Global Warming My Foot!

check out the Report from Iron Mountain.

Back in 1966 they stated they would use environmentalism as a way to control the world when a new world order was enacted...as war is always needed to control the masses.

the thought about aliens also....but it had to be a "credible" threat,

its all in writing....1966

5 votes

#1.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:28 PM EST

Mr. Roger Rabbit

I don't know if I believe in Global Warming, but I sure as hell don't believe that humans caused it.

4 votes

#1.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:34 PM EST

Study: Climate Change Risks Nat'l Security

Why are people complaining about global-warming nowadays?

I wonder...

Could it be that extreme weather events are increasing? Now I don't expect you to take a scientist's word for that (we're all too busy perpetuating the hoax), but maybe a major corporation saying it will be convincing:

Munich Re -Frequency of Extreme Weather Events Tripled in Last 30 years

There is no doubt in the mind of major reinsurance company Munich Re that climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of extreme weather events and that this will have a major impact on the insurance industry.

Not convinced yet? How about the Pentagon?

We will pay for this one way or another," wrote Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command.

"We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.

There will be a human toll."

Still not sure? Let's take a visit to Middle America - you know, the Real America. Surely, they'll know the truth:

American farmers rethink their ways in the face of climate change

A recent survey of more than a thousand Iowa farmers found that two-thirds believe climate change is real. And 60 percent feel they should take additional steps to protect their soil.

City planners, state governors (even Republicans!), the transportation industry, the Army Corps of Engineers - I have links for them, and many more.

Can't people see that the whole thing is one gigantic fairy tale story?

Who told the pine bark beetles?

Global-warming is a well-constructed-scheme made up by the powerful elite in order to subjugate nations into forming the new world order.

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they're right. This whole 'New World Order' is The Elders Of Zion Part 2. Sheesh.

Besides, even if it were true, look on the bright side, we would finally be able to colonize the last frontier: Outer space!

You must be a member of the 0.0001% Club, Big Brother. No one else will be on that spaceship.

Seriously, it's time to stop denying the facts - the scientific facts. At no time in the history of the planet has atmospheric CO2 risen this fast. We are in uncharted territory, and the climate is changing so fast now that everyone on this thread will be able to see it happen before their very eyes.

Really.

7 votes

#1.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:26 PM EST

Mr. Roger Rabbit

Ahhh, you again - I checked with my MIT source about the Vostok chart I showed you, and they confirmed that there appears to be a natural cyclic process, that has nothing to do with human activity, so until the nature of this all-natural process is resolved it is premature to discuss the man-made portion of the Global Warming. BTW the same source at MIT pointed out that NASA satellite data indicated no change at all in the past 10 years.

Interestengly enough - Canada pulled out of Kyoto, because they decided it is stupid and detrimental to their economy. But who cares about what the Canadians, Russians, Chinese, UN, etc... think - the most importnant thing here, is to repeat the mantra. How it goes:

om mani padme hum

global warming doom and gloom

om mani padme hum

global warming doom and gloom

4 votes

#1.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:38 PM EST

I checked with my MIT source about the Vostok chart I showed you, and they confirmed that there appears to be a natural cyclic process, that has nothing to do with human activity, so until the nature of this all-natural process is resolved it is premature to discuss the man-made portion of the Global Warming.

The natural cycle you're referring to, Mr. RR, is the Milankovitch Cycle. It's driven this planet into and back out of Ice Ages, with a period of approximately 100,000 years (see the peaks in the Vostok cores) for eons. And during all those cold/warm periods, atmospheric CO2 levels never rose above 300 ppm.

Today, they're at 392 ppm - a level not seen in 15 million years. And it's directly attributable to human activity.

Interestengly enough - Canada pulled out of Kyoto, because they decided it is stupid and detrimental to their economy.

Canada pulled out because, after Dec. 31 of this year, they are subject to fines for failing to meet the goals set by the Kyoto Treaty.

First, can Canada withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, and why is December, 2011 an important date?

There is a provision for formal withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, in Article 27, which states that Canada has to give one year’s notice, in writing, to withdraw.

As a result of this notice requirement, the window for withdrawal closes on Dec. 31 of this year. Canada’s Kyoto obligations cover the years 2008-2012, so withdrawal would only be meaningful if it were initiated before the end of December, 2011, so as to take effect before the end of our compliance period.

Second, does withdrawal from Kyoto imply that Canada is withdrawing from the United Nations process for negotiation of a global climate change agreement?

No. Article 27 of the Kyoto Protocol also states that, “any Party that withdraws from the (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCC) shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Protocol,” but not vice versa. By withdrawing from Kyoto, Canada would not be withdrawing from the international process for negotiating a global climate change accord. Withdrawal would not affect requirements for annual emissions inventory reporting under the UNFCC.

Finally, what are the penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto, should Canada choose not to withdraw?

This document (credit to Craig McInnes at the Vancouver Sun for the link) outlines the process.

Briefly, a country can only be found to be in non-compliance after a review of emissions inventory data takes place. This will happen after Canada submits its final inventory report in 2014 (covering emissions through the year 2012).

In its latest filing under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the Federal Government estimates that Canada will exceed its Kyoto target of 558Mt/yr by an average of 161 Mt/yr, or 28.8 per cent.

Assuming this proves accurate, Canada would be given 100 days after the 2014 review of our emissions inventories to buy international credits to make up the 805 Mt shortfall -- this potential for compliance through permit purchases is behind statements like this one assessing Canada’s Kyoto Debt at up to $19-billion.

4 votes

#1.5 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:23 AM EST

Miss_Diagnosed

Even if you dont believe in global warming... is there something wrong with having the personal responsibility to ensure that your impact on the cleanliness of the air, water and soil around you is as minimal as possible?

Come on, let's use a little common sense... is fracking and potentially destroying the water table really worth the short term amount of money it gets us because we are too damn lazy to figure out a better way to subsist on the resources we have?

Is driving a huge car that emits tons of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrates really worth the smog and nasty air that rains down on the earth to get into the plants that grow our food and the water that we have to drink?

Are you really too damn lazy to put a plastic bottle in the recyling bin instead of in the landfill? When people ask about personal responsibility in regards to the economic status of the US today... I have to wonder if the tunnel vision is just that narrow.

Freedom of choice doesnt mean reckless choices are okay... come on people... use some sense.

1 vote

#1.6 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:56 PM EST

WTF-Really

Nice job showing absolutely no proof to your claims

8 votes

#2 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:50 PM EST

Grisham

Wow, what a waste of time article. No proof, just blah, blah, blah....

6 votes

#3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:51 PM EST

brimfulofasha

Let me tell you sonny, I used to walk to school in 5 feet of snow wearing only canvass sneakers! I mean I use to walk 5 miles to school! I mean sometimes I had to take my coat off cuz it got hot! Then it'd get cold again! WTF? So, so, I'll vote Democrat cuz they talk about the climate/weather like that! Yea! 99% S-T-U-P-I-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 vote

#4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:17 PM EST

Dineysh

Global Warming My Foot!

Too blunt a statement!

1 vote

#5 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:59 AM EST

There is absolutely no credible scientific support for the AGW claim.

Not only that, both the lies that the IPCC has been spewing out for years and the IPCC itself are now completely discredited.

e.g. a recent study has shown to be false the IPCC's claimed stable of world-renowned climate experts that they say scrutinizes each piece of research and each claim and recommendation that the IPCC vomits up.

Rather, many of their so-called scientific sources were ordinary newspaper and other media stories, not peer reviewed scientific studies, and many of their "scientists" are actually undergraduates randomly throwing sh*t together like the famous million monkeys in a room with typwriters potentially writing a Shakespear play.

The entire AGW scam boils down to justifying a global "carbon tax" to fund an anti-democratic imposed supranationational government that will, like the WTO, the BIS, the IMF, the WHO -- all of which are owned and operated by either the Rockefeller or the Rothschild families -- further demean and cotinue to make impotent national governments elected by and for national populations.

1 vote

#6 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:01 AM EST

see

report from Iron Mountain.

2 votes

#6.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:16 AM EST

And researchers in China, Canada, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Kenya, Vietnam, Japan, Peru, Argentina, America, etc, are all in on the scam?

If you are so enthralled by sources, why don't you cite some of these supposed non-peer reviewed papers supposedly forming the backbone of the IPCC report?

For the record you left out the influence of the squiggly lightbulb cartel!

2 votes

#6.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:20 PM EST

Many of us accept that the climate is changing, it's always changing, we just do not fully agree with the apparent agenda of those screaming the loudest. Science will tell you that the temperature on the moon as well as mars is rising too. Does that count for anything?

1 vote

#6.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:49 PM EST

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7031403/UN-climate-panel-admits-mistake-over-Himalayan-glacier-melting.html

radagast:

And researchers in China, Canada, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Kenya, Vietnam, Japan, Peru, Argentina, America, etc, are all in on the scam?

They all use the IPCC's data. It is the international monopoly on "climate data" that makes the IPCC, which is a banking lobbyist outfit, so dangerous to sciecne and to geopolitics.

If you are so enthralled by sources,

That's right. I forgot.The Warmist Cult doesn't care a whole lot about sources or their credibility.

My bad.

why don't you cite some of these supposed non-peer reviewed papers supposedly forming the backbone of the IPCC report?

Well, off the top of my head, I remember the one that said the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone in the next 20 years or so. That one was from a magazine article writtten by a non-scientist journalist.

Here:

There's also a video that GOZO Unlimited recently put up of a conference in the UK in which a journalist explains supports my contention regarding the lack of scientific expertise behind the findings of the IPCC.

Of course, you'll go on defending the IPCC and the whole AGW fiction -- that's what people in cults do, they belive no matter what evidence is offered to challenge their beliefs.

But, at some point, you'll simply see the information before you in a sufficiently objective enough way that you'll start dealing with reality and data, and not faith and self-righteousness.

2 votes

#6.4 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:01 PM EST

The IPCC doesn't produce data. It collects data from other researchers around the globe and compiles it into a report. The work is done independently and the IPCC comes by it second hand. But I'm probably lying to you about easily verifiable facts.

The error about the glaciers was not a magazine article but from a research paper that was previously published. It is possible the magazine picked up on the conclusions, but it wasn't the source. Either way the error was noted shortly after the first edition of the IPCC report was published. The correction only changes the date the glacier will disappear, not the conclusion that it will disappear. This is hardly a game changer, nor is it evidence of wrong doing. But by all means blow it out of proportion since blowing tiny human errors up into conspiracies is the basis of the anti warming crowds arguments.

1 vote

#6.5 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:51 PM EST

Science will tell you that the temperature on the moon as well as mars is rising too. Does that count for anything?

Is that what science says? Since when? That is a rumor found on Youtube. There is no verifiable solar system wide increase in temperatures.

In other news the moon is in fact made of cheese - I heard that science says so.

1 vote

#6.6 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:54 PM EST

radagast:

The IPCC doesn't produce data.

Not true.

The IPCC is not supposed to produce data, but, every time it manipulates a research study or squelches information that runs contrary to its banking constituency's agenda, it is effectively producing data.

The error about the glaciers was not a magazine article but from a research paper that was previously published.

LOL!

You have no idea where that "research paper" came from, do you?

And, as I mentioned, the Himalayan glacier "mistake" is just one of many such "mistakes."

I understand that none of this will break your faith in the Warmist Cultist dogma, but there it is.

But by all means blow it out of proportion since blowing tiny human errors up into conspiracies is the basis of the anti warming crowds arguments.

The last resort of scoundrels is declaring arguments they can not reasonably counter as being "conspiracy theories," and then moving on as though they've made some kind of valid point. Of course, you haven't. You're simply running away.

Ciao.

#6.7 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:34 AM EST

radagast:

Is that what science says? Since when? That is a rumor found on Youtube. There is no verifiable solar system wide increase in temperatures.

In other news the moon is in fact made of cheese - I heard that science says so.

It is becoming clear to me that you are an empty vessel who seems to believe that simply denying something and then making some condescending comment to punctuate that denial constitutes a reasoned argument.

Of course, you're wrong.

Your posts offer nothing except blind obedience to a received "wisdom" that is incomprehnedable to you, and they indicate a debilitating lack of imagination, knowledge, insight and critical thinking on your part.

so, I'll be done with you now.

Ignored.

#6.8 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:39 AM EST

Ignored right back...gladly. I mean since you've been ignoring evidence for so long now anyway, I'm not surprised in your petulant attitude towards beings challenged.

For the record - collecting papers into a report does not create data even if you insist it does. Any and all errors in the report have been minor when compared to the overall scope and have been corrected in later editions, yet people like you still think its a conspiracy. All reports of this magnitude, pulling together the work of thousands of authors, necessarily contains errors regardless of the topic, yet you believe their is collusion. Its nothing more than wishful paranoia, why can you not see that?

You call me an empty vessel while ironically repeating nonsense that the moon and mars are heating up, in a vain attempt to blame warming on the sun, though no evidence exists to support your claim. Whose vessel is empty?

Condescension is the only response left after years of responding to the same zombie nonsense. Get a new rap and you will not hear your arguments met that way.

#6.9 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:37 PM EST

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/11/29/global-warming-on-mars-neptune-and-pluto/

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html

http://www.russiablog.org/2007/03/russian_astronomer_points_to_g.php

#6.10 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:32 AM EST

SC,

Go to your own first citation, and actually read the links for MIT, etc.

You've been hoodwinked by seoblackhat. They do that sort of thing all the time.

1 vote

#6.11 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:39 AM EST

I actually didn''t read them, just scanned them. I just did a quick search and posted the first few entries. I could easily put my hands on the one I really wanted showing the loss of the Mars ice caps..

1 vote

#6.12 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:46 AM EST

I could easily put my hands on the one I really wanted showing the loss of the Mars ice caps..

That certainly could be the case. Just go to a science source for it - I've read some interesting work going on in that area. NASA is a good one.

But the real point is this:

If other bodies in the solar system are warming, it follows logically that the sun is the source of the additional heat. There's no other nearby source that could do it.

So then, it follows that the sun is warming.

But we have satellites in space that measure Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to a very high degree of accuracy - and see no such trend.

Another huge 'tell' is the fact that if the sun were actually warming, all 140+ bodies in the solar system would be warming as well. They aren't.

But I urge you to read the links at that first source. MIT does good science.

3 votes

#6.13 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:11 PM EST

I heard this AM that a group who predicts hurricanes for the coming years, will stop the practice. They admitted that over the recent years they have been so wrong that they feel their models are no longer valid.

1 vote

#7 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:24 AM EST

mkttrdr

The earths temperatures change all the time, but use common sense-if you cut down a forest to build a city of concrete and asphalt=yes, massive amounts of energy produce heat and the area would retain the sun's heat longer thus it is warmer and warming! Just think if we had a planet of 1 billion people vs 7 billion today, it would certainly be cooler; less energy consumption and less hot air being expelled by ignorant humans! Yes the planet is warming!

Hmmm, ever heard of energy consumption or body heat? Yeah all those computers and servers are cooling the planet! What a scary bunch of dumb humans exist in this crumbling world-god save me from the dolts!

2 votes

#8 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:49 PM EST

So you're saying that the warming is from human body heat??????

-yes, god save me from the dolts!

2 votes

#8.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:22 PM EST

Campman49968

All this talk of climate change/global warming while it's proven weather modification is underway with Chemtrails evident in our skies. Base of operations for the weather modification project is located in Fargo, ND, I see chemtrails west to east over the west end of Lake Superior frequently and have many photos.

#9 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:52 PM EST

We had masses of chemtrails over nothern New England yesterday -- Tuesday December 13, 2011.

Regular folk were actually standing and staring up at them, wondering what they were.

#9.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:04 PM EST

groan.....

Is there no end to the madness?

1 vote

#9.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:23 PM EST

radagast:

groan.....

Is there no end to the madness?

What madness?

Or are you just trolling?

Thanks.

#9.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:02 PM EST

What responses are there to zombie rumors, but to groan? Chemtrails are nothing more than contrails which, in the internet age of easy video and lack of understanding, have become a catch all for conspiracies about everything from mind control to weather manipulation and the NWO.

Contrails. You can all go about your lives now.

1 vote

#9.4 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:57 PM EST

BLOGER-486140

That lunar eclipse last week must have awoken the fringers again. You accuse scientist of conspiring against the world. Scientist are the ones who publish their data and methodology for the world to scrutinize. Where is your data?. Where do scientist claim temperatures never rose of fell in the past. If you look at their data temperature do vary. Where do you get the idea the preventing Global warming will eat us 60/80 % of someone income. If you are going to accuse hard working honest men of conspiring against the world have the decency to support your own objection to their work.

Every year more climate skeptics change their mind. I guess the cabal of scientist who conspire to reveal the facts is winning.

3 votes

#10 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:56 PM EST

Thank god some sanity!!

The poll questions along with this article are poorly constructed if I am to be kind. The second one about would I be willing to give up 60-80% of my salary to combat AGW is baseless. Of course I would not want that! But can the author of that poll tell me on what factual basis the question rests? Where is it proposed that 60-80% of our salary will be taken from us? This is tinfoil hattery!

2 votes

#10.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:30 PM EST

"TKS the Engineer"

It's not Global Warming you A-hole - it's Climate Change... and no one will give up 60% of there income to some environmental regulatory agency.

And with unprecedented carbon levels in the atmosphere, disappearing glaciers, flooding islands in the indian ocean and a myriad of other factor, not including near universal agreement among scientists that climate change is real and is caused by Humans - I don't see how you could be so quick or glib to ignore the facts. Unless you just want to take what you want now and f**k the future - then your attitude makes total sense.

I live in the Mid-Atlantic of the USA... a region that over a 30+ year average gets 42-45 inches of precipitation per years. For the last several years, that number has gone up to 70+ inches, including hurricanes, tropical storms and noticeably warmer winters... All the stormwater infrastructure is based on 45 inches per year and this "new normal" of 70+ inches is really messing things up. Hopefully, this area is having a few bad years but I fear this is a new normal for our area and will have significant economic impacts over the years.

3 votes

#11 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:25 PM EST

TKS:

Apparently, you believe that, if you say things angrily enough, and you insult enough people when you say it, it magically makes what you say true.

Or, perhaps you're just a bully by nature.

Either way, what you're saying is nonsense, no matter how much you snarl when you say it.

1 vote

#11.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:08 PM EST

"TKS the Engineer"

Apparently, by simply stating that climate change is nonsense, you're automatically right. My attitude aside, you are completely wrong about this. Climate change is real and it is caused by man and it will bite us in the ass eventually

3 votes

#11.2 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:16 AM EST

TSK:

Apparently, by simply stating that climate change is nonsense, you're automatically right

If you're really an engineer, then you'll understand that the burden is on the person making the affirmative claim to support that claim, which the AGW cultists have failed to do.

And there is no burden on someone refuting the claim to support their refuatation absent being presented with any credible evidence that the claim is true. To date, no credible evidence has been offered to support the cultists' AGW claim, so, effectively, there is nothing real to refute beyond the warmist cultists' parroting of bald, fearmongering and banker-friendly claims such as:

Climate change is real and it is caused by man and it will bite us in the ass eventually.

You have absolutely no credible scientific support for this statement, and, my guess is, you know it.

But I'm certain that it won't stop you making these kinds of statements. Will it?

As for your attitude: you come across as a bully, whether you are or aren't.

1 vote

#11.3 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:19 AM EST

agree

the validity of the evidence is the same as someone handing you a pile of @!$%# and telling you it tastes like chicken.

2 votes

#11.4 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:46 PM EST

"the validity of the evidence is the same as someone handing you a pile of @!$%# and telling you it tastes like chicken."

Especially if the people you hand it to haven't the wherewithal to taste. In other words, from what I've seen this isn't about a lack of evidence it is about a lack of the ability to understand it - coupled to a healthy dose of arrogance and personal incredulity towards all things associated with higher learning.

The number one response from every AGW antagonist is "nuh uh, didn't you see the Youtube video where some guy said it was due to [insert random psuedo science and/or reference to misidentified natural occurances]?"

2 votes

#11.5 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:12 PM EST

maybe you can understand that feces tastes like chicken.....I am not going to buy it...and be the fool to take a bite.

1 vote

#11.6 - Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 AM EST

"TKS the Engineer"

You are fools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

97-98% of scientists working on climate change believe it is real and that it is being caused by man. 90% of scientists in general believe than man is causing or contributing to climate change/CO2 levels/Global warming...

You are the idiots - all of you. Bury your head in the sand and wait for the waters to rise up and drown you. Then I you might see.

Seriously, what would be the downside to working/innovating to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and develop sustainable alternatives to what we're doing now, even if it turned out to be bunk? We'd have spend resources, created jobs, invented new industries and reduced our dependence on foreign oil - Climate Change or not, we benefit more and lose less when we act like its real than we do if we ignore it and pretend it isn't happening - even if we're wrong.

1 vote

#11.7 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:39 PM EST

#11.7 reported as inflammatory.

#11.8 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:04 PM EST

upswing

and in the meantime...will continue to wait for those seas to rise...you know..the ones that supposedly going to cause our doom about 10 years ago.

of course we were supposed to starve to death from overpopulation about 30 years ago.

lol......I find this whole climate change thing quite amusing.

1 vote

#11.9 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:24 AM EST

Castor Bridge

The climate changes. Always has and always will. About 70% of the earth is covered by water. The sun is the source of earth's energy. What controls the climate? The oceans and the sun. Not a trace gas essential to life whose effect on the atmosphere is logarithmic.

From Watts Up With That: "Most of the GHG effect of CO2 is realized at the very low concentrations. The temperature response is logarithmic. With increasing concentration of CO2 you get less temperature response."

"The real question is not what would happen with less CO2, it is what will happen with more. The answer is not very much. This has been demonstrated in the lab and is why we can estimate a theoretical temperature increase of about 1.2 deg C with a DOUBLING of CO2 concentration over pre-industrial levels."

"Dr. Roy Spencer estimates it would be something closer to 0.5 deg C in reality. What’s more, this 'reality' is about 90 years away so I’m not going to worry about it. My grandparents didn’t worry about airline safety or emerging antimicrobial resistance in 1911 so I’m leaving a little extra CO2 to future generations to enjoy."

"If we leave them with a more very slightly warmer world and a more vibrant biosphere due to an atmosphere enriched with CO2 they can thank us. Until someone can prove a positive feedback with water vapor that idea will remain within the realm of mythology. You can’t claim what you can’t prove with empirical evidence."

#12 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:52 PM EST

"The temperature response is logarithmic. With increasing concentration of CO2 you get less temperature response."

I know I've mentioned this before, but please look up what the word logarithmic means.

There is very much more to the climate than the oceans and the sun Castor.

Also, a more "vibrant" atmosphere is one with more energy. How do you think the atmosphere will respond? Dr. Roy is a nutcase. To say that we shouldn't worry about things that won't happen in our lifetime is quite irresponsible. To take his words as gospel is even more irresponsible.

2 votes

#12.1 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:04 PM EST

#13 - Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:03 PM EST

I used to wonder why Greenland was white. Now I know. The Medieval Warming Period. So warm in South America the Inca moved to the mountain tops.

3 votes

#14 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:14 PM EST

The "Global Warming" folk are ignoring the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age in the 1600 to 1800s.

That always works good. Ignore the facts. Goebbels said if the government tells a lie long enough, people will believe it. Seems to be working just fine.

Dumb and Dumber are alive and well.

1 vote

#15 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:00 PM EST

The "Global Warming" folk are ignoring the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age in the 1600 to 1800s.

How do you know about the MWP and LIA, countrygirl?

Because climatologists discovered them? So you trust them to understand the past, but don't trust them when they say that the present is quite unusual?

Science is not a Chinese Menu, countrygirl. You can't just pick the parts you like. Either the scientists know what they're talking about, or they don't.

Which is it?

3 votes

#15.1 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:22 PM EST

A funny little invention called a book. Back when these things went on, people weren't into recording the pertinent information so we do it now with pollen, ice and tree ring samples, along with writings of those who were there.

I don't pick and choose. I follow the Bible and there is nothing in it that talks about the climate changing and destroying the Earth.

Our sin is doing that just fine, along with the persecution of Christians.

God will destroy His creation with fire. That will really warm things up.

1 vote

#15.2 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:07 PM EST

Modern technology works so well.

Anyhoo, I am a logical and analytical person and what I had been hearing just didn't make sense. Now that I understand the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino/La Nina and the El Nino Modoki, Arctic Oscillation and other circular vibrations and how they affect weather it makes more sense that Global Warming is a myth.

#15.3 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:15 PM EST

gordy327

I follow the Bible and there is nothing in it that talks about the climate changing and destroying the Earth.

So if it's not in the bible, it must be false? Seriously? The bible is not a meteorology book, much less a science text of any kind. Guess what, science shows climate changes with objective, empirical evidence and data, regardless of what the bible says.

God will destroy His creation with fire. That will really warm things up.

that's kind of like building a house and then burning it down. Really poor planning on god's part.

Back when these things went on, people weren't into recording the pertinent information so we do it now with pollen, ice and tree ring samples, along with writings of those who were there.

All of which is real science based around empirical evidence. Not myths and fairy tales like the bible.

, I am a logical and analytical person

no offense, but I somehow doubt that!

2 votes

#15.4 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:31 PM EST