More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

[Pete McCluskey.]

Originally Posted by Jim Craik

Here is someone who believes it, when Newt was out of politics with no axe to grind, he supported both Nancy and Al Gore.

Follow the money.

[Jeff Young]

It must take a lot of shekels to buy off 97% of all scientists:

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

Click here for an interactive graphic that shows how global warming occurs.

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

In the study, the authors wrote: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."

The study authors were William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider.

The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

[Colin Artus]

'The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center'

First of all according to NCDC data 2010 ranked 96th out of 116 years, the three hottest being 1998,2006 and 1934. This is their data ,not their hyberbolic press release. It might be added that it always used to be that 1934 was the hottest recorded but 4 seperate, retrospective 'adjustments' of the historic data gradualy pushed it down to 3rd. Is it any wonder that there is so much mistrust when even simple facts like this that can be pulled from their own published records are so often misrepresented? And yes, I am talking about the guff you regurgitate on this site.

Rant over

[Jim Craik]

Originally Posted by Jim Craik

Craig,

CBS News (article excerpts)

(CBS) President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.
Vice President Dick Cheney also leaves office amid negative perceptions, as his approval rating stands at just 13 percent

Dick Cheney could not beat anyone!


Additionally, none of the Republican candidates can beat Obama period!

The Republican field is filled with total incompetents, and you are wishing you could add evil in with the incompetents?

The Titanic sails at dawn!

[Jeff Young]

Originally Posted by sfm6s

'The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center'

First of all according to NCDC data 2010 ranked 96th out of 116 years, the three hottest being 1998,2006 and 1934. This is their data ,not their hyberbolic press release. It might be added that it always used to be that 1934 was the hottest recorded but 4 seperate, retrospective 'adjustments' of the historic data gradualy pushed it down to 3rd. Is it any wonder that there is so much mistrust when even simple facts like this that can be pulled from their own published records are so often misrepresented? And yes, I am talking about the guff you regurgitate on this site.

Rant over

Huh? From the NCDC itself, hottest years on record:

20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)



2005

0.6183

0.9593

0.4896



2010

0.6171

0.9642

0.4885



1998

0.5984

0.8320

0.5090



2003

0.5832

0.7735

0.5108



2002

0.5762

0.8318

0.4798



2006

0.5623

0.8158

0.4669



2009

0.5591

0.7595

0.4848



2007

0.5509

0.9852

0.3900



2004

0.5441

0.7115

0.4819



2001

0.5188

0.7207

0.4419



2008

0.4842

0.7801

0.3745



1997

0.4799

0.5583

0.4502



1999

0.4210

0.6759

0.3240



1995

0.4097

0.6533

0.3196



2000

0.3899

0.5174

0.3409



1990

0.3879

0.5479

0.3283



1991

0.3380

0.4087

0.3110



1988

0.3028

0.4192

0.2595



1987

0.2991

0.2959

0.3005



1994

0.2954

0.3604

0.2704



1983

0.2839

0.3715

0.2513

[Colin Artus]

Year Temperature
(deg F) Rank
Based on the
Time Period Selected
(1895-2010)* Rank
Based on the
Period of Record
(1895-2010)*
1998 55.08 116 116
2006 55.04 115 115
1934 54.83 114 114
1999 54.67 113 113
1921 54.53 112 112
2001 54.41 111 111
2007 54.38 110 110
2005 54.36 109 109
1990 54.29 108 108
1931 54.29 108 108
1953 54.16 106 106
1987 54.11 105 105
1954 54.11 105 105
1986 54.09 103 103
2003 54.02 102 102
1939 54.01 101 101
2000 54.00 100 100
2002 53.94 99 99
1938 53.94 99 99
1991 53.90 97 97
1981 53.90 97 97
2004 53.84 95 95
2010 53.76 94 94
1933 53.74 93 93
1946 53.72 92 92
1994 53.64 91 91
1900 53.53 90 90

These are yearly average temperature records not anomalies.

[Mr. Fechter]

Craik, we believe CBS, we believe because they were instrumental in the continual obstruction of what he tried to do, and is still doing as witnessed by B.O.'s use of Homeland Security.

Why B.O. hasn't even freed those poor oppressed Muslims you're so concerned about in Gitmo! Shame!


Not even NPR can carry enough water for their lost cause;

George Bush Ties Barack Obama In Public Approval: Poll : It's All Politics : NPR

[Mr. Fechter]

Hah, your precious NCDC is playing the same games as the rest of the activists;

"including ironically one by Tom Karl (1988), director of NOAA's NCDC"

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA...limategate.pdf

When you are fed bogus data, from all these "highly respected" agencies, of course you go along, but the truth is out now. Some will always deny because they are as dirty as Al Gore, others will deny because they are too embarrassed to admit their stupidity, but more and more will have to admit they were taken for a ride and acknowledge the truth.

[Terry Oxandale]

Okay....Category?..."Argument".

[Jeff Young]

Did some reading to explain the discrepancy in Colin's data, and the data I found. Data I found is worldwide, Colin's is US.

See here:

The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking third behind 2006 and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 47th).

Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 as the hottest. Right now 2010 is on track to join the top ten, which will knock 2004 off of the list.

[Cliff Beer]

Jeez guys, just take a look out your own darn window and reflect back to how weather patterns were in your own neck of the woods 20 years ago. Where I am, things are dramatically different now (colder, more rain, greater swings in temp). Or, take a look at some pics of major glaciers in your part of the world...or even just the average snow levels. Without fail you will find that the glaciers are smaller (or have disappeared), snow levels are less, and winter is shorter and warmer in the northern and southern extremes. This is undeniable. Just use your own eyes.

It's hard to suggested the scientific community hasn't generally accepted a) that climate change is here now, and rapidly accelerating, and b) that humans are the key factor. To say otherwise is to just bury your head in the sand and hope it all blows over. It ain't going to. There's going to be some amount of mass starvation, government overthrow, revolution, etc. all related to shifting economics and food availability over the next 20-50 years. Buckle up as it's going to be a bumpy ride.

[Roark_John]

Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2

Jeez guys, just take a look out your own darn window and reflect back to how weather patterns were in your own neck of the woods 20 years ago. Where I am, things are dramatically different now (colder, more rain, greater swings in temp). Or, take a look at some pics of major glaciers in your part of the world...or even just the average snow levels. Without fail you will find that the glaciers are smaller (or have disappeared), snow levels are less, and winter is shorter and warmer in the northern and southern extremes. This is undeniable. Just use your own eyes.

It's hard to suggested the scientific community hasn't generally accepted a) that climate change is here now, and rapidly accelerating, and b) that humans are the key factor. To say otherwise is to just bury your head in the sand and hope it all blows over. It ain't going to. There's going to be some amount of mass starvation, government overthrow, revolution, etc. all related to shifting economics and food availability over the next 20-50 years. Buckle up as it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I take issue with the above, written in bold.

You say it as a statement of fact, rather than as an admission of faith. Anthropogenic climate change as a belief is nothing more than neo-religion. I have no such faith, the hubris of man is unlimited.

Anybody remember those crazy "thunder lizards" that were roaming around a few hundred million to billions of years ago? Or the succession of Ice Ages that interspersed those periods of global warming? Has everyone forgotten that big ball of gas in the sky that stays lit due to fusion?

I realize that man is really good at shitting his nest, but global warming is not caused by pollution, it's caused by natural fluctuations in the sun's output...as has been proven by eons of global warming/global cooling and is written on the surface of this planet.

Blaming anything else is just a ploy to make you feel guilty for having it better than your ancestors. I for one don't plan on committing suicide or returning to living in a mud hut or freezing to death on a glacier like the mummified Cro-Magnon they found in France.

I only wish that our ancestors had figured out how to take advantage of fossil fuels and technology SOONER. We might actually have been advanced enough to stop all the petty schemes to control people, and have some measure of tracking success beyond capturing paper tokens.

Because that's ALL that this global warming/climate-change push is...propagandist crap to strip power from you and empty your pockets at the same time. Just like the hypocrite Al Gore, with his jet-setting speechifying to "save the world", the future rulers peddling this agenda are not going to give up the niceties of modern life, but they sure as hell will have the rest of us living like the cavemen/peasants that they think we deserve to be!

Consensus is NOT science, nor is climate change speculation. Hell, the fucking weather service can't even accurately product our snow/rain fall on a day-to-day basis, yet you are so eager to accept their dire predictions for impending doom as proof of our sinning...er, wait...sorry. I keep getting Christianity and Climate Change confused, there are just so many similarities.

I apologize, please continue with your sermon, Brothers of The Hypocritical Order of Do As I Say, Not As I Do. I don't see any of you educated, successful, white dudes willingly abdicating your comfy abodes or abandoning your wretched hydrocarbon burning sports cars, to live a life of pious one-with-the-earth monkdom. But don't let that stop you, Preach On...Preach On...redeem those ignorant sinners...er, polluters I mean. See? I just can't tell the difference between the yuppy doomsayers and the hellfire & brimstone bible freaks. The similarities are just too much for me to bear.

[Mr. Fechter]

John, very logical, well thought reply. The sad part is that you are trying to reason with a one trick liberal pony. Cliff is so liberal he was banned for using multiple accounts to damage his competition. ;~(

[Mr. Fechter]

Canada May Miss $6.7 Billion Carbon Offset Bill by Exiting Kyoto Protocol - Bloomberg

[Terry Oxandale]

Originally Posted by lonesomebob

John, very logical, well thought reply. The sad part is that you are trying to reason with a one trick liberal pony. Cliff is so liberal he was banned for using multiple accounts to damage his competition. ;~(

Entertaining at best...and that logical reply is based on what (other than a high-school physics course)? But if a "very logical, well thought reply" didn't convince me that the inconsistent correlations between solar variances and earth's recent climate change are tenuous at best, then the statement "...was banned for using multiple..." did for sure. That's probably one of the closest illustrations of the kind of convincing "science" being discussed, that I've ever heard.


Jeff, Cliff; Do yourselves a big favor, get out of this thread (and some others). There is no fact, opinion, or compelling argument that will ever cause some folks to stop, pause, think, synthesize, and come to a newer understanding...period. You've hit the stop!

Take care.

[Pete McCluskey.]

John thank you for your post. Terry they will never reach the stop.
Like all fanatics they cannot accept that the other side may have a point.

[Jeff Young]

That's funny. I see me, Terry, others saying hey, wait, it looks like a lot of scientists see something here, maybe we ought to pay attention to the scientific debate.

The flipside is, frankly, you and Lonesome Nutjob claiming it is a worldwide con by hundreds of thousands of scientists.

You tell me which is more "fanatical."

[Roark_John]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

That's funny. I see me, Terry, others saying hey, wait, it looks like a lot of scientists see something here, maybe we ought to pay attention to the scientific debate.

The flipside is, frankly, you and Lonesome Nutjob claiming it is a worldwide con by hundreds of thousands of scientists.

You tell me which is more "fanatical."

We have a Congress which is gridlocked due to party fanaticism. We have activist judges on the Supreme Court "interpreting" the Constitution to suit MegaCorps at the expense of the common man, due to party fanaticism. We have terrorism at both ends of the religious spectrum (both Christian & Muslim) due to fanaticism.

Why is it so impossible to think that scientists can fall sway to such manipulations as well? Frankly, I don't trust ANYBODY who's income is tied to their willingness & ability to toe the party line.

How many times do we need to have PROOF in the form of scandals like the IPCC data being manipulated, before we realize & accept that scientists are people too, therefore susceptible to coercion, fraud & fanaticism?

Scientists are people. Pseudo-science is the new leading religion, just as the Roman Catholic church was during the Dark Ages. Doesn't mean that they are any better of an example than the Inquisitors were. People often do really stupid things in large numbers. Especially when they are stuck in a circle-jerk of positive reinforcement for going along with one of the greatest intentional dupes in the history of EDUCATED men.

[Mr. Fechter]

Yeah "science" that relies on altered data to get the results they want.

How does this get you legitimate results?

[Jeff Young]

Got it. Climate science of the 21st century is like the Inquisition.

Who is getting duped again?

Good lord.