is even a human being. Maybe he's an alien who brought us the Internet to corrupt us, as if that needed any encouragement.

-- Posted by RELee on Tue, Dec 10, 2013, at 10:10 AM

Common and friends assume that global warming can be ended by engineering a solution. Great news. There's a book for them called "A case for climate engineering" by David Keith. The solution,he claims,is to spray millions of tons of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere. Sounds like a great idea except wasn't the point of ending fossil fueled power plant emissions to end potential sulfuric acid rain? I guess cleaning up those power plants is actually causing a lack of sulfuric acid which in turn is causing global warming/change. What a conundrum.

-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Dec 10, 2013, at 6:33 PM

I see John Podesta,former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress,has been retained by Obama to further the administrations efforts on global change. What? Another ultra liberal community organizer against global warming? Al Gore not available?

-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Dec 10, 2013, at 7:50 PM

Global Warming? This out today. The so-called "experts" on climate change (aka global warming):

Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain's University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event."

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

This past October, the UK Express headlined, "Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November."

By the end of November, Brits were shivering, "as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures," reported the Mirror newspaper. "Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country." Winter yet lay ahead."

"James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn't get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years."

"temperatures used by warming advocates collected from land-based thermometers are continually "adjusted." They don't remeasure the temperature. They change it. As Australian climate watchers David Evans and Jo Nova point out, "they are still changing the temperature record for the 1970s, 30 years later, and always in the direction of making recent warming seem worse."

The latest stampede to combat dreaded global warming says $100 billion a year must be paid by nations with more money to nations with less. If you are suspicious that this is more of a wealth redistribution than a climate-cooling maneuver, congratulations. It is.

Meanwhile, U.S. government bodies, forever searching for revenue to feed their appetites, are imposing costly taxes to save us from nonthreatening global warming, while conveniently expanding their control. That's why President Barack Obama had no qualms in claiming that we have had 10 years of "accelerated global warming," even in the face of contradictory facts. Hold on to your wallets.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 8:51 AM

A record low temperature was measure in Antarctica recently, -135 degrees F.

That is not say it has never been - 135 degrees F there before, just that this is the first time they've measured it, which they did using satellites.

Now, this sort of thing brings up a point I noted earlier. The increasing number and accuracy of temperature measurements means that global averages have to be "fudged" to account for the difference in measurement quantity and quality, and we are justified in questioning the accuracy of the method of "fudging". Scientists question this themselves, as shown in the "climategate" emails.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 12:37 PM

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/clima...

"The EPA's highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors.

"John C. Beale, who pled guilty in September to bilking the government out of nearly $1 million in salary and other benefits over a decade, will be sentenced in a Washington, D.C., federal court on Wednesday. In a newly filed sentencing memo, prosecutors said that his "historic" lies are "offensive" to those who actually do dangerous work for the CIA.

"Beale's lawyer, while acknowledging his guilt, has asked for leniency and offered a psychological explanation for the climate expert's bizarre tales.

"With the help of his therapist," wrote attorney John Kern, "Mr. Beale has come to recognize that, beyond the motive of greed, his theft and deception were animated by a highly self-destructive and dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior." Kern also said Beale was driven "to manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives ... that are fueled by his insecurities."

"The two sentencing memos, along with documents obtained by NBC News, offer new details about what some officials describe as one of the most audacious, and creative, federal frauds they have ever encountered."

____________

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 12:43 PM

Sea ice up 50% this year? Al said the polar bear would be running out of ice by now.

"It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels"

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 5:24 PM

Regret, you mean I bought that beach-front property in Nebraska for nothing?

-- Posted by RELee on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 5:47 PM

So the highest paid EPA guy didn't work? That figures.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 16, 2013, at 6:46 PM

This out today:

"2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In Temperature"

Great analysis and a couple of excellent charts on temperatures back to the early 1900's. The article if you're interested in what is going on:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 11:51 AM

Another excellent article that drives a stake in the anthropogenic global warming theory (lie) is here:

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.

The full story also points out a German study that says we are in for some serious colder climate and addresses low sun spot activity. Can they tie that to "CO2" BS and the need for a global "spread the wealth" tax?:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-to...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 11:55 AM

Thought I heard about this:

The Sapa region of North Vietnam, a hugely popular tourist destination in the Southeast Asian country woke up to snowfall this morning as temperatures across the region plummeted to the lowest levels recorded in over a decade.

Local people were rushing to the area in their droves to experience this once in a lifetime phenomenon, and saw snow of 2. 5cm thick sprinkled across the town, which lies just inside the tropics.

According to Nguyen Manh Ho, the Director of the Hydro-meteorological Forecast Center in Hanoi, temperatures across the north of the country averaged between 4˚C and 7˚C on Thursday across mountainous areas, with the temperature dropping to below 0 in Sapa, where heavy snow began falling at 5am in the morning.

These freak weather conditions are totally unexpected in a region that is supposed to be embracing the hot season at this time of year, with average temperatures for March normally hovering around the 30s.

The temperature dip is not just limited to Vietnam though. Large parts of Southeast Asia have been affected. Temperatures in the Thai capital Bangkok dropped to their lowest level in two years, 19˚C at noon today.

Sapa, located in the Lao Cai district, about 120km north-east of Hanoi, is a popular destination for travelers on the Southeast Asian backpacker trail, with its local hill-tribe population, its markets and its spectacular mountain/jungle scenery. No doubt many travelers woke up in shock this morning upon being confronted with snow and ice -- a huge contrast from the normal scene pictured when you imagine the stereotype shirtless backpacker with long hair, shorts and sandals!

The cold spell is expected to last for another 2 days before things get back to normal in the region.

-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 3:34 PM

"These freak weather conditions are totally unexpected in a region that is supposed to be embracing the hot season at this time of year, with average temperatures for March normally hovering around the 30s."

Since it is not March, and Vietnam (being North of the Equator) should not be experiencing the hot season in December, I have to conclude that this is an old piece, from at least nine months ago, if it is from this year at all. Do you have a link to the time this was originally posted?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 5:50 PM

Found it. It was from March 17, 2011.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 5:52 PM

Yes, it is odd.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 22, 2013, at 6:03 PM

2014. Marijuana's legal, light bulbs aren't, and the dimmest bulbs of all are running the country.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 4:38 PM

Marijuana's legal, light bulbs aren't, and the dimmest bulbs of all are running the country. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 4:38 PM

Doesn't marijuana contribute to lung cancer? I guess thats better than a 32 oz soda?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 4:50 PM

Well, the legalization here is subject to strict limitation. That is Illinois' idea of "freedom", apparently. You're free to do anything they say you can do, as long as you do it the way they want it done and report to them that you're doing it.

I have a hard time believing that is the freedom so many of our soldiers had in mind when they laid down their lives for it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM

"...only climate-change die-hards could make..."

"...Freakin' global warming...First snowstorm of 2014..."

Seems the SO group has still not figured out the difference between weather and climate.

That must mean when it gets hot next summer, they'll change their tune and believe in global warming.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 7:13 PM

Seems the SO group has still not figured out the difference between weather and climate. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 7:13 PM

Seems the Obama gang hasn't figured out the difference between global cooling and global warming.

Did you send extra money to Al Gore to stop "climate change" (LOL!)... he needs your money to prevent the earths climate from changing.

You don't believe in it. You just want another tax out of our pockets to support your liberal agenda.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 7:17 PM

"...with sll of the abuse..."

Now that really is funny and laughable. Why would I consider the weak, canned and ineffective responses to simple facts as "abuse." The first step is just to consider the source, and after doing that, there is little reason to be concerned over supposed "abuse."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 9:09 PM

The first step is just to consider the source, and after doing that, there is little reason to be concerned over supposed "abuse." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 9:09 PM

Believe me. Every time you open your mouth we "consider the source". You have lied for years and purposely misled everyone here. Even Obama disagrees with you and you continue to push his original lies and statements.

Yes - we consider the source. Common has no credibility here.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 9:19 PM

"....some haven't figured out the weather is the climate."

I will gladly take the time to explain it again. Weather is basically day-to-day conditions, while climate is represented by long term global trends.

Needless to say contrasting global climate with disease is an apples to oranges comparison. However, global warming has potential to increase the spread of various tropical maladies.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 9:21 PM

Why don't you take the time to look at all the cold RECORDS that have been and are being broken. Records. Not today's weather or yesterday's.

Records. Of course facts don't mean a lot to you Common.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 2, 2014, at 10:27 PM

"...climate is represented by long term global trends."

And the point is, we've now had over fifteen years with no warming, contrary to the computer models and predictions. This is the sort of trend that sends scientists scrambling back to their models to find out what went wrong.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 6:35 AM

Please tell that to Common.

New flash miccheck: The climate has been changing for millions of years. That's why the global scheme of "global warming" is now called "climate change" by the liberals pushing it. Simply to collect money for something that has been occurring since the beginning of time.

Do you support funding for a "climate change" tax? One that would taxes the very breath we exhale as a "climate change" cause?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 8:41 AM

News flash: Global warming and climate change are two separate things. -- Posted by miccheck on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 8:44 AM

News flash - then why do you, Al Gore and Common try and combine the two?

Explain why the "global warming" mantra that "hockey stick" Al Gore and liberals like yourself pushed has suddenly been renamed "climate change". These are your people. Please explain to the rest of us why as you must have some innate understanding of the illogical.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:01 AM

Is "climate change" a new name for what used to be called "global warming"? Nope. -- Posted by miccheck on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:09 AM

Then why have the global warming people changed their campaign to "climate change"? Your dishonesty on this is amazing. Keep slicing it thinner.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:12 AM

"Come on, now, everyone who knows anything about global warming and climate change knows that extremes in weather are a symptom of climate change, not an argument against it!"

There were extremes in weather long before man arrived on Earth, let alone his having had any effect upon the climate. Global warming and global cooling have both occurred sans man, so the issue is not "global warming" but "anthropogenic global warming", specifically whether or not the latter is actual.

"Global climate change" came into vogue in the past decade, when it became apparent that 'global warming" was tapering off.

The global climate has always been changing, so just as there is a question of whether GW is a result of AGW, so the question remains whether and how much climate change is influenced by man.

The Earth's orbit is slowing down, and the Moon is moving further away from the Earth. We know this, but no one has yet decided to blame this on man. This is primarily (I think) because they haven't figured out how to profit from demanding political action to stop it. Once someone figures that out, look for some political movement to stem the tide (literally) by reversing the damage man has done to tidal friction. (Oddly, there actually was a small movement a while back to stem dam-building because of the influence of the man-made lakes on tidal friction, so it may come to pass sooner than later. I gather there simply wasn't enough money to be made in blocking dam-building to build enough momentum for the movement.)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:22 AM

"But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:27 AM

Al Gore from 2006 "An Inconvenient Truth" - "Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Al Gore October 2013: "Declaring climate change to be "the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced," former Vice President Al Gore on Monday exhorted nearly 1,000 high school students to make a generational commitment to save the planet. "There is no challenge more important and we need your help," Gore said.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:28 AM

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. And that is the issue, we (the taxpayers and citizens) are concerned about the political ramifications of the issue, and not the scientific. Scientists can debate and agree on whether "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change" are happening and to what degree as much as they want, but that does not mean the proposed political solutions are effective, helpful, or economically viable.

As we've seen with corn-based Ethanol and other "Green" initiatives, political solutions are as much about increasing government and enriching political supporters as about actually helping the environment, and we as citizens are not only correct but duty-bound to challenge those solutions. Even if man-induced global climate change is real, that does not automatically make the proposed political solutions viable.

Centuries of human development have shown that the attempted solutions to many problems produce more problems than they fix.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:56 AM

BTW, the Chinese Icebreaker that provided the rescue helicopter is now in danger of being trapped in the ice, as well. The Australian ship carrying the rescued passengers has been halted, as it may be needed to rescue the rescuers, the Chinese ship having requested that it remain on station in case it is needed.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:59 AM

This out today:

"(CNSNews.com) -- American taxpayers spent $7.45 billion to help developing countries cope with climate change in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, according to a federal government report submitted to the United Nations on a subject that Secretary of State John Kerry described as "a truly life-and-death challenge."

That sum of $7.45 billion, which reached more than 120 countries through bilateral and multilateral channels, met President Obama's "commitment to provide our fair share" of a collective pledge by developed nations to provide a total of nearly $30 billion in "fast start finance" (FSF), the report stated."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-...

Climate change has been happening for millenia. No liberal can explain the much warmer climate in the past without all the CO2 in the atmosphere. And we send $7.5 BILLION to other countries from the very pockets of hard working americans. It's a scam.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 11:19 AM

Shapley, The irony is that the ship stuck in the ice was sent there to study global warming. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 12:36 PM

"...was sent there to study global warming."

May want to stop jumping to conclusions...

No big surprise.

"The trip was undertaken to mark the 100th anniversary of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson's return from a three-year Antarctic expedition."

http://www.dw.de/antarctic-airlift-rescu...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 3:33 PM

"The expedition to gauge the effects of climate change on the region began on November 27. The second and current leg of the trip started on December 8 and was scheduled to conclude with a return to New Zealand on January 4."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/world/anta...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 3:50 PM

As usual, Common bites on the liberal talking point.

Hook, line and sinker...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 4:22 PM

"The second and current leg of the trip started on December 8 and was scheduled...

...to mark the 100th anniversary of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson's return from a three-year Antarctic expedition."

---- ------ ------ -------

Modern Explorers Follow the Century-Old Antarctic Footsteps of Douglas Mawson

Scientists set out to re-create an epic life-or-death trek, using today's technology.

By David Roberts

for National Geographic

Published December 17, 2013

"Last week, a 36-person team led by Chris Turney, an Australian adventurer and climate scientist, set out from New Zealand to retrace the historic journey of a scientific expedition to Antarctica that took place a century ago. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 aims to find the hut of Douglas Mawson, leader of the original Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE), to repeat many of the original team's observations and, time willing, to locate the South Magnetic Pole, one of the goals of Mawson's expedition."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

--- ---- ---- -----

As usual, some on SO don't read factual material that does not coincide with their preconceived notions...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 7:35 PM

Common

But still it shows a different story than the original expedition.

"GRAINY film footage from Douglas Mawson's epic Antarctic survey and expedition provides lasting proof that when the adventurer's team reached Commonwealth Bay exactly 100 years ago, it was free of sea ice."

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 8:56 PM

As usual, Common doesn't tell the whole story. Also from National Geographic:

"The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson's numbers, "using the twist of modern technology," Turney told National Geographic earlier this month. As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic."

"Even though the researchers found themselves stuck just two weeks into a five-week trip, Chris Turney, the leader of the expedition and a climate change professor from the University of New South Wales, insists it is "silly" to believe the sea ice isn't melting. The expedition then released a statement that seems to contradict itself. In part it reads, "Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up."

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:23 PM

It's like the remake of a classic movie, the original is always better.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 11:19 PM

"...it is "silly" to believe the sea ice isn't melting."

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 3, 2014, at 9:23 PM

Glad to see you agree with me in posting the above extract.

It is not unusual for some conservatives to demonstrate an inability to comprehend complex, and sometimes even simple, situations. (Recall their illogical rejection of a trillion dollar spending cut when accompanied by a 100 billion dollar tax increase.)

It is not difficult to understand that a net decrease in sea ice can be accompanied by a localized (as in the vicinity of Commonwealth Bay) buildup of ice caused by Antarctic ocean currents and winds.

To attempt to deny these facts is to fall for the conservative "logic" of rejecting global warming and climate change because "there's still ice down there" or claiming that warming is a hoax because "the temperature might go below zero on Monday night."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 7:58 AM

There's nothing to fear with regards to climate change with the exception of politicians takng more of your money to "combat" it.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 8:14 AM

Wheels

Common is a college boy so you can expect a bunch of $5 words that equal 50 cents.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:06 AM

"...Democratic TALKING POINT/LIE again..."

It most certainly is not. Remember when each of the republican candidates were asked if the would accept 10 dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax increase? Each one of them said no. There were no conditions of "current" or "future" stated or implied by the question.

Whether you understand it or not, that's the equivalent of a trillion dollar spending cut for a 100 billion dollar tax increase, and the republican candidates showed an amazing lack of logical thought in rejecting the premise.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:06 AM

Anyone who believes that the government was/is going to cut spending has sh@t-for-brains.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:14 AM

- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 7:58 AM

As I pointed out, you left out "the rest of the story". Even the National Geographic - your source - caught you lying. They admit that the purpose of the expedition was for global warming proof.

The man quoted is a fool. And you are a bigger fool for believing him. Global warming is causing global cooling so we need a tax! You are embarrassing...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 10:03 AM

150 years ago a similar weather pattern stalled trains between StL and St Chas. John Wilks Boothe was stranded in St Joe and was prompted to perform when he ran out of cash.

Probably due to all the carbon pollution from the steam trains.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 12:54 PM

"The man quoted is a fool."

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 10:03 AM

It is completely astounding and amazing how you are able to tell that someone half a world away is "a fool" just because you happen to disagree with the facts that he presents in an article.

I just don't see how you can make such "astute" judgments with so little information. You must really possess "magical" powers, which hopefully you will use only for good.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 1:39 PM

You must really possess "magical" powers, which hopefully you will use only for good. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 1:39 PM

Actually, it's called "common sense". Something you clearing possess little of.

A group of global warming scientists take a trip to the Arctic to repeat an historic trip AND to witness the impact of global warming - as scientists.

Then they get stuck in massive ice floes that are the largest in 20 years.

Now a fool like you would believe a man who says that "global warming" is causing ice to melt while the ice is thicker than it has been in decades.

You have no common sense. That's not news on SO though.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 1:54 PM

That must be it. The scientists of the world that understand climate are all "fools."

The only one that knows "what's really going on" is Dug, the smartest scientist in the Cape area, the state, the country and the world. Must be "hard to stay humble, when you're perfect in every way..." (Note: sarcasm alert.)

But, seriously, for someone that talks, writes and boasts so much, you really don't understand much, do you? For example, climate change is a global phenomenon, which simply means that the effects will not be identical on every square mile of the planet (as you appear to believe.)

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 3:19 PM

Here's a bit of trivia on the subject- What was the term originally used for "Global Warming"? Bonus points-Who coined the term? (It wasn't Al,although he invented the internet he can't claim this!!)

-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 4:35 PM

"So is the earth heating up, or is it cooling down?"

Right now it happens to be warming, at the rate of about a degree and a half over the past century.

But your point is well taken. For the past 4 billion years or so the earth's climate has been in constant state of change. For most of that time, after various forms of plant and animal life evolved, climate change has affected them. Life migrated essentially back and forth to accommodate changes in global and the corresponding local temperatures.

Clearly, back then, environmental changes and variations in sea levels caused change, and when human life evolved they were affected in the same way. If the oceans receded or advanced, man moved accordingly. Natural factors that caused climate change, such a volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and astronomical cycles were basically a fact of life.

Only in the past two hundred years has man attained the capability to generate sufficient pollutants to affect atmospheric conditions. Whether some choose to believe that or not, does not alter the fact that man-made impacts exist, and as they are created by man, they can be ended by man.

The difference between now and centuries ago is that then it was a simple matter for people to move to avoid rising sea levels. Now there are established cities, countries, island nations and agricultural settlements that would be adversely influenced by higher ocean levels. While this will not impact Cape Girardeau, there are millions and millions of other people that will be affected, so even if you don't care, others do.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 7:43 PM

It's not unusual for liberals to believe that disagreeing with them equates to be illogical. That would seem to be due to the fact they seem to believe that they, alone, hold the monopoly on logic and that if they believe it, it must be true. For example, the fact that many still cling to the belief that the authors of Obamacare really, truly believed that if you liked your insurance plan or your doctor, you would be able to keep them. The idea that anything they believe may actually be illogical is completely foreign to them.

"While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region--where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge--to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles)."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 8:36 PM

"It most certainly is not. Remember when each of the republican candidates were asked if the would accept 10 dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax increase? Each one of them said no. There were no conditions of "current" or "future" stated or implied by the question."

It is hardly logical to extrapolate a hypothetical situation into a real-life case. The fact is, no bill was ever proprosed that offered 10 dollars of real spending cuts for one dollar of tax increases. Thus, what you cite as an example of "illogic" is nothing more than a hypothetical question posed, with no basis in reality nor specific cuts/timeframes, etc. on which to base it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 8:40 PM

"Here's a bit of trivia on the subject- What was the term originally used for "Global Warming"?"

"inadvertent climate modification"

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 8:47 PM

"Only in the past two hundred years has man attained the capability to generate sufficient pollutants to affect atmospheric conditions."

That's not true at all. There is evidence that some ancient civilizatioins may well have perished due to environmental changes in their surroundings, some of which quite possibly were of their own doing. They were typically localized, but they were changes, just the same.

Like so many, you seem to limit history to only that which you can recognize and grasp. There have been civilizations that have risen and fallen for a variety of reasons, some natural and some not.

"The difference between now and centuries ago is that then it was a simple matter for people to move to avoid rising sea levels. Now there are established cities, countries, island nations and agricultural settlements that would be adversely influenced by higher ocean levels."

Do you seriously believe there were none of these things in the past? Does Pompeii ring a bell? Easter Island? Tonga-tabu? Machu Picchu? Egyptian Thebes? Ur? Angkor? Ephesus?

Man has had established cities, countries, island nations, and agricultural settlements for as long as there has been recorded history of him. To be sure, it was likely more difficult then, rather than now, to relocate, because the ability to move large quantities of people and supplies by anything more than foot and pack animal did not exist hundreds of years ago.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:01 PM

You get the cookie,shap. Global warming was easier to remember.

-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:12 PM

"It is hardly logical to extrapolate a hypothetical situation into a real-life case."

On the contrary, there certainly is logic to it. The purpose of the question was to ascertain the national budget values of the candidates. Which was of more importance to them, cuts in spending leading to deficit reduction (represented by the $10 in spending cuts) or a "no tax" pledge made to an inconsequential and unelected lobbyist (represented by the $1 of tax increase)? The answers were all no, in spite of the logical conclusion that the "deal" was for a net $9 in spending cuts.

They all put Norquist's desires over the good of the American people, which was also very much less than rational.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:20 PM

"The answers were all no, in spite of the logical conclusion that the "deal" was for a net $9 in spending cuts."

Again, there was no "deal", just a hypotheticial situation with no basis in reality. What we do know about the reality is that taxes are hard to repeal/reduce, whereas spending cuts, even when they materialize in reality (rather than as mere reductions in future spending rather than actual cuts to current spending levels) tend to be undone quite easily. Witness, for example, the rapidity with which the Democrats have moved to extend unemployment benefits before the ink on the budget agreement has yet dried.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:30 PM

"...environmental changes in their surroundings, some of which quite possibly were of their own doing."

That's certainly true of Norse settlement in Greenland, some Pacific Island civilizations, and numerous others that over grazed, over hunted, mismanaged forests, etc.

But they had no capability of affecting the climate and air quality on a global basis.

"...it was likely more difficult then, rather than now, to relocate..."

That I disagree with, infrastructure in previous centuries obviously existed, but it was nowhere near as complex as it is today. Try comparing the recedeing sea front at Ephesus with the Hurrricane Sandy storm surge damage in New York City.

Of course there were natural disasters in the past, such as at Pompeii, and there is no way to prevent those except to not build a city at the base of a volcano.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 9:40 PM

"But they had no capability of affecting the climate and air quality on a global basis. "

You didn't say "on a global basis" in your earlier post. The dust bowl, as an example, was a man-made disaster of large-scale proportions.

Infrastructure can be abandoned, as it has been for as long as humans have existed. I would suggest that, in terms of total cost in inflation-adjusted dollars, the abandonment of Ephesus was far greater than the non-abandonment of New York and New Jersey due to Sandy.

The rumblings of Vesuvius were noted with ample time to abandon Pompeii, but the people did not leave, largely becuase of the cost of doing so. Compare that with, say Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinitubo, where the vast majority of the people living in the vicinity evacuated safely, largely due to the fine infrastructure which you claim will hold them back.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 8:20 AM

"Try comparing the recedeing sea front at Ephesus with the Hurrricane Sandy storm surge damage in New York City."

I have, and that seem to make my point, not yours.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 8:23 AM

Sorry,mic,must have missed that but still don't see the post. Maybe it got deleted??:{)

-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 8:29 AM

"News flash: Global warming and climate change are two separate things"

Not really. Global warming is climate change, though climate change is not necessarily global warming.

You answered the question before it was asked, which does not count towards the cookie, nor did you answer it direcctly, merely posting a link that included the answer, and not even posting the link in response to the question. It is merely that leftist sense of entitlement that compels you to demand a cookie that is not yours to recieve. ;)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 8:37 AM

Right now it happens to be warming, at the rate of about a degree and a half over the past century. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 4, 2014, at 7:43 PM

Why? Because some scientists locked in the deepest ice in decades says it's warming? You're such a lemming.

From Climate Depot: "Latest storm likely to make the 2010s the snowiest decade in the east coast in the NOAA record -- surpassing the 1960s."

Snowiest in 50 years. And you're still claiming "global warming". I can't imagine how someone who is so blind and easily hooked into schemes can get buy in the real world. Does Obama call you and tell you how to get dressed in the morning? You can't think for yourself.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 7:30 PM

"Snowiest in 50 years."

Every winter is "snowy." Every summer is "hot."

You still haven't figured out the difference between local weather and climate change. Maybe someday you'll learn...

Every winter is "snowy." Every summer is "hot."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 10:10 PM

You still haven't figured out the difference between local weather and climate change. Maybe someday you'll learn... -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 10:10 PM

And you don't know what a "record" is. Actually you know, but a fact like that contradicts your ideology. So you'll spin it like all-things-Obama.

The snowiest decade since the 60's based on NOAA records. And you still suck on your "global warming" thumb.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 10:55 PM

BC, Any pigs skating on ice down your way?

I think you make a good point about big lies. Seems to me there are several big lies.

People of other nations knowing of our constitution have to be asking why the 'by the people' part doesn't apply anymore.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 1:25 AM

"Right now it happens to be warming, at the rate of about a degree and a half over the past century."

While it's true it has warmed by about a degree and a half over the past century, it's not true that it is warming "right now", since the past fifteen years have shown no net warming. Thus, it depends upon your barometer.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 6:25 AM

"True. Which experts use the barometer of the past 15 years?"

The University of East Anglia, for one, has reported that the warming trend apparently ended in 1997.

Others are acknowledging it as a "plateau". The question remains whether the trend after the "plateau" has ended will be upward or downward. Some UK scientists are now telling us they've expected this plateau all along, they just forgot to tell us about it.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-british-sci...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 8:38 AM

Given that the warming trend only dates back to about the 1960s, and they've been warning about global warming since at least the 1980s, I'd say all of them use or have used fifteen year windows at one time or another.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 8:51 AM

"Thus, it depends upon your barometer."

In actuality a barometer measures air pressure which has nothing to do with global warming, nevertheless, (when used in the sense of marking change) in most cases, the longer the time/study period, the more significant the information, and the more meaningful the trend lines are.

Based on available data, over the past 10,000 years, global temperatures have varied by no more than 2 degrees C. This makes the 0.6 degrees C increase over the 20th century more noteworthy.

"Over the past several decades this global warming trend has not only continued, but has increased to about 2 degrees C per century, with ten of the warmest years on record occurring since 1990." (Page 438, Ahrens, Meteorology Today, 2007).

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 11:42 AM

"In actuality a barometer measures air pressure which has nothing to do with global warming"

In actuality, "barometer" is the common reference for the mechanism of measuring differences, as Merriam-Webster notes:

"Barometer: ...

2: something that indicates fluctuations (as in public opinion)

3: standard, test

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 12:14 PM

"Based on available data, over the past 10,000 years, global temperatures have varied by no more than 2 degrees C. This makes the 0.6 degrees C increase over the 20th century more noteworthy."

Actually, temperatures have note been measured for less than 400 years, and measured with a common scale for less than that. Global temperatures thus have only been measured since about Captain Cook's time, with scant data available until about a hundred or so years ago. Temperatures before that time can only be guessed, and there is no way to back up the claim that it has varied by "no more than 2 degrees C".

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 12:21 PM

"In actuality, "barometer" is the common reference..."

I believe that's just what I said...

(when used in the sense of marking change)

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 12:38 PM

" the longer the time/study period, the more significant the information, and the more meaningful the trend lines are."

Only true if you have accurate and comparable measurements over the long period of time on which to base them. Thus, our barometer for sea ice extent, satellite imagery, is only valid back to the 1970s, and our barometer for measuring temperature is only accurate back to the 1700s, whereas for global temperatures for a much shorter period of time.

In addition, there is the matter of the number, location, and accuracy of measurements taken, for which one must accommodate for the measurements to be valid.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 2:31 PM

Suppose I built my house in the 1950s, and installed a thermometer in the living room, and recorded the temperature measured there one a week for several years. I would then have a weekly temperature for the house.

Then, in the 1960s, I added a thermometer in the kitchen, and recorded the readings on both once a week, and averaged them to get the temperature of my home. The odds are my reading would be different than the readings for the first decade. To be consistent, I would assume the temperature to be the same, and add or subtract from the kitchen reading in order to have an accurate gauge. Let us say I have to subtract 2 degrees from the kitchen reading to achieve consistency.

A couple years later, I increase the frequency of my readings to three times per year. This results in a slight change in the average temperature.

In the 1970s, I added two more thermometers, one in the upper hall and one on the basement stairs. Now my average was lower than previous ones, so I find that I have to add 3 degrees to the basement thermometer and subtract one degree from the one in the upper hall to maintain consistency.

In the 1980s, I replaced all three of the living-space thermometers with digital units, which changed my readings by about 1 ½ degrees (the readings now being given in 1/10ths of a degree, rather than by degree. The basement unit was not replaced.

In the 1990s, I replaced the basement unit as well, and replaced the kitchen unit, which was found to be defective. I had to do some intricate math to determine the average, and it is still debatable because I do not know at what point the kitchen unit started to fail.

In the 2000s, I replaced all the units with new digital units with wireless capability, so they send a signal directly to my computer, which averages them several times a day. The average was significantly different than prior averages, so I devised a formula for adjusting previous readings to compensate for the difference in accuracy and sampling times.

So, now, I have data all the way back to the 1970s, but the locations, methods, and instruments have all changed since then. The accuracy is dependent upon my mathematical computations necessary to compensate for the differences, and it is based on a possibly-flawed assumption with regard to the temperature averages before and after the changes.

As the old saying goes: A man with one watch always knows the time, a man with two watches is never really sure.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" -- Richard Feynman

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 3:31 PM

but has increased to about 2 degrees C per century, with ten of the warmest years on record occurring since 1990." (Page 438, Ahrens, -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 11:42 AM

And who was keeping the "records" in the scientifically confirmed ice age? Who was keeping the records when the poles had no ice and the oceans were larger (confirmed by scientists)? How much human CO2 was in the atmosphere then?

Climate change has been occurring since the beginning of time. Global warming, global cooling. Because simpletons like yourself follow a snake-oil salesman who came along to convince YOU that any change in climate is human caused and we must raise "revenue" to stop it.

Such a lemming...

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 6:26 PM

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" -- Richard Feynman...

While there may be validity to the above quote, what are the alternatives?

Believe the religious texts or the wisdom of mythology? As in the earth being created 5000 years ago or is really carried on the shoulder of Atlas...

Believe the "judgment" of pundits who selectively use science to support preconceived notions...

Believe politicians that place their own political goals over rational conclusions...

- - - - - -

So is it best to just ignore what happened to the earth prior to 5000 years ago because the is no written record, or is it judicious to overlook temperatures of the earth prior to a few 100 years ago because of the lack of accurate instrumentation.

The methods used to estimate temperatures in the past include soil and ice cores, tree rings, analysis of soil and rock strata, etc. Obviously there is no comparison with today's methods, but there is also no other alternative. Possibly throwing up hands and declaring "it's too hard" is what some may prefer.

Others may look at a consensus of scientific data and evidence and draw conclusions based on information available. Those conclusions could happen to be politically unpalatable to some and not so to others, but I guess "that's life." I'd still favor scientific approach instead of "giving up" because there's no way to be 100% sure.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 9:03 PM

The factual recorded temperatures are not in question. There is some question of the location of the devices in asphalt jungles, etc. and that the recorded temperatures are inflated.

The problem with the "science" involved is the massive failed predictions in climate change and its affect. Massive. All the glaciers will melt in the Himalayans, the Al Gore "hockey stick", the polar caps melting away, huge rises in sea level, big increases in hurricanes, etc. All this was sold as scientific fact and every single one has failed. Some of the lowest hurricane activity in recorded history after the "experts" said it would be the worst. These predictions were supposed to be occurring short term - now - and in the next few decades. The trends are nearly opposite what they predicted.

I base may belief on the science, common sense and the failed predictions of the so-called "experts".

You would scoff at the armageddon prediction of TV evangelists. The earth will end on this day and time or that day and time. We laugh that off. But somehow I laugh off the failed doomsday predictions of your climate change alarmists, yet you embrace it.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 6, 2014, at 9:15 PM

"As in the earth being created 5000 years ago or is really carried on the shoulder of Atlas..."

Atlas actually holds up the heavens, not the Earth.

"While there may be validity to the above quote, what are the alternatives?"

Why do you need an alternative? It's not as if it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Trust in Science as you wish, but you have to accept that Science is fallible. It is subject to the failings and biases of the humans who practice it. It is also subject to political manipulation, as appears to be the case with global warming/global climate change as it relates to political policy. Scientists whose livelihood depends on the flow of government monies, are loathe to report things that might impact that flow into their research.

"I'd still favor scientific approach instead of "giving up" because there's no way to be 100% sure."

I've not denounced the Scientific approach, nor have I advocated "giving up", and to claim so is being dishonest. What I have opposed is the political approach, propped up as it is by politically-influenced interpretations of scientific evidence, at least some of which appears to be suspect.

"Possibly throwing up hands and declaring "it's too hard" is what some may prefer."

Where have we said that? The willingness to accept fallibility is hardly the same as surrendering to failure. However, dogmatic acceptance fallible evidence is, in essence, "giving up" and admitting that thinking for oneself is too hard.

"Others may look at a consensus of scientific data and evidence and draw conclusions based on information available. Those conclusions could happen to be politically unpalatable to some and not so to others, but I guess "that's life"."

Consensus does not make fact. Fifty million Frenchman can, in fact, be wrong. You point to those who find the conclusions "politically unpalatable" and conclude they are refusing to accept it for political reasons, but seem to disregard the posibility that those who find it politically palatable may, by the same token, accept it for political rather than scientific reasons. Does it not strike you as odd that the solutions offered tend to point towards the expansion of government power, increases in taxation, and more government control over the lives of citizens and subjects?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 6:37 AM

Look at the proposed bans on trans-fats. Trans fats have been suspected to be health hazard for some time, and as a result people and food producers have reduced their prevalence in foods, and Americans consumption of trans fats has been steadily declining, voluntarily.

But voluntary changes doesn't grow government, so the FDA has moved to promote what is already happening with bans and regulations, which will grow their involvement.

Of course, it's worth noting that the move to trans fats in the 1980s stems from recommendations by the Centers for Science in the Public Interest, who thought we should move from traditions oils such as coconut oil to trans fats, a "consensus" that has been reversed in recent years.

Science, good or bad, is one thing. Public policy based on Science is quite another.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 6:48 AM

The cartoon today says all that's needed.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 8:59 AM

"I wonder if there would be such a "The Sky is Falling" panic if it were global cooling instead of global warming ."

Global cooling, as in another Ice Age, would likely be more devastating than global warming. That is because of the impact it would have on the ability to grow crops in the temperate regions, whose growing seasons would be shortened.

The vast majority of humans live in the warmest regions of Earth. Also, global warming would extend growing seasons, as well as making the possibility of growing crops in more Northerly regions likely.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 12:15 PM

The Alarmists Are About To Lose The EU

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gor...

"I shall call the following, "frackenfreude." Der Spiegel reports.

"Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

"The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.

"The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

"But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

A"t the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires ."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 1, 2014, at 8:04 AM

All you have to do is look at the independent science to see what a ruse this is. CO2 - the very air you exhale - is declared to be a pollutant.

I'm glad we didn't spend billions of taxpayer dollars on failed green initiatives in the name of "global warming" or "climate change". Whew!

Of course liberals think we have a "revenue" problem, not a spending problem.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 1, 2014, at 8:48 AM

My wife and I took a cruise in the Caribbean a couple of years ago aboard the Norwegian Spirit, which had been infected with an unknown stomach "bug" a couple of cruises prior. They were taking all the precautions: hand sanitizer being sprayed on the hands of all people entering and leaving the dining areas, staff positioned to hand out food on the buffet lines rather than having the guests serve themselves, etc. There were a couple of reported incidents despite this, but no large-scale outbreak. It was a lot of extra work for the crew, and some minor inconvenience for the guests, but it was still a great cruise.

One thing I noticed, however, was that in the ports we entered, the guests tended to ignore all the precautions taken aboard and eat at local eateries along the beach, where the water stank and the restaurant staff looked a little less trained in food handling. One port, in particular, had apparently been recently ravaged by a hurricane and the infrastructure repair was still struggling. Yet guests merrily swam in the warm gulf waters that smelled noticably of raw sewage, and dined at beachside tables whose washroom water flowed with a brownish tinge.

The ships, because of the contact among the guests, suffer from a rapid spread of these viruses, but I tend to believe (as did our Captain) that it was coming aboard from the ports.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 2, 2014, at 8:38 AM

Not sure what a six-year-old and a four-year-old were doing in the pool unsupervised, or even wandering the ship unsupervised. Someone reported that it was the adult-only pool and that it was early morning when the children were found, though that is neither of those are reported in the news stories, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt, or a shovelful, perhaps.

There are lifeguards in the kid's pools, at least on the ships I've traveled, though there are times when they don't. Even so, it remains the parents' responsibility to keep watch on the children.

The adult pools are not generally provided with lifeguards, and they have signs to that effect.

A cruise ship is like a floating city, and I can't imagine allowing a six-year-old and a four-year-old being allowed to run around a city unsupervised, either. But not everyone raises their children by the same rules.

My condolences to the family or families involved.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 4, 2014, at 10:44 AM

"I'm thinking these kids didn't drown..."

I've no reason to doubt the reports. I've been on enough cruises to know that some parents let their guard down when on such trips, and that children tend to regard the ship is one large playground. Many parents, I think, expect the ships' crews to serve as babysitters. While the ships do offer such services, they are not automatic and they are not usually 24/7. Nor is every crewmember a babysitter.

The pools are closed at regular intervals for cleaning and maintenance, and there are periods of time when they are simply unoccupied and unattended. The ship was off the coast of North Carolina, which was probably not very warm and thus probably unlikely to have expected many of the pools to be in use. But kids are kids and, unsupervised, will do stupid things (as will some adults), including jumping or falling into the deep end of a pool when no one is looking.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 4, 2014, at 1:30 PM

Out today. From a congressional committee meeting:

"Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate"

""There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he said.

Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a "subtropical species."

"Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science."

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/2...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM

Do you need to be a scientist to say this?

"Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science."

Pretty obvious to me.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 1:50 PM

"But by when one does say that, they are giving the impression they are a scientist."

He has a PhD in Ecology. Maybe the language problem occurred when it was translated from Canadian, eh? ;)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 2:36 PM

You don't have to be a scientist to say that. -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 1:54 PM

You believe about everything Obama says. Is he a "scientist"? Why would you believe him on global warming or climate change and the need to give $1 billion dollars for it?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 26, 2014, at 10:19 PM

"No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate..."

But there is a preponderance of scientific evidence the human activity is a clear and significant contributor to global warming. That in itself is reason to take steps to counter it, rather than burying your head in the sand and insisting that "nothing bad is happening and see how cold it is outside today."

"...it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a "subtropical species."

Who has ever said it would be "...calamitous for men..." or it would be the "end of the world?" It is still an issue that effects millions and millions of people around world, but since you're here at about 500 feet above sea level, why worry?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM

"...and I'm not worried."

Why do I have the impression that you're able to drive away from the rising sea level.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:11 AM

Wheels can still drive away because he's yet to be retested and disqualified.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:21 AM

"But there is a preponderance.....

That is typical of liberal thinking. Kind of like Dan Rather thinking when no evidence is given, countless facts are against and it still must be considered due to the seriousness of the charge.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:25 AM

Why do I have the impression that you're able to drive away from the rising sea level.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:11 AM

That was pretty good. Even Wheels had to smile at that one.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 3:43 PM

Why do you have to bring Obama into every conversation. You talk about him more than any liberal here!

-- Posted by miccheck on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:26 AM

Obama is a major factor in this conversation. He said not to build a coal fired plant because he will shut it down. The guy is a sitting president and has considerable pull.

Myself I think we are trying to make up for China's advanced contribution to world pollution. I you want to raise funds to slow pollution tax their imports and force them to so their part.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:45 PM

Another take on humans causing global warming. (Or not)

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenp...

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 8:36 PM

So say the men who put man on the moon.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Londo...

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Mar 9, 2014, at 6:44 PM

Non Governmental Organization. The UN was one if the first so named. That's scary in itself. As to China,I swear that tons of gravel I have put on my drive are showing up in Wan Hung Lo's rice paddy.

-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Apr 1, 2014, at 11:40 AM

Non-Government Organizations? Whew! I though that was the Northern Glenallen Outlaws, in which case the county might have been in trouble!

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 1, 2014, at 12:04 PM

"The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), titled "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability," says the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate. The report also concludes that there are opportunities to respnd to such risks, though the risks will be difficult to manage with high levels of warming." http://www.rttnews.com/2294914/un-report...

Maybe the British are wrong!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 9:09 AM

I agree somewhat, Diseased. Part of what we experience is simply nature. My concern in the man-made climate change.

Look at the rain forests. Almost half of the prescribed drugs that are used in the USA come from rainforest plants.

Without the rainforest to soak up rain and release it slowly, floods and droughts become more common. Does this sound familiar?

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 10:26 AM

Reasoning, It's hard to get a patent on a rainforest plant that grows naturally, that's why we have companies making drugs out of chemicals.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 10:48 AM

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/...

"The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice-covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans,lakes, and rivers), or weather. (See Figure 1.)

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (CCR-IIb), the subject of this Summary for Policymakers, examines the scientific research on the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels on the biological world (Idso et al., 2014). It finds no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health. (See Figure 2.)

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts is the second of three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Together, they represent the most comprehensive and authoritative independent review of climate science available from any source. They were commissioned and are offered as an alternative to the alarmist reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series, subtitled Physical Science, was released in September 2013. It demonstrated there is no dangerous human interference in Earth's climate. This finding by itself is logically sufficient to dismiss nearly all of the negative climate-related impacts predicted by IPCC. Nevertheless, there is a huge literature on the impacts, costs, and benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels that demonstrates climate change, whether natural or manmade, is not a crisis. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts expertly surveys that literature.

Biological Impacts broadly tracks and critiques the work of IPCC's Working Group II, which is expected to release its report on the impacts of climate change around the same time as this report is presented. It appears IPCC is continuing its pattern of selectively reporting data to present an alarmist view of the impacts of climate change."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 2:06 PM

"If they don't understand the difference between forecasting weather and forecasting climate change, they are either ignorant of what climate change is or deliberately trying to mislead."

It's still forecasting, something for which they have a poor record.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 2:07 PM

When China and India cleans up their countries and get as far as the USA has come on clean air and water programs, then I will get excited - until then I'm against anything that will cost the American taxpayers while China and India keeps stealing our jobs.

-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 8:18 PM

Semo474, I think we agree as I have no problem buying quality goods from China or India as long as they are buying the same from our country.

History tells me we have most always been able to out-produce those folks until now. We are reaching a point of risk as we follow the Forward banner of the Progressive Movement towards a compromise of rights and freedoms to appease a world wide liberal agenda.

Our government representatives are more about representing themselves than us and society has succeeded in giving it's self over to the propaganda of liberalism resulting in a generation of government educated to government standards voting citizens.

Clean air, water and preservation of our environment should be considered without the propaganda of some consortium of pending financial gain with power in mind.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 9:15 PM

"The human impact on global climate is small". I so disagree with this small statement.

Mankind is directly responsible for the ruination and destruction of the rainforests. "Massive deforestation brings with it many ugly consequences-air and water pollution, soil erosion, malaria epidemics, the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the eviction and decimation of indigenous Indian tribes, and the loss of biodiversity through extinction of plants and animals. Fewer rainforests mean less rain, less oxygen for us to breathe, and an increased threat from global warming. "

It matters!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Apr 2, 2014, at 9:26 PM

Malaria deaths are increasing because microbes reproduce at amazing rates, and the medicines used to treat the disease quickly become ineffective.

'Plant based compounds, due to the complexity of their molecular structures, do not allow the development of resistance and because of this the same herbs have been used over thousands of years.'

Where do these plant herbs grow?

20% of oxygen is produced from the rainforest.

Humans are the main cause of rainforest destruction. We are cutting down rainforests for many reasons, including:

wood for both timber and making fires;

agriculture for both small and large farms;

grazing land for cattle;

pulp for making paper;

road construction; and

extraction of minerals and energy.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 6:10 AM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 6:10 AM

Reason: Why not go down to where the rain forests are and protest down there and not here on S.O. BTW, also go to China and India and see why they are polluting the air and water and see where that gets you.

-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Apr 3, 2014, at 7:56 AM

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fed-repor... "this version has been reviewed by more scientists, including twice by the National Academy of Sciences which called it "reasonable," and "a valuable resource."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is much more alarming than refurbished camps in Missouri.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 6:00 AM

It is certainly warranted to be skeptical. This is cut and dry. It is what it is. You can argue about cause, but it definitely is happening, and it needs to be acknowledged.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 7:53 AM

"Climate Change is happening."

It has always been happening. There has never been an extended period of time in the history of this planet when it has not been happening.

"Climate Change affects us all."

Yep. We all live in the climate. It affects us.

My bubble is not burst, since I had no bubble to burst.

As I've quoted elsewhere: "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet,..." These government reports always come up with the same solution: More power for them, less freedom for us. When has a government programme, designed to deal with a problem, ever actually solved the problem they were set up to deal with? When has a government agency, set up to deal with a problem, ever closed their doors when the problem was fixed? It seems to me they always declare the problem "worse than we anticipated" and demand more funding and more power to deal with it.

Fifty years after the war on poverty, the poor are still poor. After decades of fighting a war on drugs, the drugs are still among us. The government established affirmative action to resolve racial tensions and discrimination, and racial tensions and discrimination are still with us (entrenched, in fact, within the programmes set up to resolve them). We still have troops in Germany and Japan seventy years after World War II ended. Fifty years after Medicare and Medicaid were established to "make health care more affordable for more people", the government is trying to make health care more affordable for more people.

It has been said before: put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert and there will be shortage of sand.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 8:05 AM

Fifty years after the war on poverty, the poor are still poor-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 8:05 AM

If I may - fifty years after the war on poverty, the poor are even poorer.

:-)

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, May 7, 2014, at 8:41 AM

Strong move. Maybe it isn't about politics, but doing the "right" thing!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, May 8, 2014, at 12:29 PM

"What bothers me is the Congress will have no input...again...it's a one man show of their ideology only..."

Government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats. Welcome to the new America.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, May 8, 2014, at 12:42 PM

¡®Climate Hustle¡¯ or ¡®American Doomsday¡¯?! Obama climate report panned by scientists ¨C ¡®Pseudoscience¡¯ ¡®sales pitch¡¯ ¡®follow the money¡¯ ¡®total distortion¡¯ ¡®false premise¡¯ ¡®outdated & wrong¡¯ ¡®failure¡¯

Heartland Institute's James Taylor: Obama climate report exposed: ¡®Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature¡¯

Prominent scientist reverses belief in AGW: ¡®One of the most eminent climate scientists, the Swede Lennart Bengtsson, has defected to the camp of climate skeptics¡¯ - Bengtsson¡¯s conclusion: 'It would be wrong to conclude from the IPCC report and similar reports that the science is settled.'

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. denounces ¡®failure¡¯ of new Fed Report: ¡®That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naive or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal¡¯

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips Obama climate report for ¡®false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW. Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama admin.¡¯

1974 State Of The Climate Report '1974 climate report said that global cooling was going to cause floods, famines, extreme weather, and would kill us all.'

CEI's Marlo Lewis: Obama Climate Report ¡®designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes¡¯

Meteorologist Anthony Watts: Report ¡®looks more like a glossy sales pitch from a company that is pushing a product they know people may not need¡¯

Physicist: ¡®Another work of science fiction has been produced by global warming alarmist ¡®scientists¡¯

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer pans ¨C ¡®Follow the money¡¯ - Part of report ¡®is just simply made up¡¯ ¨C ¡®There is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change¡¯

Climatologists: PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS: 'The idea that human-caused global warming is going to increase heat-related mortality is simply outdated and wrong. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case¡ªthat is, a warming climate will decrease the population¡¯s sensitivity to heat events as it induces adaptation.'

Meteorologist Joe D¡¯Aleo Rips New Alarmist Report: ¡®Get ready for more Junk Science from the highly paid Obama psuedo scientists this week'

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. on new fed report: Claim: ¡®Risks associated with extreme events like hurricanes are increasing¡¯ ¨C Pielke Jr. Rebuttal: ¡®Actually: US hurricane landfalls have decreased by ~25% since 1900¡ä

Climatologist Dr. John Christy: Obama¡¯s climate report ¡®does not bring out in clear view for the public to see how poorly climate models have performed¡¯

Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report:¡¯600 page litany of doom¡¯: - A ¡®total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk¡¯

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/c...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 4:23 PM

"Worse yet is the spin..."

Funny you didn't continue with more astute observations.

"Krauthammer: Global Warming 'Oldest Superstition Around,' 'The Rain Dance Of Native Americans' -- 'Ultimately what we're talking about here is human sin with pollution of carbon. It's the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament. It's in the rain dance of Native Americans. If you sin, the skies will not cooperate. This is quite superstitious and I am waiting for science which doesn't declare itself definitive but it otherwise convincing."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 10:12 PM

Or I could have noted Harry Reid,s fixation on the Koch Brothers as the main cause of global warming.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/ha...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 10:20 PM

They all know a lot more than you do, Ike?

-- Posted by RELee on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 12:48 PM

"What do most, if not all, of those scientists have in common?"

They're not buying the Snake Oil the Obama administration is selling.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 3:07 PM

Why would these "scientists" be more knowledgeable than the thousands that have defined the problem accurately?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 4:57 PM

Why would these "scientists" be more knowledgeable than the thousands that have defined the problem accurately? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 4:57 PM

The ones who proclaimed "global cooling" was imminent in peer reviewed articles just 30 years ago? And now proclaim "global warming/climate change" today?

They have credibility to you for one reason - they fit your agenda of raising more taxes and money. It's a pattern with you.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 5:37 PM

"...of those scientists have in common?"

They're looking for jobs on Fox stations.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 5:59 PM

They're looking for jobs on Fox stations. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 5:59 PM

Pretty much condenses the depth of your critical analysis. Empty.

All-things-Obama.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 7:55 PM

I would suspect that some of them might be but it wouldn't matter. The push for acceptance of global warming/climate change caused by humans is a religion - not a science. But to convince people they use "peer reviewed" and "widely accepted" by provided articles and a list of scientists and climatologists.

Thet were wrong then, and they are wrong now re: anthropogenic global warming.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:16 AM

The same scientists? All of them? Amazing. Got some links to support this? -- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:17 AM

I would suspect that some of them might be but it wouldn't matter. -- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:16 AM

Comprehension issues today? Or just "cranky when someone questions you"?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:20 AM

-- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:23 AM

but it wouldn't matter. -- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:16 AM

And you're a science source simply because you're a jerk? I'll take my review of material over yours any day. While you were sucking on the global cooling teet you were found to be wrong then. And your wrong now. Just like this gem:

"The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign" - Jay/Ike/Spaniard/dugtard/dratgud

And you want to be my latex salesman? Ha!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:28 AM

"All-things-Obama."

Pretty much condenses the depth of your critical analysis. Empty.

It is indeed a shame that in addition to being obsessed with the President, you've got zero sense of humor.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:35 AM

-- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:32 AM

It's common culture outside your apartment. Some will get it, some won't. Google it.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:35 AM

Dratgud: Every day the sun comes up then later goes down, some days are warm some days are cool, some days are clear some days are cloudy....my point is that you can't control mother nature and she will do what she wants to do. I will favor a carbon tax when China and India meets todays air and water standards that the USA meets today. They have the money since they have American jobs that went to both countries. Until then stay out of my pocket.

-- Posted by semo471 on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:37 AM

I picture Jay/Ike/Spaniard/dugtard/dratgud/??? as uninformed old coot who makes up stuff (lies) and then gets cranky when you call him on it, like this whopper he ran from...

"The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign." or makes up stuff like this: "Prior to Jonas Salk, other doctors researching the polio vaccine got it wrong, therefore Salk got it wrong." and attribute it to others.

He says he would show me his proof but I would just dismiss them as make believe laws, or something. Dishonest and delusional.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:37 AM

-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:39 AM

dratgud's 8:31 post was ad hominem. Of course you don't know what that means.

This is great. I've got common - miccheck - jay/ike/spaniard/dugtard/dratgud all riled up over global warming!

You far left libs are too easy and sensitive. I'll give you credit for supporting your agenda to the death. Despite the evidence.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:45 AM

"James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, focusing on energy and environment issues."

"Marc Morano is founder of Climate Depot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow."

"John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record."

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee."

"Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish meteorologist. He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading. In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction."

"Dr David Kear has a background in geology and engineering, becoming the Director General of the DSIR in 1980. He is a Fellow and Past Vice-President of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Past President of the New Zealand Geological Society. Dr Kear has over 100 publications on New Zealand and Pacific geology, vulcanology and mineral resources."

"John Paul Holdren is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

"Willard Anthony Watts is an American meteorologist (AMS seal holder, certification retired by AMS), president of IntelliWeather Inc., editor of the blog, Watts Up With That?, and founder of the Surface Stations Project, a volunteer initiative to document the set up and maintenance of weather stations across the United States."

"Roger A. Pielke, Sr. is an American meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean -- atmosphere interactions, and large eddy/turbulent boundary layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also investigates on the global, regional, and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher."

"Patrick J. Michaels is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980."

"Chip Knappenberger is the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, and coordinates the scientific and outreach activities for the Center. He has over 20 years of experience in climate research and public outreach, including 10 years with the Virginia State Climatology Office and 15 years as the Research Coordinator for New Hope Environmental Services, Inc. Chip has published numerous papers in the major atmospheric science journals on global warming, hurricanes, precipitation changes, weather and mortality, and Greenland ice melt, among many other areas, and is a very popular presenter at climate conferences worldwide. He was also the administrator and a major contributor to World Climate Report,the original (and longest-running) blog on earth on climate change. He holds an M.S. and B.A. degrees in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia."

"Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writing on global warming, energy policy, and public policy issues. Marlo has been published in The Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, TechCentralStation, National Review, and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy. He has appeared on various television and radio programs, and his ideas have been featured in radio commentary by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. Prior to joining CEI in 2002, he served as Director of External Relations at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, California. During the 106th Congress, Marlo served as Staff Director of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. Marlo has also served as Research Director for the grassroots organization, Citizens Against Government Waste. Earlier, he was a Staff Consultant to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, a Special Assistant at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs and Bureau of International Organization Affairs, and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at Claremont McKenna College. He holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and a B.A. in Political Science from Claremont McKenna College. His interests include the science, economics, and politics of global warming policy; the precautionary principle; environmentalism and religion; and the moral basis of free enterprise."

"Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."

"Joseph D'Aleo is a Certified Consultant meteorologist and the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel.[1] He was chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D'Aleo was the founder and is the Executive Director at Icecap website. D'Aleo has been a contributing meteorologist to the Old Farmer's Almanac in which he predicted in 2008 that the earth had entered a period of global cooling."

"John Coleman is an American TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel. He has retired from broadcasting after nearly 61 years, working the last twenty at KUSI-TV in San Diego."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:47 AM

Plus, it's REALLY annoying when you c/p quotes from discussions months (or even years) ago. -- Posted by miccheck on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:39 AM

If it annoys you, it must be good. Despite your mental state in which you think you run SO, you don't. If "annoying" were a reason to stop then you should have quit the day you started.

Why don't you use your "delete the post" option like you're constantly doing? If it annoys miccheck, it must be deleted right?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:51 AM

You attempted to attack my character by fabricating and intentionally misattributing a quote that I never made.

Ad hominem. Apparently you don't know what it means.

Go.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 12:31 PM

and Sarah Palin.

-- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 12:30 PM

Is this the same Sarah Palin you call and idiot all the time?

You'll do anything to score a point won't you? This is your source for AGW?

Or as you said earlier:

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. Therefore since Sarah Palin is right there, she's right all the time"

- Jay/Ike/Spaniard/dugtard/dratgud

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 12:34 PM

-- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 12:33 PM

Must be lunch time at the asylum. Nice to see you're getting more free time to post. I miss your angry, Obama-loving posts. You're too much fun!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 12:40 PM

"And they all accept the science of AGW, just in varying degrees. Just like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin."

So?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 1:45 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/wh...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:04 PM

"Just pointing out what your panel of climate scientists have in common."

From what I have read, most agree with the science of global warming, but are less receptive to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:05 PM

"... less receptive to the idea of anthropogenic global warming."

Many are not just "less receptive" but absolutely refuse to believe that man has a capability to effect the atmosphere.

But if you back to the 30's and 40's, Los Angeles had clean air. In the 50's and 60's they had smog. Now it's comparatively clean again.

Beijing is going through the same cycle of massive air pollution that effects most of China.

The lesson is that we are fully capable of messing up the air and of cleaning it up again.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:31 PM

"Many are not just "less receptive" but absolutely refuse to believe that man has a capability to effect the atmosphere."

I have not read anything from any of those sources that suggests they do not recognize that man is capable of "messing up the air and of cleaning it up again". They do, however, question whether the impact of that pollution is sufficient to cause climate change on a global scale.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:39 PM

As Mr. Watt says:

"Given that "causes of the earlier warming are less clear", our understanding of Earth's climate system is rudimentary at best, and our historical record is laughably brief, it is confounding how the IPCC can be so "extremely" sure "that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century", which is "not statistically significantly different" from the natural warming that occurred between 1910 -- 1940."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:44 PM

He may believe that it is "...not statistically significantly different..." from the number of years included, but global population has increased significantly and industrialization with its increasing levels of waste products have had a significant increase. Whereas we used to lead the pack, we now have all kinds of help from China and India.

In the first half of the 20th century the population grew by a billion, from about 1.5 to 2.5. In the second half it increased to about 6 billion. I would suggest that those numbers are significant.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 3:15 PM

What he shows, if you read the link, is that the increase in CO2 emissions were statistically insignificant before 1950, but that global temperatures rose alarmingly between 1910 and 1940. Nor did the temperature rise rapidly once CO2 emissions became "statistically significant", as the "alarming rise" began about 1976, and leveled off about 17 years ago.

But, two significant facts toss a wrench in the anthropogenic CO2/global warming connection: First, the rise between 1976 and 1998 was not significantly different than the increase between 1910 and 1940, when CO2 emissions were not statistically significant. And, according the data, the CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2010 were greater than at any point in history, and yet there was no net warming during that time.

Thus, the connection between CO2 emissions and global warming appear strained, or so Mr. Watts appears to argue.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 3:23 PM

"In the first half of the 20th century the population grew by a billion, from about 1.5 to 2.5. In the second half it increased to about 6 billion. I would suggest that those numbers are significant."

Who says they aren't? Besides Lyndon LaRouche's followers, I mean?

Are you now advocating for population control?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 3:27 PM

In the 50's and 60's they had smog. Now it's comparatively clean again. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 2:31 PM

Ahhh.... I get to quote you right back to yourself.

Some people don't know the difference between "climate change" and pollution. Are you that dense? Or just that partisan?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 7:24 PM

Hey look there's a blog that agrees with me! Science! -- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 7:30 PM

Hey - look who bought the IPCC "climate experts"! Jay/Ike/Spaniard/dugtard/dratgud has been pimping all the experts that are member of the IPCC. And he bought this bogus claim in their 2007 report hook, line, sinker! Science! The experts!

"The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded."

And you want to be my latex salesman? Ha!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 7:38 PM

It sucks to be constantly corrected eh Spaniard? You've been pushing and arguing "IPCC, IPCC" for years - the so-called "experts".

Then you attack anyone who disagrees with the IPCC. But the IPPC is wrong! You have no business posting things like:

"Hey look there's a blog that agrees with me! Science!".

You have no credibility here. You and miccheck are obsessed with defining what is/isn't acceptable. It's funny.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:38 PM

And what part of Mr. Watts' comments are you debating, or are you simply dismissing him out-of-hand because he is "just a Meteorologist"?

What were Al Gore's credentials again?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM

What were Al Gore's credentials again?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM

Are you trying to deflect attention?

"The length of the ragweed pollen season, in particular, increased in central North America by as much as 27 days between 1995 and 2011", a consequence of global warming? Try not to sneeze as you deny!http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/05/12/nothing-to-sneeze-at-global-warmings-health-impacts

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 9:06 PM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 9:06 PM

To quote commonsense - "Some people don't know the difference between climate change and ragweed pollen".

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 9:10 PM

Hey look there's a blog that agrees with me! -- Posted by Dratgud on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 7:30 PM

LOL -- Posted by Dratgud on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 5:54 PM

====

Looks like Jay/Ike/Spaniard/dugtard/dragtud found a blog that agrees with him. LOL!

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 6:30 PM

The more I feed the barn cats the fatter the 'possums get.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 10:09 PM

A colorful post BC, but I am basing my opinion on fact. Perhaps the suicide rate is because of malfunctioning air conditioners!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 5:59 AM

Wheels: I go by the Old Farmers Almanac, it reported for our area the winter of 13-14 was going to be colder and wetter than normal. They were right on. Also, Phil did say it was going to be 6 more weeks of winter and boy was it ever.

-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM

BC, I think it depends on how many scientists walked to school or carried their lunch uphill in the mud or snow both ways.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 11:09 AM

"Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide."

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effec...

He never said he was guessing BC.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 12:14 PM

Reason: Don't believe we have SEMO warming today.

-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 1:24 PM

BC - an excellent article today. A world-renowned climate scientist joined a climate change group and because he didn't agree with them he was treated horribly. Most notably by US scientists. It is a religion. Great article and another view from the "tolerant" liberals and neutral (sarcasm) climatologists who welcome research into the possibilities (heavy sarcasm). Here is the story:

"A leading climate scientist has resigned from the advisory board of a think-tank after being subjected to what he described as "McCarthy"-style pressure from fellow academics.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down from the Global Warming Policy Foundation's academic advisory council.

He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former chancellor of the exchequer who founded the think-tank because of his belief that the risk from global warming has been exaggerated, condemned the treatment of Professor Bengtsson.

In a letter to him yesterday, Lord Lawson wrote: "I fully understand your reason; but it is an appalling state of affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted."

Professor Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and author of more than 200 papers, accepted an invitation to join the council less than three weeks ago. His decision significantly enhanced the credibility of the foundation, which announced that "one of Sweden's leading climate scientists" had joined its council.

Professor Bengtsson wrote in his resignation letter: "I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy."

He told The Times that the strongest opposition had come from the US. "It was the climate science community in the US which took this very negatively. I think the reason is the very loaded atmosphere in the US... they would like to do something very substantial about climate change."

http://www.thegwpf.org/professor-bengtss...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, May 14, 2014, at 10:00 PM

"There is no way of knowing what man's impact is on climate change, so..."

it's best to put our collective heads into the sand and deny, deny, deny...

How is it that, supposedly, there "...is no way of knowing..." when the sum total of emissions from man-made activities (vehicles, engines, power plants, industries, etc.) can be relatively accurately calculated.

That is the impact. And warming is occurring. If we ignore it, it will go away.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, May 15, 2014, at 6:59 AM

"How is it that, supposedly, there "...is no way of knowing..." when the sum total of emissions from man-made activities (vehicles, engines, power plants, industries, etc.) can be relatively accurately calculated"-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, May 15, 2014, at 6:59 AM

and the correlation is near zero for increased emissions and global warming. Keep that head in the sand common. Some day you'll get your much desired "Obamawarming" taxes to take over the US economy so he and Al Gore can fly around the planet.

To coin a campaign slogan - "It's the sun stupid" - not AGW.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, May 15, 2014, at 7:15 AM

That is the impact. And warming is occurring. If we ignore it, it will go away.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, May 15, 2014, at 6:59 AM

common: The USA has done more than there part in cleaning up the planet, now it's China and India's time to help in the clean up....till then the USA should not tax the citizens for the other countries pollution.

-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, May 15, 2014, at 9:42 AM

Rick, use the thinner thread. Easier to thread the needle. :-)

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, May 22, 2014, at 2:26 PM

Deadly diseases lurking in U.S. waters

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/...

-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 17, 2014, at 12:08 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.