# NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...



## LadyGunSlinger (Jan 18, 2013)

Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...


You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 17, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......​


> "Hansen has been particularly critical of the coal industry, stating that coal contributes the largest percentage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
> 
> During his testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board in 2007, Hansen likened coal trains to "death trains" and asserted that these would be "no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."
> 
> *- James Hansen*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 8, 2013)

> *March 7, 2013*
> 
> *Global Temperatures*
> *Highest In 4,000 Years*​
> ...


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2013)




----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 8, 2013)

> *March 8, 2013*
> 
> *New Kind Bacterial Life;
> Antarctic Lake*​
> ...






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p35JDJLa9ec]John Carpenter's The Thing trailer (1982) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

 .  .  .  .  .  . ​


----------



## Mustang (Mar 8, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



I've read four books on global warming.  One of them was Hansen's book, _*"Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity."

*_It was the least alarmist book of the lot and, hands down, the scariest book of the bunch because he outlined the science of Earth's past, present, and future climate.  He didn't use emotional arguments.  He just spelled it all out.  I even emailed him after reading his book, and to my great surprise, he responded.  Consequently, I can ASSURE you that Hansen does NOT believe that global warming has stopped.

You see, the CO2 we put into the air today will continue to warm the planet for at least another 100 years, with much, if not most, of that heat ultimately transferred into the ocean.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2013)

*Climate Change Expectations.* It is relevant to comment on expectations about near-term climate change, especially because it seems likely that solar irradiance observations are in the process of confirming that solar irradiance has weakened modestly over the latest solar cycle. If solar irradiance were the dominant drive of climate change that most global warming contrarians believe, then *a global cooling trend might be expected.
On the contrary, however*, the continuing planetary energy imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade, suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.
The one major wild card in projections of future climate change is the unmeasured climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds. Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. The one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



I guess you forgot about natural cycles.  It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications!  Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves.  You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 8, 2013)

konradv said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> ...



Natural cycles?  Llike how the earth has been warming up since the last ice age naturally?  Meaning all this phoney outrage over 'global warming' is hysteria over something that has already happened  many times in earth's history, and none of it due to man.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2013)

theHawk said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



Natural cycles that coincide with levels of carbon in the atmosphere.  How is it that you just ignore that?


----------



## Mustang (Mar 8, 2013)

theHawk said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



Herein lies the definition of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

Please don't confuse the natural cycles of geologic time measured in millions (or at least several hundred thousand) years with the incredibly short time frame of the last 200 or so years since industrialization, when humans have been digging carbon out of the ground at an increasing rate and pumping it into the atmosphere, thereby bypassing (and essentially interfering with) the natural carbon cycle.  And keep in mind that we're doing this even as we are engaging in deforestation (a natural carbon sink) and while our population is booming, which only accelerates the process.


----------



## Misty (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't believe in man made global warming. 

Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 8, 2013)

Mustang said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



So you're denying the scientific fact that the earth has been warming up naturally for the last 10,000+ years.

Yes, it is true that the rate of acceleration of the warming has increased in the last 200 years, but that is natural as well.  The warming will continue to raise very quickly right up until the next ice age starts.

Its all happened before, and it will happen again.  Its nothing to get in a panic over.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Omg broken record.






There natural cycles and CARBON LEVELS


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 8, 2013)

Misty said:


> I don't believe in man made global warming.
> 
> Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.


Ladies and gentlemen!  If you are looking for a sterling example of specious logic, look no further than Misty's post!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 8, 2013)

NASA and Gov't statements are not "admissions", they are "truths".

Don't forget that!


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

theHawk said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



NO, you're ignoring the time course.  The warming we've been seeing over the last 100 years is unprecedented since the last Ice Age.

Global warming is epic, long-term study says - CNN.com


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

Misty said:


> I don't believe in man made global warming.
> 
> Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.



One has nothing to do with the other.  He's just reporting the science, perhaps more forcefully than others, but the facts are undeniable considering the properties of CO2 and the other GHGs.  All the deniers have is politics, because they really don't have an answer to or really understand the science.  You can argue all day about how much the temperature has actually gone up, but none of that changes the fact that, if there are more GHGs in the atmosphere, more IR will be trapped.  It's simple logic that the deniers choose to ignore, preferring to stick their heads in the sand and make fun of Gore.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 8, 2013)

Misty said:


> I don't believe in man made global warming.
> 
> Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.



Belief (or the lack of belief) in ANYTHING doesn't qualify as evidence either way, either for or against it.

Therefore, you are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish.  Alas, you will have nobody but yourself to blame if and when you find out you're wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, that's not a problem under most circumstances.  I mean, if YOU want to believe in ghosts, or spirits, whatever you want to call it, I don't really care.  Now, if you end up spending your family's birthright on gyspy fortune tellers who promise to put you in touch with your dead Pekingese dog, Scruffy, it's STILL none of my concern.

But when people who are busting at the sides with their belief that immunizations are dangerous to THEIR children's health because they've read Internet blogs about some 'possible' connection to autism and end up raising kids susceptible to diseases who are incubators for passing the diseases along to others just because they refused to get their kids inoculated, then I DO have an issue with someone's uninformed ignorant beliefs.


----------



## jwoodie (Mar 8, 2013)

The biggest problem I have with most Global Warming alarmists is that they use it to promote their left wing social/political agenda, which precludes the obvious solution of nuclear power.


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> The biggest problem I have with most Global Warming alarmists is that they use it to promote their left wing social/political agenda, which precludes the obvious solution of nuclear power.



The only safe long-term solution is fusion power.  We need to put more money into that research.

ITER - the way to new energy

Lab Breakthrough: Neutron Science for the Fusion Mission | Department of Energy


----------



## Avorysuds (Mar 8, 2013)

I tried very hard to listen to the global warming people, it's 100% pure junk science that they are quite literally making up on the spot. This is not news about the last 10 years not living up to predictions of the GW crowd, and when confronted with it they just keep talking about the future.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 8, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> The biggest problem I have with most Global Warming alarmists is that they use it to promote their left wing social/political agenda, which precludes the obvious solution of nuclear power.



Yup, that's why under Obama we're building the first nuclear plant in 40 years, dupe.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 8, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I should have said VERY little knowledge.

Oh, the panic is going to come later.  Probably decades from now, actually.

Once we reach the so-called climate 'tipping point,' assuming that we do (and I'm fairly certain we won't do what we need to do to stop it), we almost certainly won't even know it at the time.  We could very well not know it for a period of years after the fact.  But once it happens, and we know it's happened, there won't be a damn thing we can do to stop the runaway train.  There will be no emergency measure that will be able to reverse the trend.

And there are some scary trends to worry about.  Increased warming melts the permafrost on large stretches of land in northern Canada and Siberia that have OTHER, more potent greenhouse gases locked within them.  

Like methane.  Methane doesn't last as long within the atmosphere, but it's about 30 times more potent than CO2.  And once the permafrost has melted, the methane will continue to be released as previously frozen dead vegetation continues to decompose.  

And maybe, just MAYBE if you're so inclined...if you decide to do just a LITTLE bit of research on a subject you almost certainly know NOTHING about, look up clathrate hydrates or methane clathrate.  Look up where they are, why they're locked up, and what would likely happen if they're set free due to increasing warmth and chemical changes.  Then get back to everyone to reassure us with your overwhelming level of confidence based on...on...  

What was your confidence based on again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate


----------



## Mustang (Mar 8, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> The biggest problem I have with most Global Warming alarmists is that they use it to promote their left wing social/political agenda, which precludes the obvious solution of nuclear power.



Your ignorance is showing.  Hansen, as well as other scientists warning of climate change, are firm believers in the need to vastly expand the use of nuclear power.  In fact, Hansen promotes the expansion of research on 4th generation nuclear power as the wave of the future.


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> I tried very hard to listen to the global warming people, it's 100% pure junk science that they are quite literally making up on the spot. This is not news about the last 10 years not living up to predictions of the GW crowd, and when confronted with it they just keep talking about the future.



Your post tells me more about your willingness to parrot propaganda, than anything to do with AGW proponents.  Nobody's making anything up on the spot.  The IR-absorption properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well-established scientific FACT.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2013)

konradv said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> ...



The point is, if temperatures aren't going up, then where's your evidence of global warming?


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 8, 2013)

Just the hottest it's been in 4000 years. I'm sure it's nothing, despite what 100% of non bought off scientists say, dupe.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



If it were a natual cycle due to the variation of the solar cycle, the temperatures should have gone down.  It was never a straight line graph.  Apparently what this report says is where there should have been a dip, it stayed the same.  Their theory is that when/if the sun starts putting out more solar radiation the temperature will go even higher.


----------



## konradv (Mar 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



CO2 is still going up.  You got a problem with logic?  Temps go down at night, too.  Is that an indicator of an Ice Age?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 8, 2013)

Misty said:


> I don't believe in man made global warming.
> 
> Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.



I must deflect. It is unavoidable. 

Didn't the author of the above post express a belief that the murders at Sandy Hook are possibly a government conspiracy?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Imagine that CO2 levels trailing temperatre, strange.  Not really strange at all.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2013)

Can anyone who is buying the GW fear tell me what the temperature of the Earth should be?  How cold should it be?  And has it not been warmer in the past without man doing anything?  Why would we want it colder, cold kills?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Just the hottest it's been in 4000 years. I'm sure it's nothing, despite what 100% of non bought off scientists say, dupe.



Wrong, it's not the warmest it's been in 4000 years.  It was warmer just 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2013)

Freewill said:


> Imagine that CO2 levels trailing temperatre, strange.  Not really strange at all.



Jesus Christ.  Just give up folks.  Clearly time for the bar.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 8, 2013)

This is not about fear.  It is about science. 

The following link provides a response to every single claim made by those who deny the science. Not to scare you. Just asking you to use your fucking head. 

Please spend a few minutes looking over the site. 

Thanks. 

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that CO2 levels trailing temperatre, strange.  Not really strange at all.
> ...



Why do you think your graphs were not together?  I think it was done to deceive.  Everyone knows the CO2 concentration lags temperature that is not something that should surprise you.  Here is the chart together:






Here is a site that explains why:

Why does CO2 lag temperature


----------



## Freewill (Mar 8, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> This is not about fear.  It is about science.
> 
> The following link provides a response to every single claim made by those who deny the science. Not to scare you. Just asking you to use your fucking head.
> 
> ...



I looked over the link, did not find a cite of how warn, or cold, should the Earth be.  I suppose they don't suggest we go back into an ice age but where do we stop?  I assume the belief is that at one time the Earth was in natural equalibrium and if we stopped all CO2 production the Earth's temperature would go back to where it should be.  Should be relative to what?  Which of course does not explain the natural fluctuations we have seen in the past.

So the bottom line, what should the temperature of the Earth be?  I need to know so I know when I can stop worring about winters that are merely 30 degrees and not 29.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 8, 2013)

> Temperatures are rising faster today than they have at any point since at least the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, according to a new study.
> 
> The finding is based on a global reconstruction of temperature records inferred from ice cores, fossils in ocean sediments and other sources. While previous studies reached similar conclusions, they covered only about 2,000 years. The new reconstruction extends the global record through the Holocene, the most recent geologic epoch.



Source: Warming fastest since dawn of civilization, study shows - Science

You people who deny science are bona fide idiots.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 8, 2013)

Freewill said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > This is not about fear.  It is about science.
> ...



Is your motivation religious in nature? Or is it entirely political?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 8, 2013)

Freewill said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Good I've established a link between CO2 and climate.  So now it's obvious that they are intertwined.  There are some theories as to why the lag can be explained due to the records being extracted from the antarctic but those are speculative.  What isn't speculative are the few instances where CO2 has PRECEDED warming.  Including the antarctic.  One of those events is in the late pleistocene.  THEY ARE INTERTWINED.  THEY HAPPEN TOGETHER.  Your super biased site only tells half the story.

Here's an article for now from MY biased site:
RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore?s got it right.)

I read yours now read mine.

When I get back home I'll have more articles to cite I'm doing all this on an iPhone and my friends are annoyed.  Actually I can't believe I'm bothering with this right now.

I guess I need to work on finding a better black and white way of explaining to people on this site why pollution and carbon emission cannot be so easily dismissed.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 8, 2013)

Shit, this whole shooting match will be OVER before there is any appreciable problems from 'climate change'. My 'Sky Fairy' will be here shortly, just you wait and see.

GHG's are a GLOBAL problem, and until you can get China to the table there is NO POINT in cutting off our economy in the vain attempt at saving the planet. That's why the Kyoto Accords were such a waste of time.

Come back and see me when Beijing gets on board.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 9, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Your own charts show that the cooling periods happen over a long period of time, but the warming periods are very short and sudden.  They also show that even when CO2 is at high levels, the earth still goes into an ice age and the rates drop with the temperature.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 9, 2013)

Mustang said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Maybe you should do more research.  There have been times in Earth's history when there have been NO ice caps or permafrost.  And yet the Earth still went into an ice age and did just fine.

WHAT are you people afraid of?  Do you think the world is going to end just because the ice caps melt?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Global Warming -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Libs will buy anything...  even after their top "scientists" ADMIT it's a hoax...

Hint: It's all about tax and spend!!!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

The stupidity and dishonesty on these threads really takes my breath away......


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

> WHAT are you people afraid of? Do you think the world is going to end just because the ice caps melt?



No, I think the sea levels will rise. And they are rising, of course. 

And your solution is to bury your head in the sand and pretend it's all political.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Global Warming -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> 
> Libs will buy anything...  *even after their top "scientists" ADMIT it's a hoax...*
> 
> Hint: It's all about tax and spend!!!



Lie. 

You have been lied to and you don't care.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> ...



um, actually it's you who have been lied to.... Global Warming --- LMAO!!!!

Lefties are soooooooo retarded!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> The stupidity and dishonesty on these threads really takes my breath away......



a 40 years vew huh?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > WHAT are you people afraid of? Do you think the world is going to end just because the ice caps melt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have never seen a bunch of easier marks...


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation - 

How do you explain the fact that almost every conservative party and conservative government - not to mention every scientific organisation - disagrees with you. 

You know, until you extremists forget the politics and look at the science, you will never, ever understand the first thing about this topic. 

As soon as you do look seriously as the science, it ceases to be confusing or complex. 

It really is that straightforward.



> a 40 years vew huh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



Please don't be childish. It doesn't help your understanding of the topic at all. I have graphs here going back thousands of years - you'll ignore those just as well as you did the one of the last 40 years.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Obamanation -
> 
> How do you explain the fact that almost every conservative party and conservative government - not to mention every scientific organisation - disagrees with you.
> 
> ...



Yeah -- well you can drink the Kool-Aid if you like but you are just going to look stupid as the earth starts it's cooling process once again --- like EVERY time before.

It's just about control. Of course your lefties were never big on FREEDOM to start with.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> ...



That isn't a lie at all. Your own top global warming scientists admit that global warming has been overly stated, and earth warming trends are as common as earth cooling trends.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation - 

Let's stick to the topic. 

How do you explain the fact that almost every conservative party and conservative government - not to mention every scientific organisation - disagrees with you?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Obamanation -
> 
> How do you explain the fact that almost every conservative party and conservative government - not to mention every scientific organisation - disagrees with you.
> 
> ...



and they all show the exat same thing. The earth warms followed by the earth cools...

My understanding is just fine. All of the data shows that you have been fooled by people who have an interest in your votes and your money.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Obamanation -
> 
> Let's stick to the topic.
> 
> How do you explain the fact that almost every conservative party and conservative government - not to mention every scientific organisation - disagrees with you?



Even your 40 year graph shows that the warming trend has peaked and we are now starting to cool.

...and your claims about parties, and governments, and organizations is false too.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> and they all show the exat same thing. The earth warms followed by the earth cools...
> 
> My understanding is just fine. All of the data shows that you have been fooled by people who have an interest in your votes and your money.



Nonsense. 

Look, if you have 0 interest in this topic, fine, but why make up childrens stories?

Rising sea levels have nothing to do with votes and nothing to do with money. It's something you can confirm is happening in 5 minutes on google.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Even your 40 year graph shows that the warming trend has peaked and we are now starting to cool.
> 
> ...and your claims about parties, and governments, and organizations is false too.



Then why was 2010 the hottest year on record?

Why was 2012 the hottest year in American history?






Jesus wept, man, how can you be this poorly informed?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

> ...and your claims about parties, and governments, and organizations is false too.



No, it is 100% true, and there are threads on this board where I have proven it all.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

OK --- you admit that the earth will enter a cooling trend and I will admit we have been in a warming trend!!  FAIR???


----------



## editec (Mar 9, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. "It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem   ... An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway."

[50] He concludes that "present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases]. 

However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades."[50]


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obama - 

If you are not willing to take this issue seriously, there's little point discussing it.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

I am taking it seriously. Just because I have looked at the data and watched the trends and KNOW that the earth will/has entered a cooling trend already and you refuse to admit it... it doesn't mean that I don;t take it seriously. I just look at it realistically.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> I am taking it seriously. Just because I have looked at the data and watched the trends and KNOW that the earth will/has entered a cooling trend already and you refuse to admit it... it doesn't mean that I don;t take it seriously. I just look at it realistically.



Yes, it does. It means exactly that. 

Because there is no science that says that the world is entering a cooling phase. That's just nonsense. 

ALL of the science is pointing to rising temperatures, which is why ALL FIFTY of the world's 50 major scientific organisations back this position, and why every major conservative political party around the world backs this position too. 

I would be delighted to post a half-dozen studies here which back this up, but I don't believe you are interested in understanding this topic.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Here is one for you to start on:

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. 

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

It's a natural cycle


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.  When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest).  Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).


----------



## editec (Mar 9, 2013)

> It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem



I suspect the nonlinearity is part of the problem that some of us just cannot get out heads around.

Global Weirding isn't the only question where non-linearity confuses people into thinking the problem is obvious and easily understood.

We see that same sort of linear thinking in questions surrounding economics, too.

For instance, FLAT TAX advocates are attempting to apply a linear thinking solution  to a very complex non-linear  problem.

What's the old saying?

"Every simpleton has a simple solution to a complex problem...that will NOT work"​


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 9, 2013)

Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do.  I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms.  But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it. 

Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 9, 2013)

What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

hahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. (latest).



Absolute nonsense. There is not a single person on this forum who thinks that - least of all you. 

There is no science whatsoever to back up this claim. 

Why do you achieve by reducing the debate to made up fairy tales?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> GHG's are a GLOBAL problem, and until you can get China to the table there is NO POINT in cutting off our economy in the vain attempt at saving the planet. That's why the Kyoto Accords were such a waste of time.
> 
> Come back and see me when Beijing gets on board.



Anyone care to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> ...



Question for you:   what % of the  atmosphere is CO2?   What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do.  I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms.  But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.
> 
> Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.



Yes, the climate is changing,  it has always been changing since the earth was created by the big bang, God, the sun or whatever you believe created our planet.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it,  cannot stop or reverse it, and is an insignificant dot in time in the life of the planet.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish - 

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change. 

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it. 

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.
> 
> ...



I have read it.   Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles.   The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants.   Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish -
> ...



So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation?  No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



same question I asked earlier:   what % of the atmosphere is CO2?   What was that % 500, 5000, and 5,000,000 years ago?    If you cannot answer that then your theory fails.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



The important thing to know is that it's been going up since the advent of the Industrial revolution, about 30-40%.  Given the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR, what do you think is happening to that absorbed energy?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,
> 
> THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
> 
> hahahahahahaha!!!



The sky doesn't fall, fool, but can man create a very different world and cause it to change so quickly that most species of life will not be able to adapt to such rapid changes? One way to do it is to emit enough carbon dioxide quickly enough into the atmosphere that it causes the Earth to rapidly start emitting it's own carbon to the carbon cycle. There is no theory involved in this, because we can dig up the permafrost and find the organic material frozen inside it. We can find the microbes that convert that organic material to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present or methane if it isn't. We can fly over these areas, like we have done and detect the buildup of gases in remote areas as the permafrost melts. 

At some point the amount of these "natural" emissions triggered by the warming we have caused will exceed the Earth's ability to remove carbon, so carbon will increase in the atmosphere unless mankind figures out a way to remove it. There is no doubt this is happening and the uncertainty only involves at what point and at what rate will the Earth start increasing atmospheric carbon without human assistance. We already know of species adapted to cooler climates that are heading for extinction as their habitat continues to decrease and it isn't just a few of the most well known species. Scientists are warning that there is an obvious potential of creating rapid climate change that will cause mass extinction like it has in the past, but this time a supposedly intelligent being is aware of it ahead of time and is contributing to the destruction. 

Perhaps the message about Humpty Dumpty was lost on your generation, but it is possible to break something that can't be fixed.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



OK, so you can't or won't answer what % of the atmosphere is CO2.   Unless you know that answer, its a waste of time to continue.   Look it up or go away.


----------



## zeke (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do.  I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms.  But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.
> ...




Bullshit. There has never, ever, in the history of the world as we know it, been a time when trillions of pounds of oil and coal were burnt and put into the atmosphere.
Never.

And as a result of that never happening, we don't know what will ultimately happen. But so far, the trends are not looking good.

And if mans actions are so insignificent to the world, why did man find it necessary to do things like catalytic converters, smoke stack scrubbers, un leaded gas, the list goes on about the things man did do to offset the termendous amount of air pollution that was happening in the 60ties and 70 ties.

You must not be old enough to remember places like Gary IN. Or Cleveland Ohio, or Pittsburg PA or any other industrial city that used to have a haze of pollution over the city that burnt the paint off your car and caused breathing problems etc etc.

You remember those days? They were created by the very men you claim can't really effect the enviornment.

How could that be?

Or maybe you think the air in Bejing is breathable?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,
> ...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

> LONDON (Reuters) - Countries are trying to
> agree a new package of measures to stem rising greenhouse gas emissions and fund protection from droughts, floods and rising seas at U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
> The two-week negotiations, until December 9, revolve around the willingness of the world's top two emitters China and the United States to curb their emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2).
> Following are the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, by country, in 2010, according to the energy company BP.
> ...



Factbox: Carbon emissions by country | Reuters

30% of total worldwide CO2 emissions come from China and India, who both refuse to agree to ANY cuts in their emissions. (See Kyoto Accords) Their CO2 footprint is growing at better than 10% a year, with no end in sight.

What are you going to do about them, and why should we cripple OUR economy for little to no overall reduction worldwide?

Are we not broke enough YET?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yes,  I am old enough to remember those things.   you are confusing pollution with climate change.   Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.

BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Why is the absolute amount in the atmosphere important?  How much it's increased is the deciding factor.  If X amount of CO2 allows the earth to retain Y of heat, then adding more CO2 will increase Y by some factor.  The questions are, by how much and and how soon, NOT 'if'.  You obviously don't understand the basics.  I think you're the one that needs to go and study up.  Your line of argument would get you a 'F' in scientific circles.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish -
> ...



And of course the fact that virtually every scientist on earth disagrees with you only means that they are wrong and you are right. 

It's hard for me to imagine the arrogance a man has to have to claim he knows more than the American Physical Society et al. 

Really - what a child you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation?  No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!



That sentence is a perfect caricature of the idiocy of liberal understanding of how the climate works.


----------



## zeke (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Total bullshit.  Because the leadership of some organization makes some statement, it doesn't follow that the entire membership agrees with it.  Furthermore, the leadership sucks government butthole.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Yes,  I am old enough to remember those things.   you are confusing pollution with climate change.   Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.
> 
> BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.



You don't even seem to understand the argument.  Particulate pollution would actually lower temperatures by blocking sunlight.  Even if Beijing solves the particulate problem, there's still the problem of CO2 and other GHGs, which add to the energy retention of the atmosphere.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation?  No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!
> ...



You're a caricature of a knowledgeable person!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

I think this graph answers Redfish's question about CO2, by the way.






The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000&#8211;2009 and faster since then. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:      Composition of Air   -   Components & Properties of Air  -  Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"

its .039%    less than half of 1%.   

now please tell us how that tiny amount is destroying the planet.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere
> 
> Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:***** Composition of Air** -** Components & Properties of Air* -* Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"
> 
> ...



Oh my word.....THAT is your argument? Seriously?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Yes,  I am old enough to remember those things.   you are confusing pollution with climate change.   Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.
> ...



have you ever flown across the pacific or atlantic oceans?   have you ever flown across the USA?   have you ever flown across saudi arabia or russia?  I have.   Man's footprint on the earth is tiny.   

BTW,   CO2 makes up ,039% of the atmosphere.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere
> 
> Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:***** Composition of Air** -** Components & Properties of Air* -* Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"
> 
> ...



Like I said, it's known that CO2 acts as insulation, keeping the planet warmer than it would be without its presence.  Therefore the important figure is the % increase, NOT the absolute value.  You're argument makes as much sense as questioning why a few micrograms of a poison would kill a 200 lb. man.  What's important is the demonstrated effect.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere
> ...



Oh my word----YOUR argument is that the % of CO2 is being increased by the activities of man,  but you cannot provide any proof that the % is higher now than it was 500,000,000 years ago.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but unless you can get China and India on board, NOTHING we do will make a damned bit of difference!

Are we to destroy our own economy for that??


----------



## zeke (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No, it is important. You contend that man can't effect climate. Yet somehow man has the ability to effect local climate by polluting with carbon based pollutants. And it needed to be stopped. Even according to you, polution was not a good thing.

All we did in the cleanup process was remove the particulants. Just because you burn a solid or a liquid, it doesn't cease to exist. 

Where do you think those trillions of pounds of oil and coal are going? What are they doing after they become a gas?

How could burning all the oil and coal and cutting down all the forests that used to trap carbon, how do you think that could not have an effect? Water temps in the ocean are increasing. How could that not have an effect?

Do you really think that, even though we live in a closed enviornmental system, that man can't harm that system? Really?


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What it was 500,000,000 years ago is irrelevant now.  We know its effect and properties.  We know its been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  It's simple logic to infer that if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere
> ...



LOL,  you make me laugh.   you compare CO2 in the atmosphere to a drop of poison on a person,  but you cannot prove that either CO2 is an "earth poison"  or that its % has been increased by man.  

BTW,  you do know that plant life actually likes CO2 don't you?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish - 

Your theory here is not a very strong one, unfortunately, although it is an understandable error. 

Start by asking yourself how the hole in the ozone layer formed, and how it is now diminishing. 

So - can human acitivty have an impact on the atmosphere? 

Also keep in mind that humans release 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 each year.

This article might help....

http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but unless you can get China and India on board, NOTHING we do will make a damned bit of difference!
> 
> Are we to destroy our own economy for that??



No one wants to destroy the economy.  That just the deniers' Chicken Little moment.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



NO,  there is no proof that there is more CO2 today than 500,000,000 years ago.   Warming is not inevitible,  it depends on the sun.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

Why the Hell won't you enviro-Nazis address the issue of China and India?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2013)

C02 is not a good insulator 

it is highly conductive in the transfer process of heat 

which makes it a "poor" choice in the man made global warming hoax


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Why the Hell won't you enviro-Nazis address the issue of China and India?



because they, like obama,  believe that the evil USA is responsible for all of the evils in the world and those evils can only be fixed by punishing the citizens of the evil USA.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Why the Hell won't you enviro-Nazis address the issue of China and India?
> ...



And yet genuine capitalist countries are doing a roaring trade out of renewable energies - jobs and millions you Deniers apparently don't want.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Not claiming it's a poison, that's just a strawman argument.  If it hasn't been increased by man, to what do you attribute the rise since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?  Everyone knows that plants like CO2, that's another irrelevancy that leads to the deniers' alternate strawman argument that ASW proponents want to elininate all CO2.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Geez,  cleaning up pollution is the same as reversing climate change????   is that really what you believe?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...





> This massive eruptive event spanned the Permian-Triassic boundary, about 250 million years ago, and is cited as a possible cause of the Permian-Triassic extinction event.[4][5] One of the major questions is whether the Siberian Traps was directly responsible, or if it was itself caused by some other larger event, such as an asteroid impact.
> 
> This extinction event, also called the Great Dying, affected all life on Earth, and is estimated to have killed 90% of species living at the time.[6] Life on land took at least 30 million years to fully recover from the environmental disruptions which may have been caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps.[7]



Source: Siberian Traps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is evidence that the Siberian Traps caused massive ocean acidification by releasing hugh amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Why the Hell won't you enviro-Nazis address the issue of China and India?



Who said it isn't.  Don't you think it's brought up constantly on the governmental level?  The U.S. is a world leader.  On this issue we may have to lead.


----------



## lukelk (Mar 9, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?





You are a fucking fool. I don't even have words. Lgs you dumb fucking piece of shit.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Don't misunderstand me.   I am all for renewable energy,  but not at the expense of starving people by making the price of corn unaffordable for tortilla eaters.  

We have to be reasonable.   Today there is no alternative energy source that will power the millions of cars, trucks, planes, trains, homes, and businesses that are being powered by fossil fuels.

Why not concentrate of finding ways to consume fossil fuels more efficiently rather than demonizing them?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but unless you can get China and India on board, NOTHING we do will make a damned bit of difference!
> ...



Really? 
How much will it COST to reduce America's carbon emissions by 10%? 
How many coal-fired power plants do you want to close? 
How much will that raise the price of electricity?
How much will it raise the price of associated goods and services?
How many more manufacturing jobs do you want to outsource to China, who will GLADLY take them and RAISE their emissions by ANOTHER 10% per year?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today.   it made up the same % in 1900.   

your argument fails.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Why the Hell won't you enviro-Nazis address the issue of China and India?
> ...



...and HOPE that they will follow?


----------



## lukelk (Mar 9, 2013)

Also there is a 99 percent consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, yet you are willing to agree with some NASA person? This shit make me nuts, there is o debate anymore in the science community about this. It is happening and humans do have a part in it. Both are factual.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



you display the same level of ignorant arrogance on this forum that you displayed on the old AWE.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Your lie fails because there is plenty of ice in glaciers that show the percentage of CO2 in 1900 wasn't the same as today. You obviously think making up a lie matches known science. You're a fucking fool!


----------



## lukelk (Mar 9, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Yes guy you are right, republicans have been doing everything in their powers to tank the Econ. So go sit down you little boy, your opinion on this is mute because your arguments seem to be formed after you sniffed glue.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

lukelk said:


> Also there is a 99 percent consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, yet you are willing to agree with some NASA person? This shit make me nuts, there is o debate anymore in the science community about this. It is happening and humans do have a part in it. Both are factual.



actually the scientific community is divided about 50/50 on whether man has anything to do with climate change,   but there is 99% agreement on the fact that the climate of the earth has always been changing and always will be long after man's short history on the planet is over.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



no, dub.   the fucking fool is you, you were a fool on AWE and you are a fool here.   But if you have some proof on the atmospheric % of CO2 in 1900, lets see it.   also, lets see what it was in 5000BC and 500,000 BC.   There was ice in those years, right?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> lukelk said:
> 
> 
> > Also there is a 99 percent consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, yet you are willing to agree with some NASA person? This shit make me nuts, there is o debate anymore in the science community about this. It is happening and humans do have a part in it. Both are factual.
> ...



Your car changes it's direction, fool, does that mean you don't drive it?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Try looking at any data, fool! You aren't worth to the time to discuss the matter. Nothing is real to a fool like you. You have nothing but made up lies to support your nonsense.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

lukelk said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Hmmm,  since obozo has been in office what has he done to improve the economy and what statistical proof can you offer that his policies have worked?  

lower unemployment-----no
fewer in poverty-----no
fewer on foodstamps-----no
lower inflation-----no
lower gas prices----no
lower national debt----no

and BTW, no federal budget for over 4 years.   Great job, obozo,  you incompetent fraud.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



you made the claim about glacial ice proving that CO2 is higher today than in the past.   Did you make that up?   If not, lets see the proof.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > lukelk said:
> ...



Uhhhhhh,   Ok dub.   it must be time for your meds,  call the orderly,  and just relax until he gets there,  you might hurt yourself.


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > lukelk said:
> ...



Your car changes direction because you make it change direction. The earth's climate will or will not change, and there is nothing you can do aboit it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish - 

Do you honestly not realise that everything you have asserted on this thread is simply false scientifically?

A lot of the things we discuss on this board are matters of opinion - but this is not. 

Claiming that man can not have an impact on climate is simply false. Any objective scientific source will confirm this and explain why. I gave the example earlier of the ozone hole - clear proof that man can, and has, impacted the atmosphere.

I don't undersand why you would post these myths when most people are obviously far more up to speed on the topic. It just makes you look silly.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

> actually the scientific community is divided about 50/50 on whether man has anything to do with climate change



Ok, now you simply HAVE to be kidding - this is just laugh out loud funny!

Name a SINGLE major scientific body which does not accept AGW. I can list 60 that do.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I don't put up with fools like you. You said the present CO2 levels are the same as in 1900 and you need to prove that, not me. I know even those idiot sites aren't going to have even words saying something that stupid and you can't prove it. The only thing you have proven is you will say anything and treat it as a fact. You've lost all credibility just making that one statement. 

I have lists of ice cores from all over the world and the data, but I'm not going to waste my time with an idiot like you. Ice cores have rings to show annual events and can be precisely dated by traces of radiation from nuclear testing. They can be dated to the year, you fucking fool!


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> Do you honestly not realise that everything you have asserted on this thread is simply false scientifically?
> 
> ...



Look,  I think we have a legitimate disagreement on this subject.   
The reality of it is that both sides are based on opinions and not total facts.

I think that you are mixing pollution and climate impact.   We agree that man has polluted the planet in some places, we also agree that cleaning up polluting activities is a good thing.   

where we disagree, and the scientific community also disagrees, is on whether man has or ever could, change the climate of the planet.   

It is also true that none of us will be around long enough to find out who is right.

Its a fun topic,  but lets try to be realistic and not rant and rave claiming the one opinion is totally valid and the other is totally bogus.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Ok, lets see them.   But you really don't have it do you?   you are a fucking lying asshole just like you were on the other forums before you were banned.   I won't waste any more time with you.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The Earth's climate has already been changed by man. If you idiots think you are going to avoid the cost of changing our energy consumption, you are mistaken. In the next 50 years, you're going to pay many times that cost. Get used to it, fool, because it isn't something you can put off on future generations!


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > actually the scientific community is divided about 50/50 on whether man has anything to do with climate change
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Really,   I guess you missed the OP, or do you not consider NASA a valid scientific body?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish - 

I do agree with some of your points here, and certainly there are large areas of uncertainty remaining in this debate - although it has to be said that man's ability to impact the atmopshere is not one of them. 



> and the scientific community also disagrees



The thing you have to realise is that this really is no longer true. Of the major most significant international scientifi organisations - not one rejects the idea that human acitivity influences the climate. Fifty of fifty have stated that human acitivity is a factor. 

Now granted there are still some scientists out there with opposing views and good on them for sticking to their guns, but this is not a 50/50 situation - it is a 99/1 situation. 

That doesn't make the 1% wrong, but it does mean you are a very small minority.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 9, 2013)

man can certainly have a local impact on the environment

but to say that snow and the cold is caused by man made global warming 

is absurd 

in fact for the left all of our troubles originate from man made global warming  

btw who is to say 

that a little warmer planet is a bad thing


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 9, 2013)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *March 7, 2013*
> >
> > *Global Temperatures*
> > *Highest In 4,000 Years*​
> > ...



So how do you determine who to believe? I have read so many differing opinions on global warming that I would agree it maybe happening but I'm not sure of all the disasters or what is causing it. Cooling and warming seem to be natural events on the earth. I really have no idea what to believe. Everyone seems to get their pockets lined on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that distorts much of the data.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Really,   I guess you missed the OP, or do you not consider NASA a valid scientific body?



Nasais totally up to speed on climate change - 

Nasa position on climate change:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The chart on the left shows the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores. The chart on the right shows CO2 levels in recent years, corrected for average seasonal cycles. 

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 is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Climate Change: Consensus


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> I do agree with some of your points here, and certainly there are large areas of uncertainty remaining in this debate - although it has to be said that man's ability to impact the atmopshere is not one of them.
> 
> ...




and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda?   Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?  

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters,  its called MONEY.   There is money in AGW.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> So how do you determine who to believe? I have read so many differing opinions on global warming that I would agree it maybe happening but I'm not sure of all the disasters or what is causing it. Cooling and warming seem to be natural events on the earth. I really have no idea what to believe. Everyone seems to get their pockets lined on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that distorts much of the data.



That's a very good question, but as Editc posted earlier - for those of us who are not cience experts, probably we go with what experts tell us. 

All of the major scientific organisations - bar none - tell us that human activitiy is a key factor. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda?   Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?
> 
> you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters,  its called MONEY.   There is money in AGW.



Dude, that is just nonsense. It's a child's response.

There is no money to be made in science by lying or faking research.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> man can certainly have a local impact on the environment
> 
> but to say that snow and the cold is caused by man made global warming
> 
> ...



Do you see this Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June?







At the end of June the sun is the most direct in the Northern Hemisphere. 6 million square kilometers in like three Greenland ice sheets or three of the remaining arctic sea ice. That trend doesn't have to increase, because just losing that amount of snow cover in June is enough to cause massive melting in the Northern Hemisphere. The arctic sea ice is already toast and Greenland is going to be next.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Really,   I guess you missed the OP, or do you not consider NASA a valid scientific body?
> ...



Well,  I disagree.   But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.   

I am sceptical of anything that comes out of the government that would result in higher taxes and loss of freedom.   

If you choose to believe in AGW,  thats just fine.   I will continue to apply logic and common sense to this and other topics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I suppose that's your conception of wit.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda?   Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?
> ...



Not so.   govt grants are very lucrative,  but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions.   sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > > *March 7, 2013*
> ...



Have you read how the reinsurers, the people who insure insurance companies have been charging for global warming since the '70s? Have you seen their evidence of more natural disasters that are caused by climate change?

If the governments of the world put their minds to it and stopped playing around, they could make major changes in energy within a decade. They need to get away from the idea of carbon taxes and make cheap clean energy. 

If we fool around in this country, we are going to find our exports taxed on foreign markets, so what makes you think their will be a free ride through these changes? The idiots are going to make it cost more.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Well,  I disagree.   But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.
> 
> I am sceptical of anything that comes out of the government that would result in higher taxes and loss of freedom.
> 
> If you choose to believe in AGW,  thats just fine.   I will continue to apply logic and common sense to this and other topics.



Well, I share some of your scpeticism about government, and of course you are entitled to your own opinion. 

But claiming logic is on your side when all of the science is on the other side....I don't get that.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Not so.   govt grants are very lucrative,  but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions.   sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.



Actually, in most cases it is physically impossible to "produce desired conclusions", because university funding is set up in such a way that no government agency can use funding to manipulate it. 

In most cases like this there are quite simple explanations for these questions - it's just a case of getting good information on how things work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Well,  I disagree.   But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.
> ...



All of science isn't on the other side.  Claims like that only show your ignorance of science.


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The first prediction about global cooling in the 70's if was true, we would all be dead now. So whats your point?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Let's see you prove your bullshit that you make up! The only thing you prove is some fool can type the words, but you can't back up your words. I was taking college courses in climatology and working in a research center before global warming concerns, so I know you are full of shit.


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



On the first earthday in the 70's it was predicted by the year 2000 that all of the worlds resources would be depleted. Last I checked, he was wrong. I can tell you one thing that is a fact. You and obama are proof that having a college education doesn't mean you are smart. That money was a waste.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish -
> ...



There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it.  Who do you think is funding the deniers?


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The graph was posted earlier.  You just chose to ignore it.  So, i guess we can add willfully blind to terminally stupid!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Not so.   govt grants are very lucrative,  but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions.   sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.
> ...



You are either incredibly naive or playing stupid.  In the first place, universities don't determine who gets the funding, the government agencies handing out the grants make that determination.  The simple act of choosing who gets funded and who doesn't is sufficient to produce a corrupt result.  If you're a climate researcher and you do produce a paper that says global warming is no cause for alarm, do you suppose a government agency charge with dispensing grants for research on global warming is going to send more money in your direction?



Saigon said:


> In most cases like this there are quite simple explanations for these questions - it's just a case of getting good information on how things work.



The simplest explanation is that researchers will produce the results the government bureaucrats want when millions of dollars are on the line.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it.  Who do you think is funding the deniers?



Wrong.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it.  Who do you think is funding the deniers?
> ...



Who funds the denier think tanks?  I guess you think it's all done on charity!


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The decision on who gets funds is done by scientists, not government bureaucrats. FAIL!


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Why don't you go back and check what you said? Try proving something for a change and talk isn't proof!


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Like I said that prediction was made on the first earth day. Also ted danson predicted in 1988 that in 10 years the oceans would be destroyed. well that didn't happen either. On january 27, 2006 gore stated the earth would be no more in 10 years, so we will be gone by january 27, 2016 by gores facts. Must be why he uses more energy in one month than a normal family uses in a year.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You said, but you are liars, so what you say has little meaning to people who know better. The first Earth Day was in 1970 after the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire. Running out of oil would be the last things on their minds, so what you say doesn't even make sense. 

Don't you have anything better to do that go on the internet and lie your ass off? Do you like making a fool out of yourself all the time?


----------



## theHawk (Mar 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > WHAT are you people afraid of? Do you think the world is going to end just because the ice caps melt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You do realize that when the arctic cap melts every year the sea levels don't rise, right?  If the north pole completely melts there is no rise in sea levels.

The Antarctic ice is on landmass, most of it in pretty high elevation, it has no chance of melting.

The biggest threat is probably Greenland's ice.  Even if it melts, it won't raise the seas that much. 

Carry on with the phoney outrage....


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > WHAT are you people afraid of? Do you think the world is going to end just because the ice caps melt?
> ...



There isn't such a thing as an arctic cap, it's arctic sea ice. If Greenland melts, you can kiss Washington DC and most of the world's important cities goodbye. There is a very good chance the western antarctic will have significant melting as well. The antarctic has two ice sheets. Ice sheets can be called caps, but sea ice is just frozen ocean. 

With 6 million square kilometers less Northern Hemisphere snow cover in June and the arctic sea ice becoming ice free, that is enough albedo change to melt Canadian glaciers and Greenland enough to significantly raise sea levels. The damage will be enormous. 

Let's face facts, we have idiots denying global warming with glacier retreat, sea ice retreat, snow cover decline, increases in measured temperatures, permafrost retreat and tree lines advancing all over the world. When they get proven wrong about global warming, they switch the game to it can't be proven to be caused by man. You idiots are going to find out in the near future that you will pay the cost for global warming whether you want to or not and the longer you wait, the more it will cost.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> The decision on who gets funds is done by scientists, not government bureaucrats. FAIL!



It's done by scientists who work for the government.  In other words, it's done by government bureaucrats.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yes, it is all done on charity.  Government doles out many, many times the amount skeptics receive to global warming propagandists.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If you have data on how much climate change funding there is then post it! Common sense should tell you the money is with the denialistas.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The decision on who gets funds is done by scientists, not government bureaucrats. FAIL!
> ...



It's done by scientists that work for universities.  Quit making things up.  They evaluate the proposals and recuse themselves from consideration of protocols submitted from their own institutions.  It's obvious you don't know how the system works.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The money Big Oil and others give can hardly be called charity.  They're business, they require results and the deniers make sure they get whatever they want, whether it's true or not.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The government uses a few universities to get cheap labor for things related to climate change research, like using the UAH to analyze data for NASA, but there isn't this imaginary investment in global warming like the denialistas claim. What do they think can be investigated? The science behind projects like ice cores is necessary without any global warming concerns. If global warming didn't exist, there would still be the same interest in past climates.


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I googled gaylord nelson's first earth day predictions, and well I f  ound all kinds of goofy predictions that never came true. Thanks for proving my point and giving me some laughs. Ya'll are looney, lol.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You want us to believe the first Earth Day, which was started because of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, which was a major spill that I remember, carried the theme that we were going to run out of oil. That's what happens when a fool goes on the internet running his mouth about things he obviously doesn't know about. You say things that common sense would tell someone couldn't have happened. The Cuyahoga River had a long history of catching on fire and all of this motivated the government and people to say enough to this careless pollution and the pollution was that bad back then. That's all the early environmental movement was about. There were no public concerns about global warming back in those days.

You are an idiot!


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



And yet no cataclysmic catastrophes.  Instead, we have people getting a case of the vapors because they just realized that glaciers move - though slowly.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable. 

You're going to be too business paying the price for extreme weather events to put enough away enough to pay for a new capital and the largest naval base in the world. When you see Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June staying at the 6 million square kilometer range or increasing and notice those every 150 year thaws to Greenland are happening more often, you might have noticed the arctic sea ice is ice free during it's summer melt. That isn't going to happen in the distant future, so get used to it happening in your lifetime.


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable.
> 
> You're going to be too business paying the price for extreme weather events to put enough away enough to pay for a new capital and the largest naval base in the world. When you see Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June staying at the 6 million square kilometer range or increasing and notice those every 150 year thaws to Greenland are happening more often, you might have noticed the arctic sea ice is ice free during it's summer melt. That isn't going to happen in the distant future, so get used to it happening in your lifetime.



Predictions of doom are not realizations of doom.  You people come up with your own prophecies and cling to them more than any zealot of any religion I've ever seen.  Idiots / zealots like you have been spouting the same drivel for decades now.  None of it has come true.  And now even your chief prophet and oracle James Hansen has been forced to admit that the world hasn't warmed for at least ten years.  And yet CO2 has been increasing that entire time.

Your silly religion is based on phony computer models that people like you have been treating like ancient Greek oracles.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable.
> ...



You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen. 

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable.
> ...



So, natural cycles only come into play when they're convenient?  Aren't the AGW proponents supposed to be the ones ignoring them, according to the denier meme?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Dubya  "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, everybody run, run for the hills the great flood is coming soon, build your arcs, gather your animals--------Run !!!!"


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I've lived in the Midwest for most of my life.  Droughts are nothing new. In fact, I understand there is even some evidence of droughts stretching all the way back at least a few thousand years.  Who knows, they may have even been happening before that!


----------



## Redfish (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



why exactly would oil companies want the earth to be destroyed?   what would be in it for them if the AGW guys are right?    Remember, oil companies are composed of human beings that need oxygen, food, and water to survive.

But I guess your left wing ideology claims that they are just evil and want to be the only ones in heaven or hell with money,   Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?


----------



## boedicca (Mar 9, 2013)

We should hope we can keep the warming going.  Given that for much of its history, the Earth has been a giant Snow Ball In Space, the odds of another Ice Age are much higher than is a warming episode which causes the oceans to boil away.

_ In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.

Like previous such efforts, the method gives only an approximation. Michael E. Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors had made conservative data choices in their analysis.

Its another important achievement and significant result as we continue to refine our knowledge and understanding of climate change, Dr. Mann said.

Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earths orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene.

The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend.

The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.)

*Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age, Dr. Marcott said.*

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that..._

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/s...s-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=1&


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 9, 2013)

Mr. Shaman said:


> > *March 7, 2013*
> >
> > *Global Temperatures*
> > *Highest In 4,000 Years*​
> > ...




Is that why we can still find weather forecasters stating how we are setting new recorded high temperatures recorded back as far as the very early 1900s? Behind these claims of global warming, are special interest groups looking to capitalize by pushing for government regulations on others in order to generate a profit.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > SinJinsg said:
> ...



What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid! 

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty! 

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in man made global warming.
> ...





Yes I'm quite familiar of history and the media's claims over these sudden weather changes.


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire?  Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago.  Even Hansen has admitted it now.  You need to find some new material.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Foolish enough to get you to say who's funding the deniers.  I never mentioned who.  You and Pat, another denier who claims that the deniers aren't being funded, need to get on the same page.


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Burning trees may not have contributed as much to CO2 as fossil fuels, but cutting down forests does remove a large portion of the carbon sink that keeps temps in balance.  You lose!

Once again, you're ignoring natural cycles when it suits you.  If temps were going up, you'd undoubtedly be screaming about them, hypocrite!


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!

As we warm areas that presently are tundra, that area can become forested taiga, which doesn't reflect sunlight the way a flat snow covered area reflects it. Snow cover in a forest is different than snow cover on open land. There are so many positive feedback to current warming that you would think anyone with a brain would believe that warming should continue. How can you lose an area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover three times the size of Greenland in June and it not cause warming? Compare the difference between the sunlight reflected off of sea ice and the sunlight absorbed by open ocean! It's like night and day. The wind blowing across sea ice blows like it does across land, but remove that sea ice and the ocean moves in giant waves with the wind. That wind will mix up the relatively salt free surface of the Arctic ocean with the saltier water below and once the surface is salty, it will be harder to freeze. 

Since the Earth has so much water, the effects of warming are dampened as the water warms, but eventually the surface temperatures of the air have to warm. Eventually, the heat used to melt ice can do other things when there is no ice to melt. It takes a lot of heat to change the phase of water compared to the amount of heat needed to raise it's temperature.


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No, guy, you lose.  You lose any hope of even a shred of credibility.  There is NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE anywhere who claims that man had even one iota of impact on the global temperatures before about the 1940's.  Most of the CO2 sequestration happens in the ocean - and the amount of trees that were "lost" wouldn't come close to making any kind of a significant impact.

And do I see right?  Do I see a global warming alarmist raging on about natural cycles?  Really?  How convenient.  Here's a clue dude: It's all natural.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 9, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> This is not about fear.  It is about science.
> 
> The following link provides a response to every single claim made by those who deny the science. Not to scare you. Just asking you to use your fucking head.
> 
> ...




Science or opportunity? Should we make better choices and be more concerned about what we do that effects our environment? Individually yes. However this "panic" that's being interjected here is more about establishing a trend in order to create an opportunity. There's a lot of money behind efforts to create policies and regulations to move people towards solar, wind power, battery cars, etc ... after all there needs to be a demand to justify investment towards latest "trend". Obama tried to create government incentives to move more people towards more battery operated cars, combined with Federal Government regulations and taxes against those companies that aren't moving towards green energy (such as coal and oil). Such incentives failed, as demand for the Chevy Volt dropped far below production goals. 

*Decisions to purchase a Diesel vehicle or a hybrid battery car should be an individual decision, where the CONSUMER establishes the latest demand. It's not the role of Government to establish what are to be [consumer needs] for the sole profit of others and those profitable donors who contribute to their political cause.*


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!
> 
> As we warm areas that presently are tundra, that area can become forested taiga, which doesn't reflect sunlight the way a flat snow covered area reflects it. Snow cover in a forest is different than snow cover on open land. There are so many positive feedback to current warming that you would think anyone with a brain would believe that warming should continue. How can you lose an area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover three times the size of Greenland in June and it not cause warming? Compare the difference between the sunlight reflected off of sea ice and the sunlight absorbed by open ocean! It's like night and day. The wind blowing across sea ice blows like it does across land, but remove that sea ice and the ocean moves in giant waves with the wind. That wind will mix up the relatively salt free surface of the Arctic ocean with the saltier water below and once the surface is salty, it will be harder to freeze.
> 
> Since the Earth has so much water, the effects of warming are dampened as the water warms, but eventually the surface temperatures of the air have to warm. Eventually, the heat used to melt ice can do other things when there is no ice to melt. It takes a lot of heat to change the phase of water compared to the amount of heat needed to raise it's temperature.



It would seem I know a lot more about it than you do.  The trees that were cut down by the early natives was hardly enough to affect the temperature of the globe.  You are stark raving mad.  Simply insane.

And still all you can do is predict more great disasters.  You can't actually show, however, where any of your predictions have come true.  And if the current "stoppage" in warming was to be expected then why did none of you people EXPECT IT?!  You have been predicting continually climbing temperatures for as far as the eye can see.

That didn't happen.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!
> ...



You don't know jack shit about deforestation in Europe and North America. Now, you can add the rainforest to the list. If you knew about forest, you would have addressed the carbon sink question that was posed. The fact is an old growth forest isn't a carbon sink and is at equalibrium with it giving up carbon as fast as it gains it. An actively growing younger forest is a carbon sink. The forests in North America and Europe were old growth forests, so they had already stored their carbon and were no longer sinking it, except in areas where the forest was destroyed. A rainforest is a different matter, because the constant rains cool the Earth and emits heat to space. 

You've been told for years to expect exceptional weather events and they've been happening. It's been pointed out the changes in arctic temperatures are affecting the jet stream, causing it to stall over areas and making prolonged periods of similar weather events. It's also been predicted that the arctic will warm faster than expected. The fact is no one has predicted a disaster to happen this soon and you fucking know it. You're just a scumbag liar about everything pertaining to this subject and you know that too. It would be good for your kind to live another 50 years, so you can enjoy the world you worked so hard to fuck up.


----------



## tjvh (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? Um... People chopped them down.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And where is that carbon?


----------



## konradv (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SinJinsg said:
> ...



Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and you call it "natural"?!?!  

The contribution of forests and oceans to carbon sequestration is nearly the same, so your contention that loss of forests would have no effect FAILS!!!

*Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the annual uptake and release of carbon dioxide by the land and the ocean had been on average just about balanced.*

Carbon Cycle - NASA Science


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



FAO - NORTH AMERICAN FOREST COMMISSION


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SinJinsg said:
> ...



CO2 sequestration is the carbon buried in sediments and not the CO2 added to oceans. Carbon sequestration is a very slow process.


----------



## zeke (Mar 9, 2013)

These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



But you know that NASA is full of scientists. What do they know eh?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It seems the concept of mass balance doesn't enter people's minds. An area of land once contained a certain amount of carbon as a forest and when that area is changed the amount of carbon changes. The amount of carbon in an old growth forest can be many times the amount of what someone wants to call a forest today. The difference is, it may take 400 years or more for today's forest to get back to that original amount of carbon. In the mean time that carbon is somewhere and it doesn't last long in wood products. 

An old growth forest has very large trees which obviously contain large amounts of carbon, but the forest has many other things containing carbon. For one thing those trees have many scars from previous forest fires, but they were large enough to survive them and keep their carbon. There are snags or trees that have died from old age. The ground has layers of foilage and limbs that are rotting away as fast as new material accumulates, so there is a thick layer of carbon on the ground. Beneath the ground there are hugh amounts of carbon stored in roots that are alive and dead. When such forests cover large areas of land, they can store large amounts of carbon and are at equilibrium in the carbon cycle. 

Now, if that forest is cut down, they may haul away a quarter of that carbon to be made into something that will last even for centuries, but a quick look around the world shows not much of that old wood survives or there would be plenty of wood lasting throughout the centuries. The other carbon left in that forest will decay in twenty to thirty years. If the land becomes crop land, it will have a very small fraction of the original amount of carbon and it will be a small fraction for hundreds of years before a forest can replace near the original amount of carbon.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another factor is water vapor has a natural affinity for itself and stays gathered together near the surface of the Earth. CO2 and methane don't and will spread throughout the atmosphere. There is also a big difference in the temperatures needed for phase change.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 9, 2013)

konradv said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



If you are really worried, quit using electricity.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Freewill said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > SinJinsg said:
> ...



We can make cheap electricity that doesn't produce CO2.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 9, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The left wing liberal argument is always the same, everyone that doesn't agree is obviously being paid off or is lying.  They can't stand that everyone doesn't believe EXACTLY as they do.  Doesn't matter to them what actually does happen they are fear mongers like no other.  Tell them that Al Gore has said for well over 20 years that we only have 20 years to act and it doesn't even faze them.  Let's not worry about 6 trillion in debt put on our grandchildren let's worry about GW.  So the left has to event a conspiracy.  I seriously doubt the oil companies really even care.  It is not like the liberals are going to stop using oil or there isn't a market in China or India for all the oil they can sell. No, the liberal wants to put the coal miners out of business, you know the people they say they love.

What I am really not sure of is why the working man would ever return this regime back to power.   I an not sure by looking at the unemployment numbers what blacks are thinking.  The democrat policies of the last 6 years have hurt them the most.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 9, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Notice, he had to say "old growth" because he probably damn well knows that the forest coverage in America is growing is is a large as it was in the 1600s.  But facts be damned.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/mdr/mapss/publications/pdf/17color.pdf


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

Freewill said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Of course you don't understand anything beyond dumb!


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> You don't know jack shit about deforestation in Europe and North America. Now, you can add the rainforest to the list. If you knew about forest, you would have addressed the carbon sink question that was posed. The fact is an old growth forest isn't a carbon sink and is at equalibrium with it giving up carbon as fast as it gains it. An actively growing younger forest is a carbon sink. The forests in North America and Europe were old growth forests, so they had already stored their carbon and were no longer sinking it, except in areas where the forest was destroyed. A rainforest is a different matter, because the constant rains cool the Earth and emits heat to space.
> 
> You've been told for years to expect exceptional weather events and they've been happening. It's been pointed out the changes in arctic temperatures are affecting the jet stream, causing it to stall over areas and making prolonged periods of similar weather events. It's also been predicted that the arctic will warm faster than expected. The fact is no one has predicted a disaster to happen this soon and you fucking know it. You're just a scumbag liar about everything pertaining to this subject and you know that too. It would be good for your kind to live another 50 years, so you can enjoy the world you worked so hard to fuck up.



Actually I did address the "carbon sink."  I said it had absolutely zero effect on the temperature of the earth because there wasn't enough trees cut down to POSSIBLY change anything.  Really, the more you try to claim that pre-industrial camp fires warmed the planet the more of an idiot you make of yourself.  Really guy, just let it go.  

And "exceptional" weather has been occurring since about the time the Earth's crust cooled.  It is like walking outside and "predicting" that it will either be raining or not.  That way no matter what happens you're right.  But one thing you did NOT predict is that global warming would come to a complete stand-still for about 16 years all while CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere.  And yet that is exactly what happened.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



You should do that, you would make a fortune.  But until then shut off your computer you are destroying the world.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 9, 2013)

SinJinsg said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know jack shit about deforestation in Europe and North America. Now, you can add the rainforest to the list. If you knew about forest, you would have addressed the carbon sink question that was posed. The fact is an old growth forest isn't a carbon sink and is at equalibrium with it giving up carbon as fast as it gains it. An actively growing younger forest is a carbon sink. The forests in North America and Europe were old growth forests, so they had already stored their carbon and were no longer sinking it, except in areas where the forest was destroyed. A rainforest is a different matter, because the constant rains cool the Earth and emits heat to space.
> ...



That isn't addressing reality. Do you have a clue how much carbon is locked up in hugh expanses of old growth forest and how much carbon is released when those forests are removed? Just the change from forest or not forest has to change the albedo effect and radiative forcing. When you walk barefoot in the summer time on asphalt, is it hot?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 10, 2013)

Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.

This thread is the epitome of pointless.


----------



## zeke (Mar 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.
> 
> This thread is the epitome of pointless.



That maybe. But there are some people around the world who are trying to do something.

For instance. I live in Ohio. We get like 85% of our electricity from coal fired facilities.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Great Lakes, (which be Canada) they are in the process of shutting down their last coal fired generator. Ahead of schedule.

Seems like they have more will to do something than we do.

I personally think it to late to change course. But it is worth while to understand what we did to ourselves.

Nothing last forever.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's interesting about propaganda?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
Used to the trout would head up river in late September when the water started to cool. Now it is late November.
Used to the trout would come back down into the bay when the water warmed in late April.
They have been there for a few weeks now.
Used to the oyster beds had no problems and were alive and well.
Now many are dead and there are massive problems in the bay as oyster production this year was about 15% of what it used to be.
And the water warming and more warmer each and every year is the problem.
River and bay fishing guides, oyster men, crab trap men and the work force down there in that area that is dependent on that estuary for their livelihood are not political.
They know for a fact that the warming has caused all of the problems that bay has now.
Only a dumb ass would claim that there is no warming going on on this planet.
I can point to 40 other estuaries on this country the same thing is going on.
And it is NOT part of any cycle as this has never happened before.
The water is warming because the climate has warmed.
That is FACT.
We can argue on how best to lower the POLLUTION which is causing it or we can continue to keep our dumb ass heads in the sand and make it a petty absurd political argument like the far right KOOKS do.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Coal fired power plants have caused a 400% increase in asthma rates in north Georgia as there is a large on in Cartersville, Ga. which is north west of Atlanta and the winds come from that way 90% of the time here and cover a 100 mile long area stretching from Calhoun, Ga. to south Fulton county and covers 100 miles to the east.


----------



## ima (Mar 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.
> 
> This thread is the epitome of pointless.



Get rid of half the world's people. That'll do it. mother Nature will take care of that for us. Not to worry.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2013)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.

*We have had times before when there was a temporary decrease in temperature. This is not even that, this is just a level period when we should be having a marked decrease in temperatures because of decreased solar irradiance, and the current balance of El Nino's and La Nina's. Watch what happens on the next strong El Nino.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
> Used to the trout would head up river in late September when the water started to cool. Now it is late November.
> Used to the trout would come back down into the bay when the water warmed in late April.
> They have been there for a few weeks now.
> ...



Gadawg, It is unfortunate that the GOP does not have a lot more people like you. Then I could go back to being an independent. As of now, the GOP supports the far right on this issue, and it is harming our nation substancially.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.
> ...



What interesting is how willfully ignorant people like you can ignore reality.


----------



## jknowgood (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Not my fault your to stupid to goggle it and read it for yourself. Looneys like yourself have been predicting doom and gloom for years and nothing has happen, so no actually your the idiot.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
> Used to the trout would head up river in late September when the water started to cool. Now it is late November.
> Used to the trout would come back down into the bay when the water warmed in late April.
> They have been there for a few weeks now.
> ...



I live in south Louisiana and I have experienced some of the same things here.  So I do think that the climate may be on a small warming trend.

But, there is absolutely no proof that man has anything to do with it.   The global warmers want to say that pollution equals warming,  that is just stupid.  

In many places pollution that existed in the 50s and 60s has been cleaned up.   

It is also true that the southern hemisphere is seeing a cooling trend.  Antarctic ice is growing while arctic ice seems to be shrinking.   I do not think the people in the northeast right now think there is a warming trend as they are buried in snow and ice.

My point is that even if we are seeing a warming trend, man did not cause it and cannot change it.   Certainly paying more taxes to the corrupt government will not change anything.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

ima said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.
> ...



You are being sarcastic, but you are correct.   The real problem is overpopulation, but our politically correct assholes in DC and the rest of the world's capitals will not allow that to be discussed.

Our planet can only support a finite number of human beings.   That's the real issue.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
> ...



Go look at all the paving and shopping centers located within a mile of the Chattahoochee River from north Hall county in north Georgia to Bainbridge, Ga. and see the massive amount of run off water directly going into the Chattahoochee and the increase in that over the last 60 years. Add in the irrigation that comes out of the river for the vegetable and shrub industry that lines the corridor from Columbus, Ga. to Quincy Florida as the Apalachicola river is the Chattahoochee river after it leaves Lake Seminole.
Man built all of those centers, man draws all of the water out for irrigation, man built all of the parking lot and road corridors that directly flow that runoff water into the rivers.
And that is the problem.
Pollution causes the warming and man causes the pollution.
Not all of it and maybe not a majority and maybe just a small amount.
But pollution is what ruined Apalachicola oyster beds and pollution and bad man made water management has warmed the water.
It used to be "there is no global warming, it does not exist".
That argument has been proven false.
Man is causing some and possibly the offset of that small amount fucks up all other eco systems as they are all dependent on each other.
There is a frog they have studied down there and that frog has proven to be the #1 evidence of man causing the problem. 
The frog lives in the water, eats the bugs, the heron eats the frogs and another insect lives off the heron shit and on and on and on.
A small negative impact on nature, maybe only 1% has a large effect on the entire eco system.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Because everytime we discuss it the fruitcake right wing kooks come out of the woodwork and accuse of wanting to be like China and limit the amount of children we can have.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



come on,  the discussion of population control will not be brought up by either party.   But the dems do want to use abortion for population control-------uhhh,  china already does that.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



wrong.  pollution causes pollution, it does cause climate change.   what you are seeing in NW Fla is the result of pollution and destruction of wetlands,  same as we see here in Louisiana.   But those things are not changing the climate of the planet---only the sun can do that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > What's interesting about propaganda?
> ...



I don't ignore reality.  I ignore propaganda.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You can't google what doesn't exist. Only an idiot would think oil running out would be the first theme of an environmental movement started by an oil spill. What did they do say the great news is there won't be oil in 30 years to spill?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



you might want to read this:   Did you know that all of the world's oil will be gone in about 40-50 years??? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## rdean (Mar 10, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



What is it with you fucking dumbasses anyway.  You can go to his website and read what he says.  He publishes all the time:

Dr. James Hansen
Climatologist
02/19/2013 4:57 pm

The climate science is crystal clear. We cannot go down the path of the dirty fuels without guaranteeing that the climate system passes tipping points, leaving our children and grandchildren a situation out of their control, a situation of our making.

Dr. James Hansen: A Fork in the Road

Dumbasses are really fucking starting to annoy me.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Mar 10, 2013)

Only thing Global warming did is make AL gore a REALLY rich hypocrital man since he doesnt practice what he preaches and lives in ahouse that eats up electricity and uses a private jet.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



Your obvious bias shows with "top global warming nut".

2009 is on record as the 2nd warmest year ever since they started keeping the data in 1879.

2000-2009 is the hottest decade.

How many tens of billions of dollars has private business spent on their own research and lobbying attempting to prove that NASA and many other American government agencies have been massaging the data to get the results that they want?
And what proof other than NOTHING have they come up with after tens of billions of their own studies attempting to refute any of NASA's data?
In fact NASA took the data collected from dozens of those groups and factually came to the same conclusion.
The difference is the anti global warming industry DOES NOT allow the process that they use to come up with their results to be completely open to scrutiny.
NASA has open books. 
Why are all of these other groups that claim global warming is a "liberal" hoax unwilling to be completely open to scrutiny?
Hmmmmmmmmmm..........................................


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Lovebears65 said:


> Only thing Global warming did is make AL gore a REALLY rich hypocrital man since he doesnt practice what he preaches and lives in ahouse that eats up electricity and uses a private jet.



I fell off my dinosaur last time I heard that one.
Many of the green industries have produced results and Wall Street made a killing there also.

I assume you believe that Wall Street investing hundreds of billions in green technologies makes them liberals?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Only the sun can change the climate of the earth?
Let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
Snow is white and white reflects heat.
Dark holds in the heat.
Soot laying on snow in many areas of the earth as a result of pollution causes the snow to melt faster as the snow would normally reflect most of that heat.
Soot is from pollution.
So please tell us how the sun produces the heat that causes the snow to melt a significantly faster rate than if there was no soot on it.
Man causes pollution. You know that because you have common sense.


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You spout propaganda, because it's obvious you don't understand the science.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You claimed the theme of the first Earth Day was the world's oil would be gone by 2000. I told you that was bullshit, because I remember those times and what started Earth Day. They had plenty of pictures of sea otters killed and being treated to remove oil. 





















I'll tell you what else is bullshit and that's the automatic moratorium on drilling that an oil spill causes and wingnuts claiming it was Obama over 40 years after they should know a ban on drilling to investigate the cause of a major spill is standard operating procedure. 

There was speculation the cause of this spill involved a process which is banned in most oil fields where they manipulate the pressure to encourage the oil to flow to that well by sudden stops and starts. There is some slang name for it in the oil business that I don't remember. In the case of the Santa Barbara oil spill, they managed to crack the sandstone layer above the oil reservoir and caused a leak near the well. They are still getting tar balls washing up on shore after all these years and the tar balls are collected and tested to determine their origin.






There was your latest Cuyahoga river fire in 1969 that was like icing on the cake. The Cuyahoga river empties into abundant fishing areas of Lake Erie. The pollution that started the environmental movement was negligence and businesses were allowed to get away with anything.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> SinJinsg said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



  You do realize that forest fires use to burn unchecked right? These days we put them out.
So we lose far fewer trees to fire then in the past. And the ones that are cut down are replaced.
And just imagine how much carbon those unchecked forest fires put out.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 10, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



  Umm...North America was never covered in old growth forest. But I do agree we shouldnt be cutting old growth and we need to keep what we have left.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > SinJinsg said:
> ...



What do you realize, you stupid fool? I told you those old growth forests show many signs of past forest fires and that means the trees survived. Once a tree gets old enough, it can survive a forest fire. The forest fire just burns out the underbrush and doesn't cause much damage to the forest. 

Forests like that used to cover millions of square miles of the lands surface and that means tremendous amounts of carbon were stored. Today we have what we call forests, but they store a fraction of the carbon the original forest stored. An old growth forest has spent centuries evolving to get to the point of a dominant species of tree. Even if someone assisted that development along, it would take centuries to get back to what it was. What you are calling a forest is actually a woods.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The Plains weren't covered with old growth forests and that's why there are called plains.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



nice pics, but all of those areas are now clean and clear.   Oil is a natural substance, it is oozing out of the seabed all the time.    The gulf oil spill of 2010 is completely gone.  the gulf is fine, fish, crabs, oysters, clams, shrimp etc are alive and good to eat.   
None of those things caused the climate of the planet to change,  to think otherwise is the height of arrogant stupidity.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Wow,  white reflects heat and black absorbs heat-----got any more revelations for us?

I guess that explains why the northeast is having such a cold winter--------all that evil snow reflecting the heat from the sun---------are you for real?

Yes, the sun controls the climate of the earth.   the sun, not human beings.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 10, 2013)

> Yes, the sun controls the climate of the earth. the sun, not human beings.



Up until about 10 years ago, a few scientists did back that idea. 

It might be worth reading about how, when and why scientists came to understand that it could not be the single major factor in climate change.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Yes, the sun controls the climate of the earth. the sun, not human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Theories,  my friend.   look up the word  "theory".   Man is not causing the planet to warm,   Man may be polluting the planet but he is not changing its climate.

Man's footprint on the earth is tiny.   fly across the atlantic or pacific or USA or Russia or Saudi arabia or south america if you doubt that.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Yes, the sun controls the climate of the earth. the sun, not human beings.
> ...



We're going to replace all those coastal cities and infrastructure because some idiot on the internet thinks adding greenhouse gases doesn't cause warming. Global warming is just another thing you are dumb about. You parrot the party line that is backed by money from the energy industries trying to put off what they know is inevitable. It's the same tactics they used to postpone cigarettes being proven to cause cancer.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Tar balls are still washing up on the beach from cracks in that sandstone layer. They test the tar balls to determine whether they are natural or from the oil spill. 

You think a beach that isn't covered in oil from an oil spill is clean. That really makes sense.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



tar balls have been washing up on the beaches for thousands of years.   What I said is that the gulf has recovered from the BP oil spill.   I live here,  I saw it all in person, I know what is there today and what was there just after the spill.   Yes, some birds, otters, fish, oysters were killed,  but they have been replaced by other birds, otters, oysters, and fish.

Our planet heals itself, and it does a better job of it if we stay out of it.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



If Algore was right, Miami and New Orleans would already be under water, but they are not.   the level ofthe oceans has not changed.   Gore is a liar and a fraud.   Why do liberals choose to believe liars and frauds?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It takes more than you saying it, fool! You have no credibility and you don't back up what you say because it's made up nonsense.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 10, 2013)

Gloabla Warming --- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

omg - libs will buy anything!!!  

Send in your money!! The oceans are rising!!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!

Ok, Chicken Littles...  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Yes, the sun controls the climate of the earth. the sun, not human beings.
> ...



Then where's that extra CO2 coming from?


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> tar balls have been washing up on the beaches for thousands of years.   What I said is that the gulf has recovered from the BP oil spill.   I live here,  I saw it all in person, I know what is there today and what was there just after the spill.   Yes, some birds, otters, fish, oysters were killed,  but they have been replaced by other birds, otters, oysters, and fish.
> 
> Our planet heals itself, and *it does a better job of it if we stay out of it.*



But we're not staying out of it.  We put more CO2 in the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.  How long before that starts to tell?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You are in serious denial. Fact and revelation.
Black soot on snow over thousands of square miles of snow a year causes warming and you do not believe that affects the earth.
Man creates the black soot.
Now explain to us how the sun caused the soot to get on the snow.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

This thread is Exhibit A on why Republicans need to focus on fiscal issues and run the tax and spend Democrats out of office.
Many good folks that are in line with the fiscal issues have missed the boat on science.
Not every study out there that states man is contributing to global warming is from a commie pinko, socialist, Stalin living socialist.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Gloabla Warming --- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> 
> omg - libs will buy anything!!!
> 
> ...



Not a lib Moe.
Been voting Republican for 40 years.
Just like 9990 colleges and universities teach evolution as scientific fact 90% of all the oceanographic and atmospheric scientists on the globe state from over a hundred years iof scientific research that global warming is here and man causes some of it.
Facts sure are a bitch to an ideologue.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 10, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Lower molecule weight hydrocarbons evaporate and a dumbass like you thinks that means the planet is healing itself. I brought up the Santa Barbara oil spill to prove to an idiot that the first Earth Day inspired by it didn't have the theme that oil was going to run out by 2000 like he said. It's just common sense that oil running out and oil spills don't mix. It's also common sense to know a person can't determine a complete recovery from an oil spill with their eyes seeing it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Gloabla Warming --- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> ...



I'm very glad to see this - because most genuine conservatives really do understand science, and it's time for some of the extremists on this board to realise the Tea Party isn't necessarily the right source of information on climate - scientists are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I'm very glad to see this - because most genuine conservatives really do understand science, and it's time for some of the extremists on this board to realise the Tea Party isn't necessarily the right source of information on climate - scientists are.



Ah, another left-winger who feels qualified to pontificate on who is a "true conservative."  

In left-wing parlance,  so-called "climate scientists" are whoever agrees with the global warming con.  They are in fact all stooges on the government payroll.  They are bought and paid for.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

> They are in fact all stooges on the government payroll.



You have to laugh, don't you?


----------



## editec (Mar 11, 2013)

For those of you who imagine that ONLY THE SUN changes the world's atmosphere?

READ A BOOK.

Life on earth has changed the world's atmosphere repeatedly.

The between O2 and CO2 balance we have today is in large part maintained by the interaction between animals and plants.

Seriously...if you don't already know that?

You are wholly unqualified to weigh in on climate change debates.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very glad to see this - because most genuine conservatives really do understand science, and it's time for some of the extremists on this board to realise the Tea Party isn't necessarily the right source of information on climate - scientists are.
> ...



A person's political ideology shouldn't influence them so much that they lose grip with reality. There is nothing in the ideology of being conservative that dictates it should oppose science or be anti-environmental. That position is party politics of the Republican Party, which is only conservative, because it can presently benefit by being so. The anti-global warming movement is a recent manifestation of energy corporations funding conservative think tanks to promote their propaganda. The conservatives didn't oppose global warming science when the concern originally occurred. You aren't going to find Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher opposing global warming scence, in fact the conservative Margaret Thatcher was outspoken about global warming and considered it the greatest danger that mankind has ever faced. Her background before politics was as a research chemist.


----------



## zeke (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Gloabla Warming --- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> ...




Finally, a right winger on here that surprised me. Good job.

But I got to ask; how does it feel to be associated in all things except global warming, with a bunch of nit wit half brains like bripatty. Doesn't it make you question some of your other assertions if they agree with the half brains?

Very seldom is someone who is so wrong on one important subject, all of a sudden correct on other important subjects.

When critical thinking skills break down in one area, they are broke down every where.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Tea Party when they stick to tax issues which they are founded on are spot on it.
When they started going off topic on climate change, gay marriage, whatever they left their core beliefs. 
Yes, there are climate change companies that have corrupted the data for monetary gain.
Yes, there are anti climate change advocates that deny it for monetary gain.
And yes there are parties on both sides that are swayed by fake data.
But yes it is going on and even the military and other government agencies believe the data and implement strategies and plans to adjust to it.
Time we did the same. Not dive head first but plan and keep the research going.
Both sides have egg on their face in this.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Not a right winger.
Fiscal conservative to the core, hard core but not a right winger.

I am never wrong on any subject!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Not a right winger.
> Fiscal conservative to the core, hard core but not a right winger.
> 
> I am never wrong on any subject!



"fiscal conservative" is a liberal euphemism meaning "tax and spend liberal," so you are not a conservative.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Tea Party when they stick to tax issues which they are founded on are spot on it.
> When they started going off topic on climate change, gay marriage, whatever they left their core beliefs.
> Yes, there are climate change companies that have corrupted the data for monetary gain.
> Yes, there are anti climate change advocates that deny it for monetary gain.
> ...



The TEA Party has no position on global warming or gay marriage, so your post is a pile of horseshit, as usual.

The so-called "climate scientists" are the ones who mold their opinions for monetary gain, not the skeptics.  The military pays lip service to global warming only to placate politicians like Obama who have control over their funding.  Anyone who believes such sources are credible simply unmasks himself as incredibly gullible.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> Finally, a right winger on here that surprised me. Good job.
> 
> But I got to ask; how does it feel to be associated in all things except global warming, with a bunch of nit wit half brains like bripatty. Doesn't it make you question some of your other assertions if they agree with the half brains?
> 
> ...



You're certainly proof of that, zeke.  Your brain is a vast reservoir of every idiotic idea ever conceived.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > They are in fact all stooges on the government payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to laugh, don't you?



Fools laugh at the facts.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 11, 2013)

Why is the Aeronautics and Space Administration dabbling in an international extortion scheme? NASA probably uses more energy supplying that hunk of junk in space than all the SUV's in the Country in addition to the president's golf outings.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Gloabla Warming --- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> ...



You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim.  It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly arent buying it. 

Lets not lose sight of what the Doran poll asked:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course, the answer to #1 is risen, if you consider pre-1800&#8243; to be around 1800 or a couple of hundred years of so before, because we were in the little age age, and theres little doubt we have warmed since that time.

The answer to number #2 depends largely on the definition of significant.  If man caused 10% of the rise in temperature since 1800, that would be 0.06 degrees.  That would be "significant," but who would get excited about it?

And of course, warmers seem to treat a risen/yes reply to this poll as affirmation of catastrophic AGW projections, which may not be intended.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



No, that is not all the Doran poll asked. 
Geologists know little to nothing about climate and surprisingly meteorologists only study short term phenomenon. Their 47% and 64% agreement that humans play a significant role in climate change dropped the % far down.
Take those 2 groups out of the Doran poll, which had more than those 2 questions-they had 9, and you had 97% of scientists in that poll which are climatologists that agree man plays a role in global warming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Your post is nonsensical.  What part of "97% of climate scientists" didn't you understand?   Please refer to the flaws in the poll listed above.  Only 79 "climate scientists" chose to participate in the poll.  They were described as "climatologists who are active in research," meaning they are getting money from the government to produce propaganda supporting the global warming hoax.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Beck's historical CO2 measurements


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim.  It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly arent buying it.
> .



Really?

So it isn't true that of the 50 largest scientific organisations on earth - all 50 back climate change science?

I think we both know that it is true.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You keep claiming there is this government funded research to lie about global warming, but you haven't posted any evidence. Active in research is more likely to be university research and if scientists were random there would be scientists working for industry than any other organization. 

Scientists don't need propaganda to show all the obvious evidence of global warming and it comes from sources funded for other reasons than to prove global warming.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?



> * Cold weather in Saudi Arabia killed 12
> *
> 
> Riyadh: At least 12 people, according to unofficial estimates, died as a result of a cold wave over the past two weeks, local reports said.
> ...





> *New freezing weather hits Saudi Arabia
> *
> RIYADH, February 20 (RIA Novosti) - Northern regions of Saudi Arabia have been hit by the second cold spell this winter, the Al-Watan daily said on Wednesday.
> 
> ...






> *Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
> *
> 
> A leading member of Prof Mullers team has accused him of  *trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BESTs research shows global warming has stopped.*
> ...





> *NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder
> *
> 
> Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

> Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?



Yes it is - definitely and without question. 

This doesn't mean their won't be cold snaps in future.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Total BS.
So every scientist that receives government research dollars for the DOD uses propaganda that supports some agenda they have.
So the Navy climatologists that receive funding from the government are using propaganda only.
And the NOAA are all using propaganda.
Sure, right.
You do know that a large %, over 75% of those climatologists, do government work for the military, NASA, NOAA and other entities that rely on correct climate research because people live and die from the results of their studies?
Sure, some private studies do indicate bias in their results.
The same type of bias from oil and gas, coal producers and others similar to the scientific studies in the 60s and 70s that concluded smoking was not bad for you and in many cases was good for you.
The claim that most all or a large % of climate research is biased and phony is baloney.
You are the one buying the propaganda, not those of us that weigh both sides of the argument.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

There is NO argument now from both sides of the argument that the earth is warming.
They used to argue that and gave that nonsense up.
Now their argument is man has played NO part in it.
And many have come off of that and claim, well man does play a part in it but there is no evidence how much.
Well wait a minute. Used to be the argument was that anyone that believed the earth was warming was doing so for the $$$ and was a liberal.
They play both sides of the fence and their beliefs change like the wind.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Factual reports AND views from other "credible scientists" that has been studying the earth's climate, don't agree with the concept of a steadily increasing man made global warming.

*There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasnt stopped, she said. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.*






> A new NASA study shows that from *1978 to 2010* the total extent of sea *ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated*, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.



Yet we find this report about the earth's o-zone layer



> John Vidal
> guardian.co.uk,* Tuesday 4 November 2008 *
> 
> 
> *The ozone hole over Antarctica grew* to the size of North America this year  the fifth largest on record  according to the latest satellite observations.



This supports the scientific evidence: that the rise and fall of the earth's temperatures more closely supports scientific research surrounding changes with the surface of the sun (sunspots), which plays the bigger role factor with regard to climate changes and the effects it has upon the earth.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You only see the surface.  Hell, you only see the surface AT the shoreline.  What's going on underneath the ocean on the sea bed and within the food chain is beyond your ability as a layperson to perceive.

Tell me, would you buy a house without a building inspection?  And if a building inspector told you that a house was infested with termites, and because of that, the bldg was structurally unsound, would you dismiss his claims by stating that it was foolishness to believe that little itty bitty insects could structurally harm a man made structure?  Or would you dismiss the notion that rust could destroy the structural integrity of a bridge made of reinforced concrete and steel?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 11, 2013)

Shakles -

It can be confusing, I know. But I think this chart helps a lot:








btw. Note that the ozone hole is now getting smaller, thanks to the ban on CFC's.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Shakles -
> 
> It can be confusing, I know. But I think this chart helps a lot:
> 
> ...





Yes, that's why Antarctic was never shrinking but growing despite ANY changes in the size of the earth's o-zone hole. Nice try, but obviously not all scientists share your view of this global warming "theory". As I said earlier, and have shown, there is a CYCLE to the earth's changes in temperatures, which reflects changes in the sun's surface.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Mar 11, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



Why would we believe some anti-global warming website spin what one person may or may not have said?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Is the earth experiencing a global warming trend?
> ...



The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation. 






The Earth reached it's temperature maximum and started to cool. It lost the forests that once went all the way to the Arctic Ocean and that area became tundra which reflects a lot of sunlight when it's covered with snow. According to the evidence from ocean floor core samples, the area above Greenland towards the North Pole remained covered in sea ice during the Holocene Thermal Maximum. That's understandable because there were still the remains of the once massive glaciers to work on. I've seen documentaries of the changes in Greenland where they are growing food they couldn't grow before and how the loss of glacier ice has allowed the reindeer herds to go to places they couldn't get to before. The people who live in Greenland have seen the rapid changes. There are proposals to mine areas that were once covered in ice. 

The fact is, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Earth hasn't been warming. That's not just denying science, it's denying reality. Denialistas go that route because once they admit the Earth is warming, then they are faced with the why is it warming. That was examined when the warming first started and of course scientists examined everything. The only explanation for the warming is an increase in greenhouse gases. Since aerosols cool the Earth, the more we use cleaner fuels, the more warming we will get from the increase in greenhouse gases.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 11, 2013)

nice charts dub.   but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim.  It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly arent buying it.
> ...




try to focus for just a minute-------everyone agrees that the climate is changing and has always been changing------------there is no consensus that man has ever had anything to do with it.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> nice charts dub.   but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?



What makes you think a small % can't do things? Would you like to test some nerve gas and prove your point? Even the smallest percentage of a greenhouse gas traps more heat than the large percentages of nitrogen and oxygen that aren't greenhouse gases. Only water traps more heat than CO2.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know you would love to have us all believe that pollution created from the use of fissile fuels is the leading cause to the drastic impact upon the earth's temperature. However:

1) I have already shown how ice surrounding Antarctica GREW steadily and never shrank in the data provided between 1978 - 2010. This despite a GROWING hole in the o-zone as reported in an article dated in 2008. That debunks the o-zone belief that a depleting o-zone layer would cause the ice surrounding Antarctic to melt and the continent to shrink.

2) I provided data showing the temperatures in the United States PRIOR to the previous temperature data starting at only 1970. Putting it in perspective with a much large timeline, we find that temperatures were at it's highest around 1934.

With the use of steam battleships during World War II, the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the bombing of German's refineries bellowing all kinds of burning fossils fuels into the atmosphere, the temperatures in the United States plummeted. Add to that the development and the use of commercial jets and jet fighters, the Apollo missions, industrial factories and oil refineries, the temperatures were still LOWER than what was recorded back around 1934. *Yet that period of history surrounding 1934 didn't have HALF the industry and fossils fuel usage as we do today, yet the temperature during that time were still recorded as being HIGHER than even the 80s and 90s. That doesn't support your fossil fuel man made global warming argument.*






Again, it's the changes we see with respect to our sun which brings the biggest impact to our climate and the changes in our earth's temperature. It's really simple earth science that's been around a lot longer than this "man made" global warming trend.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.
> ...



You call cherry picking dates for an area that is 2% of the Earth's surface some kind of proof about global warming? If you don't have data for the whole Earth, then your data is meaningless. Data means all data and not cherry picking times to support what conclusion you want it to be. 

You idiots are a victim of think tank propaganda that doesn't look at the facts or the science. There is no doubt that the Earth has been warming and the arctic sea ice will soon melt away during the melt season. Nearly all the multi-year sea ice is gone. We are no where near the end of our present warming trend. Some bullshit think tank isn't going to change that reality by printing a bunch of lies. You aren't going to avoid the consequences of that global warming, so get used to paying for it!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




Do you think the United States was Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else just happened to reflect much cooler temperatures? Then you are the idiot with much more to prove. However if you feel better "cherry picking" off YOUR selective data using a much smaller timeline segment to obscure the research towards your cause, by all means. However, if you can't provide any data from a much broader timeline (prior to 1970) to prove your point, scientific temperature data which conflicts with mine, your information and bickering is meaningless. 

Sorry you can't provide any information to counter the o-zone / Antarctica findings, but then again I don't believe in all this hype, that man plays a much bigger fault role in all our temperature problems than the simply looking to the cycles of the sun.


*BTW, the data I provided parallels the increases in temperature after yours FOLLOWING 1970, thank you very much.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim.  It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly arent buying it.
> ...



Trying to change the subject?  We were discussing the cultist claim that 97% of scientist agree that man is causing the bulk of the temperature increase since that beginning of the industrial revolution.  That claim is sheer bullshit.

The warmist cult members always lie or misrepresent the data.  This is just one more example.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What's your idea of consensus?  Let me guess.  It's conservatives agreeing, right?


----------



## ima (Mar 11, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


A consensus is like "being warm is better than being cold", something we can all agree on. So why doesn't everyone agree that global warming is good?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



NOAA uses NCDC data which is the most reliable in the world. The continental US is 2% of the world's surface and isn't representative of the whole world. Notice the data on the charts is similar but different. 

You are an idiot if you think we haven't been measuring solar cycles and there is no solar cycle to explain our present warming trend. The only thing needed is to produce a radiative force stronger than the weak radiative forcing us to the next ice age. The amount of solar radiation change in a hundred years isn't that much, so the force is weak over short periods of time.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth is put together in ways that warming and cooling are amplified by feedback. The amount of radiative forcing for a cooling trend that leads to ice ages is very small, but it acts over a very long period of time. As the Earth approaches an ice age, greenhouse gases are reduced and the albedo effect reflects more sunlight. Cooling makes for less water vapor, the major greenhouse gas, but water vapor also makes clouds that relfect sunlight. As glaciers cover the surface, there is less evaporation and glaciers lock away the carbon from organic matter. In a nutshell, the Earth's energy budget is changed and the changes in solar radiation are amplified to make things cooler than just the slightly less solar radiation or warmer with slightly more solar radiation.
> ...



Aerosols in the form of particulates (like black carbon suspended in the air for relatively short periods of time from fires, for example) actually reflect solar radiation back into space.  Or didn't you know that?


----------



## Redfish (Mar 11, 2013)

CO2  =  .039% of the earth's atmosphere.     It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.

Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.

Al Gore LIED to you.   The AGW idiots are LYING to you.    Try to engage your brains on this topic.


----------



## Decus (Mar 11, 2013)

Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming - Telegraph

Too funny!


----------



## Redfish (Mar 11, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



not at all,  consensus is a majority opinion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Which means it isn't science.  You don't determine the facts of reality by majority vote.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> CO2  =  .039% of the earth's atmosphere.     It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.
> 
> Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Al Gore LIED to you.   The AGW idiots are LYING to you.    Try to engage your brains on this topic.



The amount of CO2 was not the same in the past and who knows what kind of shitty asshole you pulled that from. The amount of CO2 has shown a constant rise and seasonal trend since it was first measured. All the ice cores agree the amount of CO2 was 0.028% before the industrial age. 

You keep saying that dumbshit about CO2 not increasing, so where did you ever get such an idea? You're the first idiot I've ever heard try to make that point and I've heard some good idiots in my day.


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

Redfish said:


> CO2  =  .039% of the earth's atmosphere.     It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.
> 
> Man is not changing the earth's climate by exhaling and burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Al Gore LIED to you.   The AGW idiots are LYING to you.    Try to engage your brains on this topic.



52,000 years ago?  How about 50 years ago?


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > CO2  =  .039% of the earth's atmosphere.     It was .039 % in 2012 and .039% in 50,000 BC.
> ...



We have CO2 measurements from 50 years ago (the Keeling Curve starts in '58) and there is plenty of ice core data that measured CO2 at 50,000 BC in this link. Just remember the dates are calculated before present and present is 1950. 

NOAA Paleoclimatology Data Sets


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I'm well acquainted with the data.  I've read four books on global warming (James Hansen's being far and away the best of the lot).  In fact, I emailed Hansen after reading his book and actually received a response from him.  I know he's working on a follow up.  I just hope he takes advantage of an editor next time in order to make the book a little more reader friendly since he's primarily a scientist and not an author.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Redfish is the first idiot I've found who claims CO2 levels haven't changed. In 50,000 BC, CO2 was about half our present level. There are plenty of ice cores from all over the world to back that up. The accuracy of the CO2 measurements for the last 4 ice ages is very good. 

It makes me wonder why people like Redfish even try to talk about science, because they don't know anything about it. Doesn't he have the sense to know those ancient atmospheres have been captured in ice and it isn't hard to measure the gases in an atmospheric sample?


----------



## Mustang (Mar 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



They (those damn scientists) can even determine previous climates by sediment cores which contain fossilized remains.

They go to school for many years for a good reason.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2013)

Ice core data does not lie.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Mar 11, 2013)

50 years out of what, 4,500,000,000?

yeah... let's have us a panic.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> 50 years out of what, 4,500,000,000?
> 
> yeah... let's have us a panic.



Just how much of that 4.5 billion years had life on the planet? You couldn't live on Earth as it was when life started. 

This idea that once something has changed that it can't be changed is right-wing stupidity. That means nothing can be changed, right?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think the United States was Saudi Arabia, and everywhere else just happened to reflect much cooler temperatures? Then you are the idiot with much more to prove. However if you feel better "cherry picking" off YOUR selective data using a much smaller timeline segment to obscure the research towards your cause, by all means. However, if you can't provide any data from a much broader timeline (prior to 1970) to prove your point, scientific temperature data which conflicts with mine, your information and bickering is meaningless.
> ...





Glad we agree about NCDC. So with respect to your data, you should read the following report again.



> *NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder
> *
> 
> Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:
> ...






> *GLOBAL COOLING?*
> 
> *Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. *The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)
> 
> ...






> *Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way *
> 
> *From the US Senate Committee On Environmental and Public Works*
> 
> ...





> *01 January 2013 ( Kurdish Globe )
> As Snow Storms Grip Kurdistan, Snow Falls of As Much As 1.5 Meters Wreak Havoc on the Region
> 
> Snow - a Rare Source of Many Problems*
> ...





> * Snow ... in Mexico? Rare Winter Dusting Shuts Down Ciudad Juarez **
> Feb 3, 2011 &#8211; 10:02 AM*
> 
> It was just a dusting, really, but in Ciudad Juarez, that was too much.
> ...





> *Posted 2/10/2005 5:34 PM
> Massive snowfall wreaks havoc in Iran*
> TEHRAN (AFP) &#8212; &#8212; Thousands of travelers were stranded in northern Iran Thursday after record snowfall cut off scores of roads and highways, state media reported, urging local emergency services and citizens to mobilize.
> State television said the between 7,000 and 8,000 motorists were stuck in heavy snow on the highway between the city of Qazvin, situated around 95 miles west of Tehran, and the Caspian Sea city of Rasht.
> ...





> *Record Snow Sweeps Japan**
> 2012-01-17 22:55 EST*
> 
> Heavy snow on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido.
> ...





*The overwhelming evidence doesn't point the way towards a "man made" Global Warming trend.*


----------



## Dubya (Mar 11, 2013)

That's called mindless bullshit posted by a fool!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

SHAKLES - 

From your own source, the NCDC:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late&#8211;19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

You might be well served to forget the politics, and just look at the science and what scientists have to say. Trawling the evidence looking for examples of cold snaps might be entertaining, but it doesn't get you any closer to understanding what is happening to the climate.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 12, 2013)

Mustang said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



The biggest problem we face is the fact that this planet has too many damn people.  The more people, the more natural resources needed and used, and the greater the impact of using them.  There will be a natural correction to this at some point.  It may well happen sooner than we would like, as we see more and more concerns about superbugs that do not respond to regular antibiotics.  It really isn't that far fetched to imagine some superbug wiping out 90% of the human population at some point.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 12, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Imagine that superbug being created in a lab at the behest of the global elites.

Welcome to Orwell's World, where the incomprehensible becomes mundane...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SHAKLES -
> 
> From your own source, the NCDC:
> 
> ...




First of all, the fact that there was a BIG spike in temperature in 1934, doesn't prove your case of Global Warming through man made CO2 levels as this "major factor" behind the earth's temperature changes. I have believed in the science behind the changing effects of the sun, with it's direct relationship upon the changes on the earth, for well over 20 years (long before this Global Warming trend came into discussion by the left through big efforts of "politics"). I have shown through various statements, scientist who questioned their colleagues with not providing the complete truth or suppressing it (in exchange for the "political mainstream"), as well as global evidence that support a return towards cooling temperatures, that support ONCE AGAIN the earths relationship with the changing effects of the sun.


I have shown proof:

1) ...... with Antarctica, which GREW in size (never shrinking) with the formation of ice despite statements that also reported the growing of the o-zone hole to the size of North America. 

2) There was a temperature spike in 1934
.... which was recorded to be higher than what was ALSO found during the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s ..... Indicating a *changes in the sun* being the major factor behind these temperature changes. History ALSO shows that the amount of contributing pollutants from a heavy a growth of industry, refineries,Apollo missions,  commercial jets and jet fighter technology, wasn't around during that time to justify the higher record temperatures. 

3) There is also the INCREASED global recordings of record freezing temperatures and snow, proof of a return towards a cooling trend cycle that matches the changing effects found with the sun, NOT warmer winters as a Global Warming becoming the bigger factor in temperatures would show. 

Then, in case you missed it there is the statement below, which puts CO2 in it's proper position with respect to the sun, in increasing earth's temperatures.

*Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun's face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).*

*The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.*


Do your best to dig deeper in an effort to disprove the facts above, as the statements given supporting the sun's changing conditions is a lot stronger than your evidence in effecting the earths temperatures. I'm not gullible to follow every little trend that goes by, you have to explain away with facts each and every statement I have already provided above. Simply one sentence or one little graph is not enough to prove your case against it.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 12, 2013)

Shacles - 

I don't understand why you are presenting points no one disputes, and others which are patently nonsense. 

1. We've known for some years that Western Antarctica is losing ice, while Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice. We also know, by and large, why this is and what processes are involved. (I can link research if you like). 

2. I'm afraid that simply is not true at all. There have always been spikes and troughs, but every one of the ten hottest years ever recorded occur in the past 20 years. Check with a reliable source. 1934 was the 49th hottest year on record. I just checked. 

3





> . The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming.



Again, that is simply nonsense, and no reliable data source could claim this. On the contrary, Australia just recorded its hottest day ever, New Zealand is crippled with droughts, and Southern Hemisphere glaciers are shrinking faster than had previously been thought possible. 

The sun does influence climate, without question, but most scientists abandoned it as the major cause of climate change for good reason. 

Here is an article which explains why:

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 12, 2013)

And still no solutions offered for this GLOBAL situation.

Right, wrong or indifferent, what do you propose we DO about it? Can you force other countries to lower their emissions? Should we hamstring our own economy without any promise of cooperation from China and India?


----------



## ima (Mar 12, 2013)

I think if the US army steps up its war mongering, they could easily wipe out half the world's population and restore the planet's natural balance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> And still no solutions offered for this GLOBAL situation.
> 
> Right, wrong or indifferent, what do you propose we DO about it? Can you force other countries to lower their emissions? Should we hamstring our own economy without any promise of cooperation from China and India?



Since there is about a 30 to 50 year lag in the effects of the present level of GHGs, all we can do about it at present is prepare for the inevitable consequences. Consequences that are with us right now.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2013)

Get everyone at the table from all entities and discuss this and only then will we see a consensus one way or the other on this issue.
$$$ is that there is middle ground and that will be when this country will gain traction on solutions instead of political ideology only which comes from both sides.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2013)

ima said:


> I think if the US army steps up its war mongering, they could easily wipe out half the world's population and restore the planet's natural balance.



I believe the fuel capacity of a B-29 is 9,000 gallons.

Crank up the Enola Gay and the first tank of fuel is on me, destination North Korea.

No where near half the population but this will get the ball rolling.


----------



## ima (Mar 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I think if the US army steps up its war mongering, they could easily wipe out half the world's population and restore the planet's natural balance.
> ...



We could take out all of India without anyone caring. Everyone would probably thank us.

Mexico city also gives us a lot of bang for the bomb.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2013)

ima said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



I happen to like and respect Indian and Mexican folks.


----------



## ima (Mar 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Do you like and respect the stink they put off? Or all the good land they're wasting?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2013)

ima said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Doctor friend of mine is Indian and I spend 2 weeks in Puerto Morales every year!


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Shacles -
> 
> I don't understand why you are presenting points no one disputes, and others which are blatantly nonsense



Well that's where we are at an impasse. Likewise, I believe when you have a Temperature spike followed by a DECREASE in temperature during a time when old World War II battleship technology, German rocket technology, refineries, and heavy industry are increasing, followed by a direct correlation between sun spot activity and record cold temps and record snowfall around the globe, the idea "man made" global warming is the biggest cause of the earth's temperature instead of changes in the sun .... is utter nonsense. There is no logical tie of facts between cooling trends we experience and saying some "man made" CO2 level is the biggest culprit to it all. I'm not buying into it, especially when I see a select few politicians like Al Gore profiting from this theory. There have been scientists that have come forth (as I provided before) who make a statements about their fellow colleagues, that there are still other research and information being ignored or discarded ..... what do they have to gain by remaining skeptical? 

As long as we have cooling temperature changes that coincide with observations they see with the sun surface, and nations experiencing record cold conditions they haven't seen in over 20 (sometimes well over 30 years), I will always stand by my scientific belief. Nothing I've heard or seen has been able to explain away and convince me otherwise.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 12, 2013)

> Higher temperatures and a longer growing season mean some of Earth's chilliest regions are looking increasingly green, researchers say.
> 
> Today, the plant life at northern latitudes often looks like the vegetation researchers would have observed up to 430 miles (700 kilometers) farther south in 1982, according to a new study.
> 
> "It's like Winnipeg, Manitoba, moving to Minneapolis-Saint Paul in only 30 years," study researcher Compton Tucker of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement.



Source: Arctic gets greener as climate warms up - Science


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

Shakles - 

I just provided links which show that sun spot activity has not been in sync with rising temperatures for 40 years. I think that is worth considering. 

I don't think many of us are bigs fans of Al Gore, but then the debate isn't really about the people, it's about the real effects on our planet. Yes, there are sceptical scientists out there and I'm glad there are, but you must also realise its a small number these days. Not a single international scientific organisation backs there case - 50 sit on the other side of the fence. That says a lot to me.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Shacles -
> 
> I don't understand why you are presenting points no one disputes, and others which are patently nonsense.
> 
> ...







Really?  Who'd you check with, PRAVDA?  The only way those claims can be made is because Hansen went back and falsified the historical data record.  You're a poor excuse for a propagandist.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > And still no solutions offered for this GLOBAL situation.
> ...








You clowns crack me up!  For thirty years you've been claiming that the ever rising temps were solely derived from CO2.  Glad to see you have abandoned the false theory of CO2 as a cause and have accepted the fact that solar radiation is THE driving force for global temps.  Must suck to be you.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Shakles -
> 
> I just provided links which show that sun spot activity has not been in sync with rising temperatures for 40 years. I think that is worth considering.
> 
> I don't think many of us are bigs fans of Al Gore, but then the debate isn't really about the people, it's about the real effects on our planet. Yes, there are sceptical scientists out there and I'm glad there are, but you must also realise its a small number these days. Not a single international scientific organisation backs there case - 50 sit on the other side of the fence. That says a lot to me.








Yes appeals to authority are sooooo compelling.  Your experts are the same ones who claimed that Plate Tectonics was false, that phrenology was accurate, that eugenics was essential and that Pellagra was a disease of the lower classes.

It's amazing how many times they've been wrong and you just lap their crap up.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

Westwall - 

Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?


----------



## ima (Mar 13, 2013)

Global warming is god's fault.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?



That's an _appeal to authority_, a logical fallacy.


----------



## konradv (Mar 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



What do call your appeal to no authority?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



This is what the authorities say about the recent global temperatures.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 13, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You mean no appeal to authority.  I call it avoiding a logical fallacy.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



It's also a sign that you have very little science on your side of the debate. 

No one is suggesting that scientists MUST be right simply because they all agree on something - but any intelligent person is going to agree that the leading physicists in the world are also our best sources of information.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

SSDD -


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Given the choice between having 0 international scientific organisations in your corner, or having all of them in your corner - which would you choose?







When they are wrong only lap dogs like you care.  Every scientific body out there thought that Wegener was a crackpot (and this a mere 80 years ago) and here we see the same fools merely repeating the cycle.

I leave with two quotes from Einstein.  The first describes the current situation as regards your precious societies..the second applies to you....your eyes are closed and no amount of learning will ever open them again...

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

konradv said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method.  Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method.  Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...



Right....so we have just established that all 50 of the world's 50 largest scientific organisations back climate change science - but you are the ones referring to science. 

Interesting.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







You mean like the Nobel prize winner who stated that AGW is a fraud?  That scientist?


Nobel Prize Physicist abruptly quits APS - Says Global Warming IS BUNK
September 14, 2011 10:38 PM EDT 
views: 264 | 6 people recommend this | comments: 25 
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is inconvertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim â¦ is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We don't appeal to authority...we refer to science and the scientific method.  Something you clowns are unfamiliar with...
> ...







We don't generate billions in grant money by being sceptics.  They generate billions in grant money by being warmists.  Were you smart you could figure that one out.  And don't bother accusing me of being a shill for the oil companies...you see they too have jumped on the bandwagon and are heavily invested in "green" energy as well.  They screw the little guy (who I care about...you want him dead) coming and going.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

American Physical Society (APS) position on climate change.

 Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years).

 Historical records indicate that the Earth&#8217;s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun&#8217;s radiative output, changes in Earth&#8217;s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite.

Climate Change


----------



## Saigon (Mar 13, 2013)

btw. For about the 400th time on these threads - *it is impossible *that research science results are based on funding. 

It is impossible because most universities around the world are set up to ensure governments can not "buy" conveniant research results. Universities are bulk funded, with research being run from within each university. 

It's an imbecilic claim that not only has no basis in reality, but could have no basis in reality. 

Why posters keep rolling that old myth out I don't know. What we do know is that no one claiming this has spent much time working in research!


----------



## konradv (Mar 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Cherry-picked data.  You're giving us less than ten years.  Do the ten years before that ruin the slope of your lines?  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> American Physical Society (APS) position on climate change.
> 
> Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years).
> 
> ...






Yes, and the APS has never won a Nobel Prize I see.  The board of directors have written that position paper in defiance of their members wishes.  That makes it a political statement and not a scientific one.  But you knew that allready didn't you, propagandist.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2013)

konradv said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...








Pot meet kettle!  Your bullshit only works if you ignore the 1930's and 40's!  Hell let's go all the way back to the end of the LIA, the majority of the globes temperature has been higher than today in that period (85% of the time to be precise), talk about ignoring the facts...what a complete waste of air.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -




Saigon-

You got to stop using a timeline that "conveniently" only starts from 1970, it doesn't do ANYTHING to prove your point of Global Warming. Try looking at the past 150 - 200 years and see what happens. Then there are others who try to accuse me of "cherry picking" results.

BTW what qualifies skepticalscience as being scientific? How do I know which group of science researchers (if this comes from ANY climatologists at all) put this graph together?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Mar 13, 2013)

Some background information about Skeptical Science




> This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.
> 
> My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -



Doesn't look at all like the model predictions or the claimed effect of steadily increasing atmospheric CO2.  Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.  Very much the sort of trend one would expect in a world in the process of exiting an ice age.  Make the chart cover more time and it only begins to look more natural.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 13, 2013)

cherry picked data is gay imo.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 14, 2013)

> Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.



And yet you understand them - and the foremost scientists of our time don't. Funny, isn't it?

Can you see a natural cycle in thi chart?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 14, 2013)

konradv said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



It was clear during the 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 periods. What charged?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 14, 2013)

I'd give it another 5 years and if that flat slope keeps up. What can I say?


----------



## ima (Mar 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what? Worse things have happened in earth's history, like super-volcanos, asteroid hits... and Mother Nature always restores the balance. So just chill out, move to higher ground (I'm there) and relax.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.
> 
> 
> And yet you understand them - and the foremost scientists of our time don't. Funny, isn't it?
> ...



Your temperature graph is from your usual source, the "skeptical science" alarmist blog :http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif
and it stops for some reason that escaped your pea-brain at the beginning of the year 2000
For a "journalist living in Finland" you are woefully uninformed because it has been in almost all major online newspapers that temperatures have stalled since 2000:





Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *                                 Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung*


*Translation:
Stall in temperature increase baffles researchers *

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes



> *As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit*
> 
> The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.  NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per  million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959,  when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
> Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in  1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm.  *Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012,  yet global temperatures did not rise at all. *Global warming activists  are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between  atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
> ...


And now more and more articles written by climatologist who jumped off the band-wagon are appearing in the news:
This one is from today`s edition of der Spiegel on-line, the magazine that employs the largest number of fact-checkers of any news organization in the world...with formal schooling in subject related matter:

Klimafalle: Von Storch und Krauß über Politik und Klimaforschung - SPIEGEL ONLINE



> *                                 Vorwürfe gegen Klimaforscher: Wahn der Weltverbesserer*
> 
> Von Storch arbeitet seit den Siebzigern in der Klimatologie, er hat  Aufstieg und Krisen des Fachgebiets als international angesehener  Experte miterlebt. Ethnologe Krauß untersucht die Wissenschaftler mit  den Methoden seines Fachgebiets:
> "Die Klimaforschung wurde von der Politik gekidnappt, um ihre  Entscheidungen als von der Wissenschaft vorgegeben und als alternativlos  verkaufen zu können", meinen von Storch und Krauß. Forscher hätten sich  mit der Politik gemein gemacht und würden nun zerrieben im Spiel der  Interessen. "Wissenschaft", sagen die Autoren, "lieferte das Rohmaterial  für eine große Klimaerzählung", die "das Schreckensszenario des Kalten  Krieges abgelöst" habe
> Das Verschwindenlassen wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheit aus der  öffentlichen Klimadebatte, die Diskreditierung wissenschaftlicher  Skepsis und das Ausklammern der Bedeutung politischer Interessen räche  sich nun, schreiben von Storch und Krauß, die als wortgewaltige Kritiker  der Zunft bekannt sind. Gefordert sei eine neue Streitkultur, meinen  sie: Das plumpe "vertraut uns, wir sind Wissenschaftler", sei anmaßend.


Translation:...verbatim not possible, for a word like "Weltverbesserer" I would have to write "busy body do-rights "  



> The AGW hysteria is under fire again
> Von Storch had been a climatologist since 1970 and joined with ethnologist Krauß to publish the methods that have been used in his profession
> 
> Climate research has been kidnapped from the onset by politics and has sold the findings as "science" in order to promote a policy that has no alternatives.
> ...


*So who are in fact the "deniers"...?*
The reality checkers or the spin doctors and their ill-informed and naive flock of followers.

Every time some idiot posts a graph like this one without noticing that it stops when the facts don`t support the religion and does not even notice how the y-axis scalar factor has been grossly exaggerated is evidence that such a person, like "RollingUnder" is an imbecile:
Originally Posted by *RollingThunder:




The scientific opinion* on climate change is that the  Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90%  certain that humans are causing it 
No scientific body of national or international  standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three  main points

Here we have a total moron with a foul mouth who does not have a clue what the difference  between opinion is and the facts that have been made public after almost every scientific body of national and international standing now maintains that temperatures have not increased since 2000:





*Von Storch and Krauß are accusing their climatolgy colleagues of fear mongering in excess of the cold war fear mongering which also had the same political motives as AGW now has*


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2013)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Some background information about Skeptical Science
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cook and his pal Lewandowsky are the ones behind the failed papers that purport that skeptics are also conspiracy theorists as well. more than a bit dodgy


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2013)

ima said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.
> ...



Mann's hokey stick? really? hahahaha


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I`m not sure how to interpret your comment.
Mann`s custom hockey stick tailored to fit the CO2 monster has already been replaced by Met-offices around the world with this one:





*Every major news media in Europe had it since January.*
*It was inevitable because it was obvious to the public anyways, graph or no graph..*
record cold winters over the entire European Continent and North America....*for over a decade now it`s been like this*
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-hits-german-airports-and-roads-a-878987.html


> * 								Winter Blitz: Snow and Ice Blanket Germany *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...mb-weather-spring-cold-slippery-winnipeg.html 


> *Cold days keep spring away from Manitoba*





> *Moscow braces for biggest March snowfall in 50 years*





> *Heavy snow blankets France and the UK, sparking transport chaos                 *





> *Germans in the eastern and southern parts of the country awoke  to blowing snow on Wednesday, as a cold snap snarled morning traffic.*


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...in-Europe-cancelled-after-heavy-snowfall.html


> *Flights in Europe cancelled after heavy snowfall*
> 
> 
> Heavy snow has fallen in several European cities, with Amsterdam one of the    worst affected.
> ...


http://iceagenow.info/2012/10/surprise-october-snow-hits-central-germany-suspected-record/


> *Surprise October snow hits central Germany &#8211; Suspected record*
> 
> _By Robert On October 28, 2012  · 13 Comments _
> 
> ...


*It was just too obvious, that`s why most of the media jumped off the band wagon and many climatologists are now critics that don`t want to be associated any more with this ridiculous "science"*
*The only ones who still insist on Mann`s hockey stick are the reality deniers*


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



how to interpret my comment? MBH98/99 is as radioactive as Al Gore and the warmists have gone out of their way to avoid them. I was laughing because Saigon actually posted up a picture of the hockey stick graph even knowing the scorn with which it is held by everyone.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 14, 2013)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Thanks for your clarification IanC...
I would have been astonished otherwise, because you are not a reality denier but I wanted to hear it from you...because there are more than a few *REALITY DENIERS* in these enviro-threads that love to twist words or quote us having said things we never said.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Total BS.
"many climatologists are now critics and don't want to be associated any more with this ridiculous "science"
Great fabrication there and well produced but it does not sell to the overwhelming majority of scientists and 95%+ climatologists.

American Meterological Association AND The American Chemical Association as well as 16 other associations all agree that there is global warming and man plays a significant part in it.
I am sure your spin is based on science and theirs is liberal dogma.


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







No, theirs is based on fraud and a desire to fleece the middle class of all of their wealth through exorbitant energy prices.  Why else mandate that the USN buy AVGAS at 35 dollars a gallon when the regular stuff sells for 4?

You have to have government rules to get those kind of sweetheart deals.  But don't believe us look up the head of the IPCC and see what he says about the 17 year long flat line for global temps.  He's a devout warmist who has made millions from the scam.  Seems kind of strange that he would admit it if it weren't true.

Don't you agree?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Every day now more and more scientists go public since the media witch hunt has stopped.
Here is another article:
Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> Die meiste Energie, die Treibhausgase in der Luft zurückhalten, gelangt  in die Meere, sie sollten physikalischen Berechnungen zufolge etwa 90  Prozent der Energie schlucken. Die Wärme der Ozeane würde also den  besten Indikator für die Klimaerwärmung liefern.
> Das Problem ist, die große Wassermenge von geschätzten 700 Billiarden  Litern in den Weltmeeren systematisch zu überwachen. Gerade mal gut 3000  Bojen treiben seit knapp zehn Jahren umher
> Die Ergebnisse aber können andere Wissenschaftler nicht überzeugen. "Die Unsicherheiten der Daten sind zu groß", schreibt  Kevin Trenberth vom National Center for Atmospheric Research in den USA  (NOAA), einer der renommiertesten Experten auf dem Gebiet. "Wir müssen  unsere Messungen verbessern".


Key points translation:
Most of the energy that greenhouse gasses can trap is absorbed by the oceans. Which would according to NOAA`s Kevin Trenberth be the best indicator if global warming is indeed happening.
He says we have to improve our data gathering.
The problem is that the 700 "billiarden" ( 1 German "billiard"=  1.000.000.000.000 )...the 700 000 000 000 000 liters of ocean water are monitored with only 3000 buyos that also measure water temperature below the surface, and they have been in operation only since 10 years.
Till then...before 2002 there were only spotty satellite data and occasional sampling by ships. All that data has recently  been discarded by NOAA as inaccurate. Trenberth adds it is imperative we improve our data.


While I was reading this article another update appeared just hour later which by coincidence addressed the second point you also raised.

Der Spiegel.de linked to this source, published in England February 4th:
Under cap-and-trade, flying is greener than taking the bus ? The Register


> *Under cap-and-trade, flying is greener than taking the bus*
> 
> Dr Grischa Perino of the University of East Anglia uses the European  Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) - a typical cap-and-trade scheme  - as an example. Under the ETS, emissions by one company can be offset  by another. Firms that hold more emission allowances than they need can  sell these to other firms, which in turn use them to increase their own  emissions
> The problem is that only industries  judged to be high-carbon, such as aviation and electricity generation,  are included. Road transport, for instance, is not.
> ...


Yes that`s how screwy the "math" is that "climatologists" employ.
I had a hunch when I checked up on Al Gore`s "starving polar bears" while I was serving in the arctic. I may not be a biologist but as an engineer I can easily figure out how much a polar bear I just encountered weighs.
If my footprint does not quite make the same depression on the same turf where the bear was just seconds earlier then with ~ 4 times the footprint area of my boots, and ~ the same psi ground pressure transfer he must be at least 4 times heavier than I am...and I was standing on one leg while a polar bear always has at least 2 paws on the ground.
I never seen a bear ..(*and I have seen lots!)* where I was that was "starving" like Al Gore`s said or encountered an adult bear that weighed less than 900 pounds. Most were over 1000 lbs and none of them ever stood on one leg either. There are no carbon footprints but there all kinds of footprints from all kinds of animals that thrive in the arctic...which would be a dome of death if it were as cold as "climate experts" say it should be.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

> the media witch hunt has stopped.



Well, that is good news.

I just checked with your own excellent source - Der Spiegel - and found this statement and stories:

The next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts won't be released until late 2013. But insiders say that thanks to faster computers and better models, the report will offer more precise predictions and adjust anticipated changes in sea levels and precipitation. By Olaf Stamp.

In 1972, environmental guru Dennis Meadows predicted in his seminal study "The Limits to Growth" that the world was heading toward an economic collapse. Forty years on, he tells SPIEGEL ONLINE that nothing he has seen since has made him change his mind.

Research published Thursday in the journal Science says that even slightly warmer temperatures could start melting permafrost, which in turn threatens to trigger the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in ice. By Christoph Seidle.

As the United Nations climate change conference in Doha wraps up, many environmentalists are feeling hopeless about the lack of progress. But in a SPIEGEL interview, German government advisor Kai Konrad says that Berlin and Europe are taking the wrong approach to motivating others.

Global Warning

Heat waves, sinking cities, droughts and disappearing polar ice caps -- the effects of climate change are catastrophic. 

Climate Change - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



No, I don't agree, nor does anyone that knows the science behind the warming of our world. As for your flat line, what a bunch of crap. 1998, 2005, 2010, three very warm years in the space of 14 years. And the ten warmest years on record are since 1998. 

For those that actually get out and observe, the world is indeed warming. But not in a straight line. It is quite clear when you see someone like Wallyeyes stating that it is flat for so many years, and that proves global warming because it is not warming. Then, when we have a very warm year, and the warming takes another step up, they start yelling natural variation. Yet they expect no one to see the contradiction in their statements.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 15, 2013)

And consider the kind of conspiracy that Walleyes is stating. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has to be in on that conspiracy. And all the governments, in spite of their very differant political systems. Now that is one grand conspiracy. Or a bunch of very large tinfoil hats.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And consider the kind of conspiracy that Walleyes is stating. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has to be in on that conspiracy. And all the governments, in spite of their very differant political systems. Now that is one grand conspiracy. Or a bunch of very large tinfoil hats.



This is one point that also baffles me - the idea that literally tens of thousands of people could be a part of some masive conspiracy. 

I wonder if there is really a single person on this forum who believes all of he dozens of governments in the world would be capable of keeping such a thing secret even if they wanted to?

It also seems more than a litrle unlikely to me that a young person would spend years studying physics at university, would learn how to conduct great research - and then go out in the world determined to fake the results every project they touched.

It really is some way beyond silly.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > the media witch hunt has stopped.
> 
> 
> Well, that is good news.
> ...



You are welcome !
Even though I`m on your ignore list I got you reading something else than just dumb blogs. Der Spiegel is a decidedly left wing magazine, but they can`t be too obvious about it. Even though der Spiegel has published "climatology" critical article with increasing frequency as more and more scientists come forward. The story you picked from the Spiegel archive which contains several thousand articles about climate change is about a climate guru discussing economics.
What exactly is it that impressed you so about Dennis Meadows?
The main thrust of his "limits to growth" study is stating the obvious, namely that the world population growth is exponential.
Every fifth grader knows that. But they also know that many highly industrialized countries like Germany experience a population decline despite increased immigration. Germany is not alone facing serious problems due to a top heavy population pyramid which is about to crush the less numerous younger and future generation from the top down as more people retire from the work force that no longer can be replenished at the same rate with younger people. To that we can also add the inherited and ever growing national debt. 
Bot were the result of left-wing neo-Marxism *and conservatives around the globe have been warning about the consequences of left wing "social engineering" for a much longer time than Dennis Meadows.

*Well at least you started reading something better than just enviro blogs.
While you are at it go through the Spiegel archives and note the about face concerning the effect of CO2.
What is certain to elude you, is that the "SPON" english version is playing an entirely different tune than the German version.
That`s because most Germans don`t bother reading the English version which has a severe left wing slant. Some of the nonsense published in the English version would cost the "Spiegel" all the credibility  advantage they have worked so hard to build up.
If you come across something that you spotted in the German version I`ll translate it word for word with no personal spin or bias.
But after that it`s fair game to put bambi in the headlights.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And consider the kind of conspiracy that Walleyes is stating. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has to be in on that conspiracy. And all the governments, in spite of their very differant political systems. Now that is one grand conspiracy. Or a bunch of very large tinfoil hats.
> ...



What conspiracy ?
It`s not hard to find 10 000 people who have a problem with math and physics and decided to become "climatologists" because it`s the easiest field to get a degree.
After that what else could a "climatologist" do except conjuring up the kind of nonsense that has been conjured up ever since mankind started ignoring the village witch doctor and made some progress.
It`s the village witch doctor association which has accused all the other scientists of being part of an oil-lobby conspiracy.
It`s the reality deniers that are calling the same scientists "deniers" after their conspiracy theories no longer worked.
Here is one such "conspiracy'' we have been accused of.
Feel free to speculate which lobby is behind it this time
Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition,
 including 9,029 with PhDs     






B.t.w
Saigon:
The climate keeps ignoring the witch doctors predictions and is doing so in a spectacular fashion:






> *Überraschung beim Abkoppeln: Wegen eines Schneesturms in   Kasachstan wurde der Rückflug von drei Raumfahrern kurzfristig   verschoben, das Manöver zum Abkoppeln der Sojus-Kapsel gestoppt. Nun   sollen sie am Freitag abdocken.*


Massive snow storms are delaying the return of the Sojus capsule
Der Spiegel Freitag, 15.03.2013 &#8211; 14:36 Uhr


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > nice charts dub.   but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?
> ...



We can measure the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth from the sun.  Your grapic states that twice as much radiation is coming back down from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth as is coming in from the sun. 

Tell me why we can't and never have been able to measure that amount of radiation that cliamte science claims that the atmosphere is radiating back to the earth?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The amount of CO2 was not the same in the past and who knows what kind of shitty asshole you pulled that from. The amount of CO2 has shown a constant rise and seasonal trend since it was first measured. All the ice cores agree the amount of CO2 was 0.028% before the industrial age.



All the ice cores also show that a rise in atmospheric CO2 follows a rise in the global temperature meaning that it is a result, not a cause.  That being the fact, why do you guys now assume that suddenly, CO2 is causing warming.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Just how much of that 4.5 billion years had life on the planet? You couldn't live on Earth as it was when life started.



According to Ohio State researchers, earth has had a breathable atmosphere for half a billion years.

Researchers Find Origin Of Breathable Atmosphere Half A Billion Years Ago

NASA doesn't disagree:

"Breathable" Atmosphere Originated Half a Billion Years Ago : News

Or these guys:

A Breathable Earth

Life exploded on the planet during the cambrian period...half a billion years ago.  Humans could have lived at any time since then.  Our requirements are that specialized.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. For about the 400th time on these threads - *it is impossible *that research science results are based on funding.



Saying 40000 times won't make it true.  Researchers themselves have stated that funding dries up if you don't tow the line.  Turn in results that buck the consensus and you risk ending your career.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That chart is a joke and anyone who uses it as evidence to support anything other than the failing of cliamte science today is a f'ing idiot.

And anyone who would call mann one of the foremost scientists of our time is 75 IQ points below a f'ing idiot.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of CO2 was not the same in the past and who knows what kind of shitty asshole you pulled that from. The amount of CO2 has shown a constant rise and seasonal trend since it was first measured. All the ice cores agree the amount of CO2 was 0.028% before the industrial age.
> ...



Precisely!
Remember how they were beating the  drum when a high pressure system stalled for 2 weeks last summer over the central U.S. 
Now we had all Europe and North America, Canada especially so in a deep freeze since October and somehow that`s also related to CO2...according to "snow experts".
                                         Friday, March 15, 2013       

Portage La Prairie, MB






                                 -17°


Weather - Environment Canada

In Canada we don`t need enviro bloggers lecturing us about temperature trends. 
We can look it up ourselves and all the records show that temperatures in Canada have been either steady at the coastal regions or declined in Central and Northern Canada since 2000
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc...nID=3471&Year=2000&Month=3&Day=14&timeframe=1
This year all winter long we have been way below the 2000 temperatures...and winter is still hanging in...starting earlier and lasting longer ever since 2000 !


----------



## Saigon (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > btw. For about the 400th time on these threads - *it is impossible *that research science results are based on funding.
> ...



It's obviously true. It's simply a given. 

Again, what you are suggesting is physically impossible, and I have explained why several times.

You have to ask yourself why your entire basis of argument rests on a point that you know perfectly well is a simple nonsense. If you don't understand why - ask!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Again, what you are suggesting is physically impossible, and I have explained why several times.



But you are a known liar so what weight does your "explanation" carry in the face of researchers who have stated that if you buck the consensus, you risk not only losing funding but putting the brakes on your career?


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...








And that is all a lie perpetrated by Hansen and his falsification of the historical temp record as you very well know.  What's more important is, he himself has realised he can't pull that shit anymore, so he's backpedalling just as fast as his little bicycle will let him.

It's you asshats who scream bloody murder whenever there is a temp spike.  We've allways maintained it's natural variability.   It's wonderful to see you asshats try and claim our position when all along it was you making the ridiculous claims.

Quite amusing.  Too bad for you that the internet allows us to see what you really said.


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And consider the kind of conspiracy that Walleyes is stating. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has to be in on that conspiracy. And all the governments, in spite of their very differant political systems. Now that is one grand conspiracy. Or a bunch of very large tinfoil hats.








I find it amusing that you can realise the perfidy of conspiracies that deal with a few million dollars but when you are dealing with trillions all of a sudden you can't see how it could possibly be done.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> I find it amusing that you can realise the perfidy of conspiracies that deal with a few million dollars but when you are dealing with trillions all of a sudden you can't see how it could possibly be done.



Ends justify the means.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > btw. For about the 400th time on these threads - *it is impossible *that research science results are based on funding.
> ...



For your information, it's "toe the line," not "tow the line."


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> I find it amusing that you can realise the perfidy of conspiracies that deal with a few million dollars but when you are dealing with trillions all of a sudden you can't see how it could possibly be done.



Actually the conspiracy would involve tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries, involving billions of dollars and take place over decades. 

It would be likely a greater conspiracy than that alleged by Holocaust Deniers. 

Keep in mind that someone posted here yesterday that 15% of medical researchs woul consider manipulating data if their career was at risk. That means 85% of sclimate research must be considered valid - and means your conspiracy just grew several dozen times over in the need to find the thousands of researchers who would fake data - and the means to shut the other 85% up. 

Do you see how laughable this has become? A conspiracy with tens of thousands of witnesses in a hundred countries - all taking place in complete silence?

Which is why you do not believe it any more than I do.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amusing that you can realise the perfidy of conspiracies that deal with a few million dollars but when you are dealing with trillions all of a sudden you can't see how it could possibly be done.
> ...








  No, it wouldn't you twit.  All you would need are a few people placed high in government...like a former VP of the USA who has connections out the wazoo, the head of some UN governing body to control the information that is released and to legislate the transfer of monies from one country to the other poorer countries...kind of like that Pechauri guy from the IPCC...yeah, he is placed high enough he can do it..then oh, let's see a few scientists in your pocket who will publish whatever crap science you wish them too and keep dissenting papers from being published thereby creating that ever popular consensus, then a few willing groups to further the fraud in exchange for copious amounts of cash...


No, poor simpleton the whole thing could be run with fewer than 20 people.  All the rest are simply along for the ride.  After all, stealing money with government assistance is a hell of a lot easier than working.

That's why you are fighting tooth and nail to keep this shit going.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

Westwall - 

Either you really have not thought this through, or you don't believe it either and are just posting it as some kind of fig leaf.

If a research facility was going to manipulate data, then quite a few people would have to know about it - obviously. Multiply that by the forty major research institutes, the 50 or so major scientific organisations, and another hundred scientists who know enough to smell a rat when they see them. Add into that politicians in a dozen strongly conservative governments, and stakeholders in various ministries. 

And who would run such a scheme? How would it have been organised? How do they communicate with each other?

The idea of any such conspiracy is far beyond the reach of any organisation. Obviously. 

Really - this is far beyond silly. It's tinfoil hat territory.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > nice charts dub.   but once again, what % of the atmosphere is CO2?
> ...


That`s even funnier than your avatar, because you don`t know how to  listen either nor do you have an idea what the difference between  toxicity and absorption is. 
It`s got dick all to do with "trapping heat". Infrared light is not heat  unless you convert it to heat and when it is heat, residing in a mass  it does not travel at the speed of light any more.
Ever heard of the Beer Lambert law?
"Only water traps more heat"...
Water vapor absorbs so much more IR at the CO2 absorption wavelength  that you can`t even measure the CO2 IR absorption in a spectrophotometer  unless you remove all traces of water first else there is nothing left  over for the CO2 to absorb.
If you have trouble understanding that, it`s a bit like democrats and the national debt. As long as you got democrats absorbing all the taxes there will never be a single penny left over to pay down the debt...no matter how much more tax we pay.
And we got way more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.
You don`t know the difference between logic, pseudo-logic , fact or fiction so don`t even try to argue physics  using democratic demagoguery.
"nerve gas" won`t raise the temperature because the atmosphere does not have any nerves and CO2 is not a "nerve gas"
*You* don`t know which end is up !


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



"tow the line"...and that came from the same guy that says my English is terrible
And now this:
 "- *it is impossible *that research science results are based on funding. "
He should tell that to the "climatologists" in Canada. They started screaming when the Government of Canada cut the funding for "climatology research"


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The amount of CO2 was not the same in the past and who knows what kind of shitty asshole you pulled that from. The amount of CO2 has shown a constant rise and seasonal trend since it was first measured. All the ice cores agree the amount of CO2 was 0.028% before the industrial age.
> ...


They also assume that criminals will not put more than 7 shells in a clip, because it`s the "law"


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> "tow the line"...and that came from the same guy that says my English is terrible



Guess he never heard a german scientist speak.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Either you really have not thought this through, or you don't believe it either and are just posting it as some kind of fig leaf.
> 
> ...



So why don`t you get a job in a research facility, like Monsanto or Dow Chemicals...they are huge.
If you have what it takes then go ahead and do some research while in their employ, what the side effects of their latest registered and gov. approved pesticide is. Then try report it to the US FDA.
Some faceless career bureaucrat in the US FDA which approved that pesticide will make a phone call and get you fired from your job faster than you can say "conspiracy".
If it has not been so then why do we need legislation to protect "whistle blowers"..?
by the way as "terrible" as my English is according to you, let me point out that it`s organization not "organisation"
There are "climatologists" who wanted a law that meteorologists who make dissenting comments on TV should have their credentials withdrawn and get fired.
You fancy the term "deniers" and want to put AGW skeptics in the same category as "holocaust deniers"...which is a criminal offense in Europe.
No it does not take a conspiracy for researchers to toe the line. All it takes is intimidation and thinly veiled threats from a Professor, the Dean or who ever is organizing the grant money for a study from which they expect an outcome that supports their views. If you don`t toe the line you won`t last long.
You never have studied at a University or done any research have you..so don`t try tell me how it`s really done.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

polarbear said:


> So why don`t you get a job in a research facility, like Monsanto or Dow Chemicals...they are huge.
> If you have what it takes then go ahead and do some research what the side effects of pesticides are and try report it to the US FDA.
> The US FDA who approved that pesticide will get you fired from your job faster than you can say "conspiracy"



He lives in a dream world where nothing sordid ever happens except by people who he disagrees with.

He isn't bright enough to take a few minutes and see that the medical community is openly admitting that it is reeling from the effects of exactly the sort of misuse of money, and data manipulation that we are talking about and the medical community is a highly rigorous, mature, hard science, organization where identifiable individuals die as a result of that sort of behavior.... as opposed to the very immature and micky mouseish definitely not hard science community where steaming piles of junk such as the recent marcott paper can pass peer review long enough to cause a media sensation and then be retracted while the media sensation continues to shout the misinformation as if it were true.

One has to actually be capable of critical thinking to see that sort of thing.  Folks like siagon and thunder, and rocks and dubya have demonstrated beyond any doubt that critical thinking isn't something that they are capable of.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

Wonderful posting, as always SSDD. It's rare I read one of your rants without laughing out loud. 

And yet there is STILL no explanation as to how this massive global socialist conspiracy works. Not a single document, not a single witness to a conspiracy which involves tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries and in several hundred research institutes.

And there is still no explanation as to how, given that it is impossible to produce maniupated reports in most universities, this conspiracy works.

Can you really not seee how silly this all is?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > So why don`t you get a job in a research facility, like Monsanto or Dow Chemicals...they are huge.
> ...



Equating scientists that are skeptical,..."deniers" of what he believes with criminal holocaust denial, punishable with prison sentences in Europe tells me how "tolerant" he would be as a R&D department head if you get results that don`t suit him


----------



## polarbear (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Looks more like a series of not well understood natural cycles.
> ...



This cement head is still insisting on the very same "global energy budget" that climatologists have already scrapped when it came up short by showing where all that "extra heat" is.
It`s not in the atmosphere and they could not find it with 3255 Argo-buoys in the oceans either since 2000 all the way to 2013.
There still is no "extra heat" in Europe either. Today the army had to rescue people in Hungary with tanks. Motorists have been stuck at sub-zero temperatures since Thursday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21806043


> T-72 battle tanks trundled along icy roads, while thousands of people waited in cars on the M1 motorway from Budapest to Vienna.
> Many had been stuck on the road since Thursday evening.
> On Friday afternoon, the interior ministry sent text messages to all  mobile phone subscribers, telling people to stay in their cars as long  as their fuel lasted, then move to other vehicles to stay warm.


The message should also have said, "if you are in an electric car then you are fucked .."

I still suspect "Saigon" lives in the U.S. and wants to suck up to Democrats so that he gets his green card without having to pass a citizenship test that would overtax his IQ...and after he gets his green card and a DL he`ll buy a Chevy Volt.
The time frame when he makes all his posts just don`t jive with somebody living in the time zone Finland is in.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wonderful posting, as always SSDD. It's rare I read one of your rants without laughing out loud.
> 
> And yet there is STILL no explanation as to how this massive global socialist conspiracy works. Not a single document, not a single witness to a conspiracy which involves tens of thousands of people in a hundred countries and in several hundred research institutes.
> 
> ...



If you want to see how it works, take a look at the medical community which is far better organized and rigorously controlled than the climate science community.  If it can happen in medicine, it can happen anywhere and the evidence is blatantly obvious in climate science and has been revealed in detail in the climategate emails.  

What is silly is that any sane individual would claim that such fraud is impossible.  Simply stupid.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

I tell you what, SSDD, when you have evidence of this massive socialist global conspiracy, you present it. 

I have explained to you in some detail why and how most scientific reseach is protected from political interference, and I think you now also understand that. 

You simply don't have a point.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Wonderful posting, as always SSDD. It's rare I read one of your rants without laughing out loud.
> ...



absurd better describes it


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 16, 2013)

Pretty easy to have fraud like this when you control all the data and manipulate it at will to match your fantasy.  Further, it aids the ends of multiple governments in wealth redistribution, so they have no reason to interfere.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> Pretty easy to have fraud like this when you control all the data and manipulate it at will to match your fantasy.  Further, it aids the ends of multiple governments in wealth redistribution, so they have no reason to interfere.



How long have conservatives been pushing "wealth redistribution"?

Honestly....can you guys just think for 15 seconds before posting this stuff?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

conservatives don't push wealth redistribution....that is a liberal scheme.  You apparently are the one who doesn't think.  Guess you think social welfare is a conservative idea.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 16, 2013)

I thought you just said politics had nothing to do with climate science.  Thanks for confirming the link.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> conservatives don't push wealth redistribution....that is a liberal scheme.



EXACTLY.

So the idea that conservative governments around the world are part of some massive socialist conspiracy is just a silly, infantile fantasy, isn't it?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> I thought you just said politics had nothing to do with climate science.  Thanks for confirming the link.



It doesn't. 

Science is science. 

But Deniers insist that a huge global political conspiracy is in place, thus making it a political issue. 

Outside the US, it simply is not a political issue. All major conservative parties are up to speed on it, and largely agree on what the science is telling us. It's a no brainer for most conservatives.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 16, 2013)

Globally, the public has less and less belief in the science of climate change as their alerts fail time and time again.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 16, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> Globally, the public has less and less belief in the science of climate change as their alerts fail time and time again.




that is why they have had to change the term so many times 

global warming 

climate change 

weather change 

ect ect 

--LOL


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> Globally, the public has less and less belief in the science of climate change as their alerts fail time and time again.



No, that's another childish myth. 

Global surveys record understanding of climate science as around 65% - 70%, and up to 90% in countries where the effects are clearly evident.

There is a thread on this in this forum with all the data.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

Jon - 



> that is why they have had to change the term so many times
> 
> global warming
> 
> ...



Actually no, that's another childish myth. The only person using the term 'weather change' is you. 

The term climate change came into use 25 years ago - glad to see you finaly noticed.

It's good to know that a person who can not spell "etc" can still be a scientific genius.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh brother 

--LOL


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Globally, the public has less and less belief in the science of climate change as their alerts fail time and time again.
> ...



In which countries are the effects "clearly evident?"  I'm not aware of any.  I think you mean countries where the populace has been thoroughly brainwashed and bamboozled.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Jon -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The term "climate change" only came into widespread use among AGW cultists about 5 years ago when it became obvious that the climate wasn't warming an longer.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> In which countries are the effects "clearly evident?"  I'm not aware of any.  I think you mean countries where the populace has been thoroughly brainwashed and bamboozled.



I wouldn't have thought for a moment that you would be aware of them. 

I guess the effects are most evident in Australia, Spain, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Chile, Argentina, India, Alaska, Peru, Bolivia and increasingly in Scandinavia. 

Elsewhere I can appreciate the effects may not be quite so visible, though they still evident if you look at climate data. 

I have no idea why people would be "brainwashed" by their own first-hand experience.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The term "climate change" only came into widespread use among AGW cultists about 5 years ago when it became obvious that the climate wasn't warming an longer.



Actually, it was around the late 1980's. 

It's amazing that some people have only now noticed the change.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > In which countries are the effects "clearly evident?"  I'm not aware of any.  I think you mean countries where the populace has been thoroughly brainwashed and bamboozled.
> ...



Climate data forged by a small group of scientists who then release this data to researchers and the public?  

Btw, US meterologists don't believe in human caused climate change.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So the idea that conservative governments around the world are part of some massive socialist conspiracy is just a silly, infantile fantasy, isn't it?



Which conservative goverments might those be siagon?   Just name a few of actual conservative governments in the world.  Lets see what passes for conservative in your skewed worldview.  Hope you aren't going to say the US because you would prove how much you don't know right off the bat.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you just said politics had nothing to do with climate science.  Thanks for confirming the link.
> ...



Not necessarily when it is government science.  How many examples of governent science that turned out to be a failure do you need before it sinks into that thick skull of yours.  You might start with the idea that the earth is at the center of everyting and continue on down to eugenics...right on down to plate tectonics...to quasicrystals.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

Save Liberty - 

Try reading the post again - what I am talking about here also includes firsthand experience of climate change. 

I have no idea what you mean by a "small group" of scientists - the actual number is in the low thousands globaly, working in a hundred countries and at a couple of hundred institutes and universities. 



> US meterologists don't believe in human caused climate change.



Actually they do, but I am aware there is some really very funny stuff about this on blogs that someone extremely gullible might swallow.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > So the idea that conservative governments around the world are part of some massive socialist conspiracy is just a silly, infantile fantasy, isn't it?
> ...



My word.....could you get any more stupid?

There are conservative governments in England, Finland, New Zealand, Germany....shall I do on?

Honestly - how can you not know this? Isn't it common knowledge?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I guess the effects are most evident in Australia, Spain, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Chile, Argentina, India, Alaska, Peru, Bolivia and increasingly in Scandinavia.



So describe an unprecedented climate effect being seein in any of those places.  Describe anything that is going on in any of those places that is unheard of in terms of natural variability.

Good luck with that.  Once more you have painted yourself into a corner that you can't possibly get out of without simply dodging the question entirely because no data exists showing any climate related phenomena in any of those places that is outside of natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> There are conservative governments in England, Finland, New Zealand, Germany....shall I do on?



You need to go on because so far, you haven't named a single conservative government.  I serously doubt that you even know what conservative means.  You might start by learning what classical liberalism was, which is how modern conservativism defines itself....you know, the guys who founded the US...the guys who thought that government should be small and restrict itself to very narrowly defined activities.  A conservative government doesn't believe its people derive their rights from government.  A conservative governemnt sees its primary role as protecting those rights that don't come from governemnt.

Which one of those governments restricts itself to verry narrowly defined activities and genuinely believes, and acts in accordance with the belief that government is not the source of the people's rights...keeps its tax burden on individuals very small....requires little income to accomplish its narrowly defined activities...and genuinely supports the idea of individual freedom.

All the governments you have named thus far are socialist to one degree or another and believe in social welfare, artificial social equality like welfare, affirmative action, and income redistribution....ideas that are diametrically opposed to conservativism.

The US is no longer a conservative government but in comparison to those you have named, it is very conservative.



Saigon said:


> Honestly - how can you not know this? Isn't it common knowledge?



Honestly, how can you be so ignorant of political philosophy so as to have confused any of those governments with a conservative goverment.  Less socialist does not equal conservative.

Tell you what siagon, how about you name 3 things you can do in your little piece of socialist heaven that involves absolutely no government interference at the national, regional, and local level,  without going into the most drab and prosaic aspects of your life.  How free do you believe you really are?  How conservative is your governemtn really?  Under a truely conservative government you would have more difficulty naming things that involve government interference than things that don't.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 16, 2013)

> You need to go on because so far, you haven't named a single conservative government.



Oh, fuck me!!!

You silly, stupid child. Really. 

Go and check, come back and apologise. Or you can keep lying of course, while everyone laughs at you.

I named 4 countries - they all have undisputably conservative governments, unquestionably and incontrovertibly.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 16, 2013)

Yup ahhhh ( takes a toke of a ciggy Denis Leary style )........

We should all just throw in the towel and go the way of Greece and the rest of the EU...........


Go the way of Paul "Ive never been right on one pridiction" Krugman and heres what you get.........

Greece Government Debt To GDP




Or not..........


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > You need to go on because so far, you haven't named a single conservative government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No need to check.  I already know.  Clearly you don't and if you think they are I am afraid that you are bieng laughted at.  

I named 4 countries - they all have undisputably conservative governments, unquestionably and incontrovertibly.[/QUOTE]

Then you clearly don't have the slightest idea of what conservative means.  You think less liberal means conservative and that simply isn't the case.  You have already been humiliated insofar as the science goes here but you really don't want to enter into a debate of political philosophy with me because I will mop the floor with you, publicly humiliate you and perhaps make you cry like a little girl.

I can't help but note that you didn't even attempt to name just 3 things that you can do in your little socialist eutopia that involve no government interference at any level without getting into the most banal aspects of your life.  We both know that it is because you know that you can't name even 3 things of any importance....and you claim to live under a conservative government.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 16, 2013)

You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.







Saigon is a pathological liar.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 17, 2013)

> No need to check. I already know.



Well obviously you don't. 

You have to be honest with yourself here - at the point your own politics become so extreme that you deny that the Conservative Party is Conservative, you have completely lost contact with reality.

Here you are denying that four conservative governments are conservative - when ANY dictionary will tell you they are. Would I also be right in suggesting that you have not been tp even one of the countries inolved here?

Face it - you ARE an extremist. 

The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party, is a *centre-right political party *in the United Kingdom that *espouses the philosophies of conservatism *and British unionism. As of 2013 it is the most powerful party in the United Kingdom, being the largest single party in the House of Commons with 303 MPs, the largest party in local government with 9,391 councillors, and the largest British party in the European Parliament with 25 MEPs. It governs in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, with party leader David Cameron as Prime Minister.

Conservative Party (UK) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Saigon (Mar 17, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.



Well, I do write about politics for a living. At the time you start publishing books on politics, perhaps you'll be in a position to discuss my use of terms. 



> you really don't want to enter into a debate of political philosophy with me because I will mop the floor with you, publicly humiliate you and perhaps make you cry like a little girl.



Oh, I do look forward to that. I imaine your views on Foucault will be as breath-taking as your views on the British Antarctic Survey.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.
> ...



I was sort of astonished the first time I encountered someone who demonstrated complete ignorance about a certain subject but was unshakably convinced that he knew everything there was to know about that subject. Unshakable even after being repeatedly presented with incontrovertible evidence that he was wrong in his claims. I couldn't understand how anyone could be that 'certain' with absolutely nothing to back it up. More recently, I found something that kind of made it all fall into place. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it explains the strange behavior of many of the denier cultists who post on here. Also explains Sarah Palin and Herman Cain and others in the political arena like the tea party candidates. If you haven't checked this out before, Saigon, I think you would enjoy reading these explanations of this effect. Might explain a lot about some of these AGW deniers whose arrogant ignorance you've encountered on here. These articles are all good but different from each other. The RationalWiki one has a particularly pithy summary.

*Dunning&#8211;Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunning-Kruger effect - RationalWiki

When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect
Psychology Today*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Jon -
> ...



yup exactly


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > You need to go on because so far, you haven't named a single conservative government.
> ...



Then you clearly don't have the slightest idea of what conservative means.  You think less liberal means conservative and that simply isn't the case.  You have already been humiliated insofar as the science goes here but you really don't want to enter into a debate of political philosophy with me because I will mop the floor with you, publicly humiliate you and perhaps make you cry like a little girl.

I can't help but note that you didn't even attempt to name just 3 things that you can do in your little socialist eutopia that involve no government interference at any level without getting into the most banal aspects of your life.  We both know that it is because you know that you can't name even 3 things of any importance....and you claim to live under a conservative government.[/QUOTE]

LOL. This fool wishes to live under a conservative government where everyone where armbands with the crooked cross. 

SSDD hasn't the slightest idea of what conservative means in the context of the politics of the international community. To him, anything to the left of the attitudes in South Podunk, Texas, is communism. A real poster child for willfull ignorance and intentional stupidity.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > No need to check. I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> Well obviously you don't.



Obviously I do.  There are no conservatve european nations.  Perhaps you don't know what conservative means because you never lived in a conservative nation.  I have lived under a conservative government but haven't for at least 30 years.  You are clueless.



Saigon said:


> You have to be honest with yourself here - at the point your own politics become so extreme that you deny that the Conservative Party is Conservative, you have completely lost contact with reality.



Calling oneself conservative doesn't make one conservative.  The British conservative party is far more liberal than the US republican party and the republican party is no longer conservative.  It is simply less liberal than the democrat party.  You obviously don't know jack.

And I note that you still haven't been able to name just 3 things that you can do in your country that involves no government interference without going to the most mundane aspect of your life....and then you claim to live under a conservative government?  You are a joke.



Saigon said:


> Here you are denying that four conservative governments are conservative - when ANY dictionary will tell you they are. Would I also be right in suggesting that you have not been tp even one of the countries inolved here?



Define conservative.  My bet is that you can't even do that.

A conservative government operates on certain principles...principles that are sorely lacking in the US government and damned near absent in european governments.  Some of those principles are as follows:

First and foremost a conservative government establishes and protects negative liberty as opposed to positive liberty.  Positive liberty is a liberal tool because it is a source of governmental power.  

A conservative government values tradition and freedom over governmental power.  I can't help but note that you can't even name 3 things you can do without government interference without going to the most tedious aspect of yoru life.  If you lived under a conservative government you would have a more difficult time naming things that the government interfered in.  

Conservative governments are not politically correct.  If you find political correctness in a government, it is not conservative no matter what it says.  A conservative government is concerned with protecting your inalienable rights, not fabricating rights to protect such as the right to not be offended.

A few other characteristics of a conservative government is the acknowledgement, but not the enforcement of a moral order.  Tell me any of the governments you listed track along those lines.  A conservative government tends to respect custom, tradition, and continuity as opposed to liberals who actively seek changes in all aspects of one's life and will use the law to enforce those changes.  Conservative governments tend to preserve variety as opposed to liberal government who seek homoginization....active mixing of various cultures to the point that the original culture is lost in favor of one the state feels that it can live with.....

A conservative government is strongly in favor of privat property and rarely if ever interferes with the rights that go along with private property.  Simple ownership does not mean that one has property rights.  Excessive regulation degrades property rights and is a tool of liberalism.   A conservative government will avoid law and regulation that moves any group or the society at large towards collectivism.  None of the states you named have had a very good record on one of the cornerstones of conservativism.

A conservative government is self restrained in its use of power.  Localities would have more power that the central government under a truely conservative government.  Truely conservative government happens primarily at the local level with the central government handling tasks like negotiating foriegn treaties, delivering the mail, and protecting the borders.  Again, all of the states you named have very strong central governments and weak regional and local governments in comparison thus failing the very defninition of conservative government.



Saigon said:


> Face it - you ARE an extremist.



Spoken like a true liberal who lives in fear of conservativism.  You don't know what the hell you are talking about.



Saigon said:


> The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party,



Since a genuinely conservative government would oppose any form of collectivism, the conservative and unionist party fails the conservative benchmark in its name, and right center doesn't mean anything if not put in context.  Right center of what?


It is clear that as with science, you don't know jack.  You read what you are spoonfed and have never taken the time to actually learn anything in your life.  You are a child in the arena of political philosophy but if you want to have yourself a brand new asshole torn in public, then take your claims over to a political thread and I will be happy to demonstrate what a lifetime of study of political philosophy looks like in comparison to your quick peek at a dictionary.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. This fool wishes to live under a conservative government where everyone where armbands with the crooked cross.



I guess you are one of those idiots who doesn't know political philosophy either.  Hitler was a socialist.  He allowed private ownership of property and the means of production unlike stalin and lenin, but he socialize the people.  You could own property and business if you were a good nazi but cross the line and someone else would own your property and business.

He invented social programs that eventually broke his nations back economically which is what actually brought on the final solution...Weeks and weeks of vacation for all citizens at public cost at publicly owned and operated resorts....free medical....welfare...and the list goes on and on.  

You may not know it, but you live under a conservative constitution.  Read it sometime.  The hallmark of a conservative government is a small footprint and very little interference in its citizens lives.  Does that sound like hitler's germany to you?  Does that even sound like the US to you?



Saigon said:


> SSDD hasn't the slightest idea of what conservative means in the context of the politics of the international community. To him, anything to the left of the attitudes in South Podunk, Texas, is communism. A real poster child for willfull ignorance and intentional stupidity.



You and siagon open a thread, let me know where it is and I will be happy to tear you both new assholes in public.  I have been an avid student of political philosophy since this was mostly a conservative nation.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.



Clueless...like most liberals.  He knows what he is told to know and is happy with that.  Actual freedom scares the hell out of liberals.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Well, I do write about politics for a living. At the time you start publishing books on politics, perhaps you'll be in a position to discuss my use of terms.



Not everyone is good at their jobs and your obvious lack of depth in this area means that you are one who isn't very good at his job.  Living in a socialist nation though, I suppose being good at your job wouldn't necessarily be the best way to keep it.



Saigon said:


> Oh, I do look forward to that. I imaine your views on Foucault will be as breath-taking as your views on the British Antarctic Survey.



Foucault was a social philosopher...he wasn't really a political philosopher.  Some of his thoughts touched on politics but political theory really wasn't his arena.  If you view him as an actual political philosopher, I can see why you know as little as you do.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 17, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> *DunningKruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *


*

Yes thunder, we know that you keep subconsciously telling us why you are inadequate and why you must pretend to actually understand the science.  Do you really want to be proven inadequate in another field of study as well.

If so, I invite you to join siagon and rocks on their thread regarding political philosophy.  I will be tearing 2 new assholes....may as well make it 3.  It isn't as if you would add any difficulty to the conversation.  Siagon and rocks have already demonstrated that they don't have the first notion of what conservativism is and what would constitute a conservative government.  You want to weigh in on the issue and prove that you don't know jack either?*


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > You'd have thought Saigon would have at least paused before suggesting a European nation was conservative, but no.  You are absolutely right SSDD Saigon has little to no understanding of most terms he uses.
> ...



Hopefully your writing is government subsidized then, because you clearly have no idea what you speak of.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 17, 2013)

Anyways, back to the OP.  Yes, global warming is being abandoned by scientists left and right as they hope to salvage their jobs and futures.  Looks like Saigon has staked his writing future on global warming, so he'll be looking for a new line of employment in the next year or two.


----------



## westwall (Mar 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > In which countries are the effects "clearly evident?"  I'm not aware of any.  I think you mean countries where the populace has been thoroughly brainwashed and bamboozled.
> ...







Oh!  Do tell!  What effects....and be exact.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

> Living in a socialist nation though,



And there you go again - your own political extremism leading you to twist facts into childish nonsense. 

The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, currently Jyrki Katainen, who has held the office since June 22, 2011. The Prime Minister designate is subject to election by the Parliament and, if elected, he or she &#8212;along with all the other ministers upon the nomination of the Prime Minister&#8212; are appointed by the President of Finland.

Katainen's government is a right-left coalition of the National Coalition Party, Social Democratic Party, Left Alliance, Green League, Swedish People's Party and Christian Democrats. Katainen's predecessor Mari Kiviniemi was elected Prime Minister in June 2010, after the resignation of Matti Vanhanen. Kiviniemi's and Vanhanen's governments both were* centre-right coalitions,* consisting of the National Coalition, Centre Party, Green League and Swedish People's Party.

Government of Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right wing National Coalition Party leads the government right now as the largest party, back by two other right-wing parties and three left-wing parties. The previous two governments were both entirely right-wing.


Yuor own views on politics are just so extreme it is impossible for you to get a realistic graps on simple facts, clearly.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> Hopefully your writing is government subsidized then, because you clearly have no idea what you speak of.



Like many real conservatives, I own and run my own business. I sell journalism around the world, write in more than one language, and have two books being published this year. 

Somehow I think I have a little more experience of what real left and right wing dictatorships look like close up than you do. Feel free to put that to the test.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Foucault was a social philosopher...he wasn't really a political philosopher.  Some of his thoughts touched on politics but political theory really wasn't his arena.  If you view him as an actual political philosopher, I can see why you know as little as you do.



Jesus wept....

Foucaults political philosophy consists of non-normative descriptions of reality that nevertheless have considerable critical force. Foucaults political philosophy is a philosophy that undertakes the project that the young Karl Marx described as the ruthless criticism of all that exists_. The purpose of this critical philosophy of Foucaults is precisely to shut the mouths of all those who would prescribe anything  including, perhaps most prominently, Marxists.

Michel Foucault?s Political Philosophy

The fact that Foucault also wrote about topics like sexuality and psychiatry does not mean that he is not studied in Political Philosophy, his work is now central to the field, along with Schmitt, Habermas, Kant, Heidigger etc._


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm reluctant to waste time when we both know you aren't interested in the topic - but if you choose one of the countries listed, I'll describe the impacts.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Let's start with a country I know very well.  New Zealand.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Let's start with a country I know very well.  New Zealand.



I am sure you are well aware that the current droughts is expected to cost billions of dollars...then there is the melting of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers....

I mentioned the other day that New Zealand had never had a fatality from a tornado prior to 1991, and have now had 3 fatal tornado events since then. 

I'm off to work now so don't have time to go into more detail, but can no later.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Let's start with a country I know very well.  New Zealand.
> ...







Drought is normal in New Zealand, especially on the south island.  

The Fox glacier is advancing and has been since 1985 I believe.  Sometimes at the rate of up to one meter per day, as is the Franz Josef Glacier...

Fox Glacier

Franz Josef Glacier

And I guess you either forgot or more likely choose to ignore the fact that you are quite simply ridiculously wrong about tornado fatalities.  Three Kiwi's were killed by an F2 in Frankton on the 25th of August 1948.  At least 80 were injured and over 100 buildings damaged or destroyed.  Then in 1991 one Kiwi was killed in Albany, two more were kille in Waitara on the 15th of August 2004 and there was a fatality in Albany again on the 3rd of May 2011, and finally again three more were killed in Hobsonville (a suburb of Auckland as is Albany BTW) on the 6th of December 2012.  So yet again you prove yourself to be fantastically WRONG in every respect.

I like how you have modified your statement to read 1991, when before you claimed 2012 was the first till I schooled you.  It's a shame you didn't read my post accurately or you would have saved yourself the embarassment of being catastrophically wrong about tornado fatalities.  But then you're catastrophically wrong about everything anyway.
Do you in fact know anything?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

> The Fox glacier is advancing and has been since 1985 I believe. Sometimes at the rate of up to one meter per day, as is the Franz Josef Glacier...



Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. 

You'd really post absolutely anything at all, wouldn't you? I bet you looked for a New Zealand source as well, and couldn't find a single one that backed up your silly claims! Why else would you use some bizarre source? 


 Scientists revealed this past week New Zealand's famous Franz Josef Glacier is dramatically retreating. Deidre Mussen investigates what the future holds for our nation's glaciers.

Over the past three decades, some New Zealand glaciers have quietly vanished. 

The paper, published in Global and Planetary Change, an international journal, in April, shows New Zealand's glaciers have lost 15 per cent of ice mass in the 32 years to 2008, a massive 8.4km3. However, the rate of loss was less dramatic than the previous 100 years, when ice mass almost halved. 

New Zealand Glaciers Melting Away | Stuff.co.nz


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

In New Zealand the mountain glaciers have been in general retreat since 1890, with an acceleration of this retreat since 1920. Most of the glaciers have thinned measurably and have reduced in size, and the snow accumulation zones have risen in elevation as the 20th century progressed. During the period 1971&#8211;75, Ivory Glacier receded 30 m (98 ft) from the glacial terminus, and about 26% of the surface area of the glacier was lost over the same period. Since 1980 numerous small glacial lakes were created behind the new terminal moraines of several of these glaciers. Glaciers such as Classen, Godley and Douglas now all have new glacial lakes below their terminal locations due to the glacial retreat over the past 20 years. Satellite imagery indicates that these lakes are continuing to expand. There has been significant and ongoing ice volume losses on the largest New Zealand glaciers, including the Tasman, Ivory, Classen, Mueller, Maud, Hooker, Grey, Godley, Ramsay, Murchison, Therma, Volta and Douglas Glaciers. The retreat of these glaciers has been marked by expanding proglacial lakes and terminus region thinning. The loss in volume from 1975&#8211;2005 is 11 percent of the total.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






The funny thing is that you chose this country as one you know well - and yet you didn't know that two of the countries major tourist attractions were in general long-term retreat.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

> Drought is normal in New Zealand, especially on the south island.



Finance Minister Bill English now believes the drought could cost the nation's economy up to $2 billion - double the figure estimated last week.

"The latest advice is that somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion will be knocked off our national income, and as every week goes by, the prospect of it being $2 billion instead of $1 billion grows,'' he told TVNZ's Q + A programme.

Mr English further warned that the drought could potentially knock 30 per cent off New Zealand's growth rate in a year.

Unusually, the driest part of New Zealand today was Southland. Gisborne and northern Hawkes Bay also hadn't had rain yet.

Drought cost doubles - Droughts - NZ Herald News

Keep in mind that Finance Minister speaking here is Bill English - who is right wing. It' the worst drought in 30 years, and just as importantly seems to be part of a growing trend of extreme weather conditions in New Zealand.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> Hopefully your writing is government subsidized then, because you clearly have no idea what you speak of.



Of course it is government subsidized.  He lives in a socialist nation.  The funny thing is that he doesn't even know it.  That is how far his government has dumbed him down.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Oh!  Do tell!  What effects....and be exact.



I have asked him several times now.  No asnwer yet and I really don't expect one.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully your writing is government subsidized then, because you clearly have no idea what you speak of.
> ...



Actually, no, I live in a country which has had a conservative government for most of the past 10 or 12 years. 

What a silly little child you are.

The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, currently Jyrki Katainen, who has held the office since June 22, 2011. The Prime Minister designate is subject to election by the Parliament and, if elected, he or she &#8212;along with all the other ministers upon the nomination of the Prime Minister&#8212; are appointed by the President of Finland.

Katainen's government is a right-left coalition of the National Coalition Party, Social Democratic Party, Left Alliance, Green League, Swedish People's Party and Christian Democrats. Katainen's predecessor Mari Kiviniemi was elected Prime Minister in June 2010, after the resignation of Matti Vanhanen. Kiviniemi's and Vanhanen's governments both were *centre-right coalitions,* consisting of the National Coalition, Centre Party, Green League and Swedish People's Party.

Katainen is head of the right-wing NCP, or Kokoomus.

Again, I run and own a business, I am in no way subsidised by the state. Quite the opposite, actually!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh!  Do tell!  What effects....and be exact.
> ...



See posts 448, 449 and 450.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Like many real conservatives, I own and run my own business. I sell journalism around the world, write in more than one language, and have two books being published this year.



That's a laugh.  You are no more a conservative than an insect is a mammal.  You think owning a business makes you conservative?  You think writing in more than one language makes you conservative?  You think having a book published makes you conservative?

Tell me, what do you think government's rightfull role is?  Lets see how conservative you are.



Saigon said:


> Somehow I think I have a little more experience of what real left and right wing dictatorships look like close up than you do. Feel free to put that to the test.



No, you only have experience with various shades of left.  You clearly don't have an idea of what conservativism is and if you have the balls to state what you believe government's rightfull role is we shall see that you are not conservative.

If you knew what conservativism was, then you would know that there can be no conservative dictatorship.  You keep saying left and right wing, but you don't know that you are talking about the left and right of socialism.  You haven't made a single statement so far regarding conservativism.  A conservative government, as I stated is very small and unobtrusive...under a conservative government, power is concentrated at the regional and local level...closer to the people.  The federal, or central government plays a limited role and isn't obvious in the people's lives.  A conservative dictatorship is an oxymoron.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

> You think owning a business makes you conservative? You think writing in more than one language makes you conservative? You think having a book published makes you conservative?



No, they just make me smarter than you are.



> No, you only have experience with various shades of left.



Nonsense, I have FAR MORE experience of right wing governments than you have. Let's compare shall we....which countries with extreme right wing governments have you been to and studied?

The fact is - you have 0 real world experience of politics and governments. You have never been to a country which suffers under tyranny, and have never been to a socialist country. You have no basis to even be discussing this topic.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foucaults political philosophy consists of non-normative descriptions of reality that nevertheless have considerable critical force.



Like I said, he was not a political philosopher.  He occasionally touched on political issues, but his forte was social philosophy.  Now you being a socialist, I can see how you might believe social philosophy is political philosophy, but the two are different thngs.  

Clearly you don't know political philosophy.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 18, 2013)

SSDD - 

I know political philosophy well enough that most of the key figures in the study of modern political philosophy also wrote about other topics - Arendt, Butler, Sartre and Heidigger for instance, and also Habermas and Foucault. Much of Arendt's most important work is also taught in history courses, but she still a central figure in political philosophy. Butler we know largely in gender studies, but it is also often cited in Political Philosophy. Sartre also wrote fiction - but is also central to political philosophy. 

It's hard to imagine a course in Pol.Phil these days NOT covering Foucault or Arendt.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 18, 2013)

Nobody cares what people from Finland have to say.......about as relevant as people giving opinions who hail from the country of Bumfook!!!!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 18, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares what people from Finland have to say.......about as relevant as people giving opinions who hail from the country of Bumfook!!!!



Let`s assume for a moment he is indeed in Finland.
Only a dumb Fin would have to look it up at Wikipedia how they elect their Prime Minister and who that is currently
Here is "Saigon" lecturing you :


Saigon said:


> The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, currently Jyrki Katainen, who has held the office since June 22, 2011.The Prime Minister designate is subject to election by the Parliament  and, if elected, he or she &#8212;along with all the other ministers upon the  nomination of the Prime Minister&#8212; are appointed by the President of  Finland.



And if you Google "Finland" you get:
Government of Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And :


> The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, currently Jyrki Katainen,  who has held the office since June 22, 2011. The Prime Minister  designate is subject to election by the Parliament and, if elected, he  or she &#8212;along with all the other ministers upon the nomination of the  Prime Minister&#8212; are appointed by the President of Finland.


How dumb must a person be having to Google how their PM or President is elected...and then copy & paste it pretending it came from him.
How dumb can such an ass be assuming nobody would notice what his "education" is. It`s Google==>Wikipedia==>copy&paste===>post and that`s it !
He had to Google just to get the name of the Fin-PM
You noticed, he never answers questions....unless he found a GlobalwarmingDumbnut.org FAQ page with a pre-chewed  answer
If you would yank his router cable he is instantly as dumb as a monkey in a tree on fire.
But you are supposed to believe he is, as he puts it a well educated Journalist living in Finland


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> No, they just make me smarter than you are.



We have already established that isn't true.  You can't even speak to the most basic science of climate change in your own words.  



Saigon said:


> Nonsense, I have FAR MORE experience of right wing governments than you have. Let's compare shall we....which countries with extreme right wing governments have you been to and studied?



You don't get it and I doubt that you ever will.  When you use the word wing, either right or left, you are talking about the same house and the house is liberalism.  Extreme conservativism is, agan, an oxymoron....and you....you are just a moron.



Saigon said:


> The fact is - you have 0 real world experience of politics and governments. You have never been to a country which suffers under tyranny, and have never been to a socialist country. You have no basis to even be discussing this topic.



The fact is that you don't know squat and you have lost this discussion as surely as you lost the climate change discussion.  And I still can't help but notice that you remain unable to name even 3 things that you can do in your supposedly conservative country with no government interference at the federal, regional, or local level...and you still claim to live in a conservative nation.  You are laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 18, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Let`s assume for a moment he is indeed in Finland.
> Only a dumb Fin would have to look it up at Wikipedia how they elect their Prime Minister and who that is currently
> Here is "Saigon" lecturing you :
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The Fox glacier is advancing and has been since 1985 I believe. Sometimes at the rate of up to one meter per day, as is the Franz Josef Glacier...
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Having lived there for several years, yes I know it quite well and have actually spent a great deal of time on the Franz Josef glacier and it is in fact advancing.  If you can bother to read the below account you will see that the VAST majority of glacial melting occured in the 1930's which puts the lie to your assertions yet again.  As far as sources you use wiki which is a joke, so here is a NZ source for you...satisfied?

"When first visited by geologist and explorer Julius Haast in 1864, the front edge of the Franz Josef stood near Sentinel Rock, several kilometres further downvalley than today. Franz Josef began a rapid retreat in the mid-1930s. A lake formed in front of the glacier between 1939 and 1949, but rapidly filled with rock debris. Since then, the Franz Josef and the Fox have been retreating, with occasional brief advances. The Franz Josef was at its smallest extent in 1982, but since then its front has once again advanced about a kilometre."

2. Tasman, Franz Josef and Fox glaciers ? Glaciers and glaciation ? Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand


----------



## rdean (Mar 18, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...
> 
> 
> You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?



This thread is still going on years after James Hansen said he was wrong?  It's kind of like George Bush.  When he said there were WMD's, Republicans believed him.  When he said there wasn't any WMD's, they said he's lying.  They believe anything but the truth.  Go figure.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Drought is normal in New Zealand, especially on the south island.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







None of which addresses the fact that drought is normal for New Zealand now does it?  My gosh but you're an obtuse one aren't you.

"The standard image of New Zealand is one of peaceful green pastures and sunny country towns. However, the New Zealand experience can be very different. Floods and droughts can affect virtually all parts of the country, from Northland down to Invercargill, in any year." 

The New Zealand Hydrological Society (Incorporated)

And I notice you ran away from your laughable assertions about the tornado history of New Zealand.  Unsurprising.  The fact is New Zealand experiences an average of 20 tornado's per year and has since time began.  The reason why so few people are killed is primarily one of location.  The vast majority of New Zealand tornados are confined to a very narrow area that has been left alone for the most part till the 1960's when development began in that area.

But those are facts and you don't "do" facts.


----------



## westwall (Mar 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > You think owning a business makes you conservative? You think writing in more than one language makes you conservative? You think having a book published makes you conservative?
> 
> 
> 
> ...









  Sure junior, sure!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

> When you use the word wing, either right or left, you are talking about the same house and the house is liberalism.





> Again, when you say right wing, left wing, you are, in reality, just speaking about the various forms of socialism.



Right. And you actually believe this, do you?



I am genuinely speechless.....!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

> Denying that hitler's germany was socialist. Imagine, claiming that the National Socialist German Workers' Party was not socialist.



Yes, imagine that!

I am not going to bother to prove that Hitler was right wing. For any to have ever thought otherwise must have involved more brainwashing that can ever be undone by mere facts. Better you keep believing what you believe, youg man!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Westwall - 

Rather than just spam the thread, you could actually correct poor SSDD on this to save him further humiliation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/284408-how-we-know-hitler-was-right-wing.html#post6971567


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Rather than just spam the thread, you could actually correct poor SSDD on this to save him further humiliation.







My matter, counters your anti-matter, the resultant energy product warms my tummy for a short while....and that is good...


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> My matter, counters your anti-matter, the resultant energy product warms my tummy for a short while....and that is good...



In New Zealand the mountain glaciers have been in general retreat since 1890, with an acceleration of this retreat since 1920. Most of the glaciers have thinned measurably and have reduced in size, and the snow accumulation zones have risen in elevation as the 20th century progressed. During the period 197175, Ivory Glacier receded 30 m (98 ft) from the glacial terminus, and about 26% of the surface area of the glacier was lost over the same period. Since 1980 numerous small glacial lakes were created behind the new terminal moraines of several of these glaciers. Glaciers such as Classen, Godley and Douglas now all have new glacial lakes below their terminal locations due to the glacial retreat over the past 20 years. Satellite imagery indicates that these lakes are continuing to expand. There has been significant and ongoing ice volume losses on the largest New Zealand glaciers, including the Tasman, Ivory, Classen, Mueller, Maud, Hooker, Grey, Godley, Ramsay, Murchison, Therma, Volta and Douglas Glaciers. The retreat of these glaciers has been marked by expanding proglacial lakes and terminus region thinning. The loss in volume from 19752005 is 11 percent of the total.[34]

Several glaciers, notably the much-visited Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers on New Zealand's West Coast, have periodically advanced, especially during the 1990s, but the scale of these advances is small when compared to 20th-century retreat. Both glaciers are currently more than 2.5 km (1.6 mi) shorter than a century ago. These large, rapidly flowing glaciers situated on steep slopes have been very reactive to small mass-balance changes. A few years of conditions favorable to glacier advance, such as more westerly winds and a resulting increase in snowfall, are rapidly echoed in a corresponding advance, followed by equally rapid retreat when those favorable conditions end.[35] The glaciers that have been advancing in a few locations in New Zealand have been doing so due to transient local weather conditions, which have brought more precipitation and cloudier, cooler summers since 2002.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > When you use the word wing, either right or left, you are talking about the same house and the house is liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I don't believe this.  I know this.  Unlike you, I don't depend entirely on others to tell me what to think.  I read their work and put it to the test.  If it passes, then I accept the information till such time as it is proven false.  You on the other hanbd read (maybe) and then believe or disbelieve as you have been told to do.

hitler's own words bear out your ignorance.  You stated that he despised socialism and yet, in his correspondence, he descirbed how much deeper his socialism was than that of his contemporaries.  He explained that socializing the individual's relationship to the state was a much deeper, and more effective form of socialism than simply nationalizing the means of production. 

If you actually lived in finland, which it is now clear that you don't since you had to visit wiki to get the names of the leaders in finland, you would be living under such a state minus the overt militarism and racism.  



Saigon said:


> I am genuinely speechless.....!



No, you are genuinely ignorant.  You have read various socialist philosophers' ideas  (maybe, more likely googled short passages and drew sweeping conclusions from those) about socialism and accept them as true without ever testing their ideas against reality.  I mean, how ignorant does one have to be to claim that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, translated National Socialist German Workers' Party was not a socialist organization.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I am not going to bother to prove that Hitler was right wing.



Proving that hitler was right wing isn't the issue.  Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.  Conservativism is in an entirely different neighborhood.  Had you any actual inkling of philosophy beyond that which you have googled, you would know this.  

You are called out as a fraud siagon.  The fact that you had to visit wiki to learn the names of your supposed country's leadership proves that you are either a blatant fraud and liar or one of the stupidest citizens of finland.  That little morsel isn't going away either.   When you are that stupid, people need to know and be reminded.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

> Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.



It's only getting better and better!!!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

> You are called out as a fraud siagon. The fact that you had to visit wiki to learn the names of your supposed country's leadership proves that you are either a blatant fraud and liar or one of the stupidest citizens of finland. That little morsel isn't going away either. When you are that stupid, people need to know and be reminded.



And better and better!!

So where do you think I am actually posting from? I can't wait to find out!

I didn't have to Wiki it, genius, I simply gave you the facts so you could research it yourself.  

Shall we perhaps continue this discussion in Finnish?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> My matter, counters your anti-matter, the resultant energy product warms my tummy for a short while....and that is good...



Did you see polarbear's catch?  Siagon was lecturing someone on the mechanism of elections in finland and who was in power and it turned out to be a direct copy and paste from wiki.  He is a fraud, and a liar.

He is probably an unemployed farm hand in missippi who thinks being an elitest writer in finland would be glamorous.  He displays all the inteligence one would expect from an unemployed farm hand in rural missisippi.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only getting better and better!!!



Since you don't know squat, I have to wonder how.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD - 

I suggest you ask some other poster - one you trust - quite what is so funny about this thread and your posting on it. 

I'm starting to feel a little bad about humiliating you here. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/284408-how-we-know-hitler-was-right-wing.html


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> So where do you think I am actually posting from? I can't wait to find out!



You display the intelligence of an unemployed farm hand in rural mississippi.  You might be from further in the sticks than that and just a better fraud than I give you credit for.



Saigon said:


> I didn't have to Wiki it, genius, I simply gave you the facts so you could research it yourself.



Of course you did since you are a fraud and not who you claim to be.  If I were going to pretend to be someone, it wouldn't be a journalist from a flyspeck socialist nation, but then maybe that is the best thing your imagination is capable of.



Saigon said:


> Shall we perhaps continue this discussion in Finnish?



Luulet, että olet ainoa henkilö, joka tietää wiki kääntää? Ja vaikka te haastaa kielenkäyttö, joka tekee kansalainen? Piti käydä wiki oppia, miten hallitus toimii ja joka istuu markkinajohtajan asemaansa. 

Mitä petosten olet. Olen kirjaimellisesti nauraa ääneen sinulle.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Did you see polarbear's catch?  Siagon was lecturing someone on the mechanism of elections in finland and who was in power and it turned out to be a direct copy and paste from wiki.  He is a fraud, and a liar.
> 
> He is probably an unemployed farm hand in missippi who thinks being an elitest writer in finland would be glamorous.  He displays all the inteligence one would expect from an unemployed farm hand in rural missisippi.



Actually I was explaining to you that Finland has a conservative government - not the socialist government you claimed it had. 

I had thought the Wiki page might have helped convince you, but obviously not!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I suggest you ask some other poster - one you trust - quite what is so funny about this thread and your posting on it.
> 
> I'm starting to feel a little bad about humiliating you here.



In typical liberal fashion, you lack any sense of humor and as such, aren't quite able to grasp that it is you who is being humiliated.  You laugh, but don't know that you are laughing at yourself.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Luulet, että olet ainoa henkilö, joka tietää wiki kääntää? Ja vaikka te haastaa kielenkäyttö, joka tekee kansalainen? Piti käydä wiki oppia, miten hallitus toimii ja joka istuu markkinajohtajan asemaansa.
> 
> Mitä petosten olet. Olen kirjaimellisesti nauraa ääneen sinulle.



Yes, you see this doesn't work in Finnish. 

I an understand what you are trying to say - but it is very clearly and obviously not written by a Finn, because you use the formal register (which we use only in, very formal situations) and you use the full 'book' version of many words (olet, sinulle) where we normally use shortened forms, like 'oot' and 'sulle'.

For instance, the dictionary word for twenty is 'kaksi kymentaa'. Any Finn would write 'kakskyt', or similar.



> , aren't quite able to grasp that it is you who is being humiliated. You laugh, but don't know that you are laughing at yourself.



Right. I am very humilated because you don't know what fascism is. Obviously.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > My matter, counters your anti-matter, the resultant energy product warms my tummy for a short while....and that is good...
> ...



Check it out how he spelled twenty in Finnish when he tried to swindle about his knowledge of colloquial Finnish:


Saigon said:


> For instance, the dictionary word for twenty is 'kaksi kymentaa'. Any Finn would write 'kakskyt', or similar.


That`s because he does not have an *ä*  key on his keyboard.
translate twenty to finnish


> kaksikymmentä


Also it`s one word not 2 as he wrote 20: kaksi kymentaa
And would`nt you know it if you Google for colloquial Finnish "Saigon" quoted the #1 Google search result  example, again straight from Wikipedia, just like he had to do for the PM of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Finnish


> _kakskyt_  for 20


He put me on his "ignore list" after I challenged him to run his finger across his keyboard which would generate the ASCII sequence which comes from a keyboard in Finland.
This "educated journalist in Finland"  knows s.f.a. and has to Google every item. Be that who the PM of Finland is, how to say 20 in Finnish or what a photon is.
I`m German and live in Canada, but I don`t have to Google who the PM is in Canada or who the Chancellor of Germany is. Nor do I have to Google how to say 20 in either language...or what a photon is and what it can and can not do....
Notice almost none of the so called "deniers" have to resort to Google==>copy==> paste & post.
While the "educated" warmists do nothing but!


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 19, 2013)

I think he's a Vietnamese immigrant to Finland....


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> I think he's a Vietnamese immigrant to Finland....


His avatar does suggest that, doesn`t it ?




A bell Huey has 2 blades on the tail rotor not 3
A Vietnamese would at least know what kind of Helicopters were used to evacuate the Saigon embassy:




Especially a Journalist 
If he is indeed in Finland then he got his PC in a thrift-shop for a buck after a tourist dumped it. Because with an English default keyboard layout it would be useless for a Fin in Finland.
I got lot`s of friends from Europe visiting me in Canada and let them use my PC so they can stay in touch with relatives in France, Germany etc. via e-mail. Many times it does not work because the special characters that they have on their keyboards don`t exist on a standard USA/Canada keyboard.
And it`s a bitch to do "Start=>Programs=>Accessories=>System Tools=>Character map" etc just to be able to write ä, é , ö ,  or even tell somebody back in the old country how much something costs in *&#8364;*,...because all we have is the *$* ASCII on our keyboards
It can get really confusing for a German in Germany to read what another German in the U.S. or Canada is trying to say.
For ä,  ö etc I have to write "ae" "oe" and the "ß" I have to substitute with "ss" ...we have words with  "s" ,"ss" and and "ß" like "Schloss" or "Schloß"
one is a padlock the other a castle. Then we have "das" ,"dass" and "daß" so unless you got the country specific keyboard you can`t even spell correctly and the grammar gets .a.f`d. up 

How could a "Journalist living in Finland", as he claims he is, possibly make a living writing on a keyboard without these ASCII keys ???

But Saigon is definitely not posting from a PC in Finland.
He almost got me banned from this forum when his own IP stared at him after I planted a funky java script inside a .jpg file
He even started a thread and posted:
"Warning, polarbear collects IP`s from forum members"...as if a retired engineer, busy raising 3 grand children would have nothing better to do 
Also all his posts are made during the wrong time frame. He is not posting from Finland or any country in that time zone.
I think SSDD nailed it..."Saigon" is an unemployed farmhand in Mississippi, I think he is a refugee in the U.S. sucking up to Democrats so that he can get his green card without the usual process.
The name of this thread is "nasa top global warming nut admits warming has stopped"...shit happens, he did indeed admit just that and so did almost all Met offices that warming has stalled for a whole decade now.. 
Now they are baffled where all "the missing heat" went that the rise in CO2 should have caused.
It`s not showing in the atmosphere and can`t be found in the oceans either...with  3255 Argo buoys that sample down to 2000 meters depth since 2002.
Their latest theory is that all 3255 buoys are in error and that all the data they gathered needs "re-adjustment"
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...her-raetseln-ueber-meereskaelte-a-694719.html


> *                                 Phänomen "fehlende Wärme": Klimaforscher rätseln über Meereskälte*


*(phenomenon "missing heat". Colder oceans baffle climate researchers)
*
But it will be a cold day in hell before the usual warmist liars in this forum admit they lied despite all the evidence you got that they lied.
They start cursing you and then  disappear and re-appear under a new user name and just keep on going....Like "UnderRoll" a.k.a. "RollingThunder" wo calls everybody who does not agree with his CO2 psychosis "a fucking retard"
He even admitted that he got banned from other forums and came back here because we let him
Or like "Poophead" the "physicist" who kept spelling it "physisist".. 




He used "microwavable frogs" that he pops in his microwave oven as an  example how long wave radiation is converted into heat to "explain" how  CO2 absorbs "heat"
I haven`t seen hide or hair from him since Christmas after he was  confronted with a few facts anybody who studied physics/thermodynaics should have known.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 19, 2013)

The missions might change but main purpose of a government bureaucracy is to get bigger and get more funding. Since Hussein grounded the Space Shuttle there isn't much for NASA to do but they have an incredible budget none the less. NASA turned into a home for old engineers and sloppy scientists and the administration still thinks the federal government is an employment agency.  Somebody needs to trim the NASA budget.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Or like "Poophead" the "physicist" who kept spelling it "physisist"..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It might be that a physisist might believe that microwaves emit long wave radiation.  Phyusisists and hog farmers.  A physicist and practically anyone with even a tenuous grasp of radiation knows that long wave isn't what heats your spaghetti-o's in the microwave.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > My matter, counters your anti-matter, the resultant energy product warms my tummy for a short while....and that is good...
> ...







Yes, but then I have known saigon's a fraud from the beginning.  My personal belief is he is living in his moms basement in Queens.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> I think he's a Vietnamese immigrant to Finland....



Viet Namese?

Well, I give you points for originality!!

There are around 5,000 Viet Namese people here, most of whom came in the 1970's - and they are great people. I love Viet Nam and have been there a few times, but no - I'm not Viet Namese.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see polarbear's catch?  Siagon was lecturing someone on the mechanism of elections in finland and who was in power and it turned out to be a direct copy and paste from wiki.  He is a fraud, and a liar.
> ...








Only idiots use wiki for anything nimrod.  It is not a credible source for anything.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Or like "Poophead" the "physicist" who kept spelling it "physisist"..
> ...


Yeah, besides that there is a big difference between heat generated by inductive eddy currents and IR.
Put something that conducts electricity in a micro wave and watch the sparks fly. A black paper dish would absorb IR out in the sun better than earth at albedo 0.5
But in a microwave the only way to heat the paper dish even if it`s pitch-black  is by making it soaking wet so inductive eddy currents are enabled.

Yes and they also know that real re-emitted photons that came from CO2 which absorbed them don`t drop back down to earth like "back-radiation" smart bombs and hit another CO2 molecule dead on...*1 molecule in over 2600 other possible molecular "targets".*
That`s why all these "CO2 infrared experiments" use 100% CO2 in a closed bottle...because with 380 ppm there is no measurable temperature increase.
At a 100% absorption the CO2 IR absorption is saturated and can absorb no more IR...
All the CO2 can do is redirect the photons it did absorb in all possible directions..Outside a bottle in front of a heat lamp, on open terrain under the sun there is not only convection which is not there in the lab-bottle, these  photons also meet less hurdles going up and out into space because up and out the actual CO2 ppm gets lower and lower as the pressure drops with each foot of altitude.
That`s why "climatologists" prefer to use "molar ppm" that stays the same no matter what the altitude...on top of that they subtract H2O vapor which makes the molar ppm even higher than what it would be if they would not use air with zero humidity as they do with their "moisture corrections".
That`s how they got to their "energy budget" and that`s why they got "missing heat" after an entire decade with more probes where there haven`t been any before.
Even terms like "correction" have been bastardized by these bastards.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

polarbear said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I think he's a Vietnamese immigrant to Finland....
> ...








The helicopter in his avi is a MI-8 Hip.  I think he lives in his moms basement in Queens.  He doesn't know shit from shinola.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Westwall - 

I am sure we all recognise Wiki's weaknesses, but it is very quick for posting on forums, and it gives good overviews for people who only want to spend 30 seconds checking something out. 

I use it a lot here because the standards of literacy and intelligence are so low that anything much harder won't work!


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I think he's a Vietnamese immigrant to Finland....
> ...








Below are the intials of some famous sportspeople from Finland.  name them and their sport.  I can do it quite easily without looking them up in google or wiki or anything because unlike you I haver a brain...so here they are you have 3 minutes...

MH, KR, HK, MG.

GO!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> The helicopter in his avi is a MI-8 Hip.  I think he lives in his moms basement in Queens.  He doesn't know shit from shinola.



It's Azeri. I took the pic when I was working in NKH.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Below are the intials of some famous sportspeople from Finland.  name them and their sport.  I can do it quite easily without looking them up in google or wiki or anything because unlike you I haver a brain...so here they are you have 3 minutes...
> 
> MH, KR, HK, MG.
> 
> GO!



Um....seriously?

To think - you used to boast about how you were a science expert, and now this is what you are reduced to!


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Below are the intials of some famous sportspeople from Finland.  name them and their sport.  I can do it quite easily without looking them up in google or wiki or anything because unlike you I haver a brain...so here they are you have 3 minutes...
> ...






Not at all mr. basement dweller.  EVRY FINN knows who these people are.  Everyone.  How come you don't?  Oh, that's right you're NOT FINNISH!

What a bafoon you are, I mean really.  You're a priceless numbskull!!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Wailing Wall - 

There is a big difference between my not knowing my Teemu Pulkki from my Valterri Bottas - and my needing to prove it to you. 

Obviously I can prove that I'm Finnish anytime - but you guys can make up any nutty stories you like. I don't mind.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wailing Wall -
> 
> There is a big difference between my not knowing my Teemu Pulkki from my Valterri Bottas - and my needing to prove it to you.
> 
> Obviously I can prove that I'm Finnish anytime - but you guys can make up any nutty stories you like. I don't mind.







No, it's allready proven that you live in Queens in your moms basement.  A Finn you are not.  They are educated and clearly you aren't.

Thanks for playing, now run along junior, your playmates are calling for you.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Westwall -

Ha! Well, I may not be as educated as some - but at least I speak my third language better than you speak your first.

The thing is, Wall, the absolute and utter desperation you guys show on these threads is not difficult to spot. It's no surprise to me you are reduced to pretending that I'm not Finnish - even though it's obvious to anyone who reads these threads that I speak Finnish and quite often post things about Finland no one else would be likely to know. 

Of course I understand it's embarassing that you claim to know New Zealand well, but didn't know the country is caught in the grip of the worst drought for 30 years - the severity and frequency of droughts being a key factor in NZ climate change. Ditto the fact that the major glaciers have all retreated massively during the past century, the sea levels have risen, temperatures risen, and even the now frequent appearance of 'Happy Feet' penguins is a clear indicator of climate change in Kiwiland. If you don't know your Hokianga from your Kaipara or your paua from your kina you shouldn't have chosen NZ as a topic!


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I am sure we all recognise Wiki's weaknesses, but it is very quick for posting on forums, and it gives good overviews for people who only want to spend 30 seconds checking something out.
> 
> I use it a lot here because the standards of literacy and intelligence are so low that anything much harder won't work!


Try us, we might surprise you, but overwhelm you for sure, because you are already way out of your depth
...but how would *YOU* come up with something more intelligent ?
If you would number all your fingers and start with finger #10, your right hand  pinky and keep going to your right hand thumb, finger #6 and add the 5 fingers on your left hand you would not be able to figure out how you got to 11 fingers instead of 10.
Does your mommy label your shoes so you know which foot goes where?
Maybe she should, because each time you try and say something you got your foot in your mouth instead of a shoe.



> Westwall -
> Ha! Well, I may not be as educated as some - but at least I speak my third language better than you speak your first.


And that`s coming from somebody who only just yesterday said blah blah blah...tow the line instead of toe the line...and kept spelling skeptic "sceptic" just to name 2 out of > 100 blunders you`ve made just this month.

Current time in Finland is already 6:15 PM. He`s been at it  non-stop since 0800 my time, central Canada...and does that every day ever  since he registered as "Saigon" from Finland with the U.S. Messageboard
I wonder when this guy who fakes it "making a living as as Journalist in Finland" writes his articles for the Helsinki news
Oh I forgot...they publish in Swedish because the "Saigon Finns" can`t agree how to write 20, "LOLOL" doesn`t jive either  and they don`t have a word for "micro processor" and all the other stuff which is beyond reindeer milking technology.
I gotta check if they have a Finn version of wikipedia..
I`ll be damned they do:
Wikipedia, vapaa tietosanakirja

They also got a Google.fi
Google

Makes you wonder why he is using the English versions to get his "intelligent standards of literacy" information while his English is so fucked up that he can`t spell the most common words correctly.
That`s strange...everybody in Europe, say Germany is pissed off because when they Google, Google checks their IP and directs them to :
Google
No matter how hard they try...French in France to the France Google...Italians to the Italian Google...it works like that around the globe..!!! 
And even in Canada you got to know how to get by the Google IP trap else you land on Google.ca every time.
Yet when I check up on this "Saigon" in Finland he got all "his intelligent standards of literacy information" from the top 10 Google hits that come up with the U.S. Google home page
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en
Yeah it must be  a bastard faking that you are in Finland if you don`t have keybfi.dll in your widows system32 files, the default setting for Finland and if you try use it the keys don`t match up any more with their key labels on a U.S. keyboard.
Some day I won`t just stick your IP in your face again, but I`ll suck you in to click on a hidden label link that leads you to my web-page and I`ll change your keyboard default with some simple Java script to Chinese and shut you up for good.
It works no matter what firewall, "anti-virus" or OS you got !
So if Finnish is your first language and English your third, what`s your second language?
Maybe I`ll be kind and change your keyboard to that one before I`ll zap you out for good with Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese or Chinese.
On the other hand I might not, because it is so amusing to read the stuff you have been posting.
I got an uncle, he is Chinese and was a Chem Prof at Montreal`s McGill.
He let an asshole freshmen from the same U in a bar next to the U go on and on bragging and lecturing my uncle on Chemistry...trying to impress some girls who sat at the same table.
I had to leave the table because I could not hide my laughter any longer and did not want to spoil my uncle`s fun....he had the best poker face I have seen in my entire life so far.
Your bluff is up and bluffing may work in poker, but only for actors much better than you...and here you are trying to play chess against people who were`nt just born yesterday.






I know a chess puzzle that *you* can`t Google.
place all the pieces of one color set (not both) on a chess board so that they all cover each other and every square on the board.
Should be no problem if you are 1/2 as intelligent as you claim you are.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Ha! Well, I may not be as educated as some - but at least I speak my third language better than you speak your first.
> 
> ...







Us?  Desperate?  We're not the ones trotting out every desperate bit of news trying to prop up a failed theory...that would be you!  I think you truly are insane.  Only a true fruitloop could come up with the crap you do an an hourly basis.

But, as Polarbear said, you are amusing to watch.

Still trying to google those names aren't you!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

Two reports issued yesterday by Greater Wellington regional council show Wellington's sea level is the fastest rising in New Zealand - made worse by seismic rumblings causing the city to sink 1.7mm a year since 2000.

Worst-case scenarios coupling massive sea level rise with intense storm floods show low-lying coastal parts of the Eastbourne bays, Petone, Pauatahanui, as well as the river mouths at Otaki, Hutt, Whakataki (near Castlepoint), and Waikanae and the lower Wairarapa valley, could be forever swamped if sea levels rose 1.5m by 2115. 

Wellington Sea Level Rising Fastest In Country | Stuff.co.nz

Wall - 

Since you know New Zealand so well, do you think rising sea levels might cause concern for people living in the Hauraki or Canterbury Plains?

Do you think other NZ cities like Auckland, Nelson, Tauranga, CHCH and Dunedin might also be affected by a rise in sea levels?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

And then we have the rising temperatures....


----------



## Saigon (Mar 19, 2013)

and collapsing glaciers...something specifically denied by Westwall....



> yes I know it quite well and have actually spent a great deal of time on the Franz Josef glacier and it is in fact advancing.




Franz Josef Glacier's 'rapid' retreat (+photos) - National - NZ Herald News

A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised experts.

The glacier has retreated 500m in four years, prompting suggestions of a road up the valley as the ice disappears from view.

Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was "really unusual and quite amazing".

 Between 1893 and the end of its last big retreat 90 years later, in 1983, Franz Josef Glacier receded about 3km.

Between 1983 and 2008 it advanced almost 1.5km after heavy snowfalls. But in the past four years it has melted almost 500m.


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Two reports issued yesterday by Greater Wellington regional council show Wellington's sea level is the fastest rising in New Zealand - made worse by seismic rumblings causing the city to sink 1.7mm a year since 2000.
> 
> Worst-case scenarios coupling massive sea level rise with intense storm floods show low-lying coastal parts of the Eastbourne bays, Petone, Pauatahanui, as well as the river mouths at Otaki, Hutt, Whakataki (near Castlepoint), and Waikanae and the lower Wairarapa valley, could be forever swamped if sea levels rose 1.5m by 2115.
> 
> ...







If there was indeed a sel level rise then some low lying areas could be affected.  However, just like there has been no rise in temps for the last 16 years, there has been no rise in sea level either.  The subduction going on seems to be the actual cause of whatever sea levl rise there has been, but as you can see there has been no measurable rise in years from points all around the country.

I have no idea who is pushing the Wellington nonsense but the University of Otago published this study in 2011 that counters the Wellington tale of woe.


Abstract:

Since the later part of the 19th Century, tide gauge records indicate that global sea levels have risen with an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/yr. Satellite altimetry records indicate that the rate of sea level rise between 1993 and 2010 was 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr. It is currently uncertain if this latter figure is indicative of an increased rate of rise, or the result of a periodic signal. In any event, if the future sea level rise is to be predicted accurately, it is of great importance that changes in the rate of sea level rise be detected as soon as possible.
 This study utilises a variety of techniques, including Least Squares and Fast Fourier Transform analyses, to assess the sea level records from New Zealands four longest tide gauge stations, located in Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton and Dunedin, to detect any significant changes in the rate of relative sea level rise. It finds that Wellingtons records demonstrate a relative acceleration of 0.013 ± 0.01 mm/yr2 between 1891 and 2007, which is superimposed over the decadal and interdecadal signals that are present in the records. However, continuous Global Positioning System measurements that have been collected at the site over the past decade indicate the presence of significant tectonic motion in the form of subduction. The records from the Auckland, Lyttelton and Dunedin tide gauges do not demonstrate significant accelerations. The longest significant signals that are present within the sea level records from Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin have periods in the range of 45 to 50 years.

The establishment of continuous Global Positioning System stations at long-term tide gauge stations is imperative to isolate non-constant vertical deformations from the observed relative rates of sea level rise to detect accelerations, and also to isolate the absolute rate of sea level rise.



An acceleration in New Zealand's sea level record?


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And then we have the rising temperatures....







Which was proven to have been false.


"The official archivist of New Zealands climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the NIWA Seven-station Series or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWAs doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government  Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWAs printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCCs Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

The Minister of Research Science and Technology, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, has finally become alarmed at the murky provenance of the NSS. The Government has directed and funded a 6-month project to produce a new national temperature record, with published data and transparent processes. The replacement record is to be the subject of a scientific paper, which is to be peer-reviewed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Hon Rodney Hide, a climate sceptic who is a Minister in the current Government and leader of the junior coalition partner, the ACT Party, has called upon his ministerial colleagues to formally repudiate the NSS and to withdraw all publications and formal papers which are based on the spurious warming trend of 0.92°C. The Government has not yet responded to this challenge.

New Zealand is a small country, with a strong tradition of open Government, and is not an easy place to keep secrets. The acceptance of the NSS for so long offers evidence of the dictum: you can fool all of the people some of the time.. But if that can happen in New Zealand, how much greater is the probability that similar shenanigans could be happening in larger, more complex, jurisdictions?"

Crisis in New Zealand climatology « Aletho News

And then there was this little fiasco for the warmists.....

"New Zealand skeptics of man-made global warming score historic legal victory as discredited government climate scientists perform U-turn and refuse to allow a third party peer-review report of official temperature adjustments to be shown in court. Skeptic lawyers will consider a move for sanctions that should prove fatal to governments case."


Breaking: Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists | johnosullivan

For someone who claims to be a journalist you are remarkably ill informed...


----------



## westwall (Mar 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> and collapsing glaciers...something specifically denied by Westwall....
> 
> 
> 
> ...








It's all part of the ebb and flow of glaciers silly person.  The fact remains that it has advanced more than it has retreated in the last 25 years.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 19, 2013)

For climate science to really be considered science again, it needs to follow scientific methods and openly allow inspection of data.  Setting up reasonable collection sites is needed too.  Data manipulation to match desired results is as scientific as attempting to turn lead to gold.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> For climate science to really be considered science again, it needs to follow scientific methods and openly allow inspection of data.  Setting up reasonable collection sites is needed too.  Data manipulation to match desired results is as scientific as attempting to turn lead to gold.


Here is another example of data manipulation:





If you have not been around instrumentation like Atomic absorption, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Gas Chromathographs, HPLC`s , or anything that uses scale expansion to enhance the detection limit than you would not be required to know how electronic averaging works.

I have to know how it works else I could not have made a living.
It`s a rather simple circuit which involves a resistive selector switch which is piped into a capacitor selector switch. The whole thing is called a "noise damper" and it gives you a true average signal output voltage which either goes to an analog "strip chart" or to an AD converter and the numbers are logged. If you don`t have one handy you can just copy and paste the above "average trend" into a CAD and draw a line connecting all the highs and another which connects all the lows. Then you sample at regular time intervals by connecting the high with the low and use the middle value.
That`s exactly how a noise damper or any other electronic averaging circuit would do it...it has no bias and does not give a damn what you would like to see.
Anyway here is how the (*brown* trend) line would come out:




You can`t just start with the middle value at the left side of the graph and draw a straight incline to the right...and be way off the mean values for almost all the sampling points,...too low on the left and too high on the right...to get red line up-slope as steep as possible..
It`s cheating to the max,...plain and simple. No computer program or digital averaging would yield an average line like the red one either.
*I`m quite certain it was dawn by a person with 2 mouse clicks and a severe bias.
* 
I think Westwall being a geologist  would have seen a few instrument outputs on strip chart out put after scale expansion and noise dampers to confirm this. I`m too lazy to Google for it, but that`s the way it REALLY works...not like the red "climatology" line.
Besides, that graph has been thrown out by almost all the Met Offices and this one is the one they used and wonder why it stalled even though CO2 has been going up like the *faked red line* in the graph above:
Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *                                 Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung*


Translation
Researchers are puzzled why the temperature increase has stalled
*Notice how the new graph closely matches the brown true (analog-electronic) average line over the entire range*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 19, 2013)

saveliberty said:


> For climate science to really be considered science again, it needs to follow scientific methods and openly allow inspection of data.  Setting up reasonable collection sites is needed too.  Data manipulation to match desired results is as scientific as attempting to turn lead to gold.


Here is another example of data manipulation:





If you have not been around instrumentation like Atomic absorption-, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance-, -Spectrophotometers,Gas Chromathographs, HPLC`s , or anything that uses scale expansion to enhance the detection limit after "noise reduction" then you would not be required to know how electronic averaging circuits work.

I have to know how it works else I could not have made a living.
It`s a rather simple circuit which involves a resistive bank selector switch which is wired to a capacitor bank selector switch. The signal voltage output is at the selected resistor- capacitor junction. The whole thing is called a "noise damper" and it gives you a true average signal output voltage which either goes to an analog "strip chart" or to an AD converter and the numbers are logged. 
I`ve got one for my oscilloscope + a digital waveform generator where I can enter the numerical values and display the output. I did and got the same line as with the CAD window method

If you don`t have one handy you can just copy and paste the above "average trend" into a CAD window and draw a line connecting all the highs and another which connects all the lows. Then you sample at regular time intervals by connecting the high with the low and use the line center points.
That`s exactly how a noise damper or any other electronic averaging circuit would do it...it has no bias and does not give a damn what you would like to see.
Anyway here is how the (*brown* trend) line would come out:




You can`t just start with the middle value at the left side of the graph and draw a straight incline to the right...and be way off the mean values for almost all the sampling points,...too low on the left and too high on the right,most of all what`s on the Y axis over 2010.
I think Westwall being a geologist  would have seen a few instrument outputs on strip chart out put after scale expansion and noise dampers to confirm this. I`m too lazy to Google for it, but that`s the way it REALLY works...not like the red "climatology" line.
I`m quite certain that red line has been drawn in by a "climatologist" with 2 mouse clicks and a severe bias
Besides, that graph has been thrown out by almost all the Met Offices and this one is the one they use now  and wonder why it stalled even though CO2 has been going up like the *faked red line* in the graph above:
(Notice how the new graph closely matches the brown true (analog-electronic) average line over the entire range)
Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *                                 Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung*


Translation
Researchers are puzzled why the temperature increase has stalled



> 15 Jahre ohne Erwärmung der bodennahen Luft sind nun vorbei. Der  Stillstand der Durchschnittstemperatur zeigt, dass die Unsicherheiten  der Klimaprognosen überraschend groß sind. Gespannt wartet die  Öffentlichkeit, ob der Klimareport der Uno, der im September erscheinen  soll, die Pause der Erwärmung diskutieren wird - die Beratungen dazu  laufen derzeit im australischen Hobart. Die Forscher erörtern mehrere  triftige Ursachen, die den Aufwärtstrend der Temperaturen vorläufig  gebremst haben könnten.


*Translation:
15 years have gone by without any increase in near surface air temperatures. 
The stalled averages show how large the uncertainty of the climate prognosis really was. 
The public is waiting to see if the UN`s IPCC will mention this in their report which is due in September
At this time advisers to the IPCC are meeting in Hobart Australia to discuss what could have stopped the temperature increase.
*

*...while our forum warmists still insist that temperatures have been climbing*
 P.S. 
Der Spiegel is Germany`s largest (left leaning) News magazine and is known for perhaps employing the largest number of fact checkers of any news media world-wide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel


> It is known in the German-speaking  sphere for* its distinctive, academic writing style *and its large  volume&#8212;a standard issue may run 200 pages or more. Typically, it has a  *content to advertising ratio of 2:1*. In 1994, the online sibiling of Der  Spiegel, _Spiegel Online_, was launched. It has an independent editorial staff from _Der Spiegel_.
> *The magazine's influence is based on two pillars; firstly the moral authority  established by investigative journalism since the early years and  proven alive by several impressive scoops during the 1980s; *secondly the  economic power of the prolific Spiegel publishing house*.* Since 1988, it has produced the TV programme _Spiegel TV_, and further diversified during the 1990s. In 1994, _Spiegel Online_ was launched. It has separate, independent editorial staff from _Der Spiegel_. Among other things, _Spiegel Verlag_ now publishes the monthly _Manager Magazin_.
> *As of 2010, Der Spiegel was employing the equivalent of 80 full-time fact checkers, which the Columbia Journalism Review called "most likely the world's largest fact checking operation"*.[4]


And that`s why Der Spiegel is the first on the list in my bookmark folder *just for the news*  which I read every day...(before I even get into what`s new in the sciences I subscribed to by e-mail notifications)
Then the BBC, the CBC, RiaNovosti, AlJazeera, Reuters etc etc 27 online-news bookmarks and *CNN is at the very bottom*..I even look into MSNBC just to amuse myself,...because it`s almost as funny  as reading "Saigon`s" postings, what they believe in Fin- or whatever phantasy land he lives in....thinking he is smarter than 80 full time professional fact checkers and all the IPCC advisors who are currently meeting in Hobart/Australia...which are all "denying" his CO2/flaming heat apocalypse psychosis


----------



## Saigon (Mar 20, 2013)

> Which was proven to have been false.



Um....you might want to check what I actually posted. 

The first report was criticised in some quaters, so the entire research project was conducrted again. My graph shows both sets of data. 

So no - it was NOT proven to be false.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> It's all part of the ebb and flow of glaciers silly person.  The fact remains that it has advanced more than it has retreated in the last 25 years.



And the fact remains that it has retreated more than it has advanced by some miles during the past century. 

Please be honest enough to admit that. 

You claimed that you had been to the glacier and that it is advancing - it IS NOT advancing.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 20, 2013)

> However, just like there has been no rise in temps for the last 16 years, there has been no rise in sea level either.



If you read the actual report, what Cole suggests is that sea levels are rising - but that this trend is accelerating only in WGTN, and not in CHCH, DNN or AKL. 

The pdf of the thesis is available, and the charts for each city are included.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Which was proven to have been false.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





In some quaters? Which quaters? If I give you a quater will you give me two dimes and a nickel? I'm trying to conducrrrrrrrrrt some change.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 20, 2013)

TheOldSchool said:


>



Are you five years old or just like to play a child, online?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 20, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Is that the best you can do, posting a caricature of 2 stereotyped skeptics looking for grammar and spelling errors on a blackboard full of crap written by an "eminent scientist" who wears a lab coat ?
If it were only "minor details" nobody from the IPCC would be meeting in Hobart Australia right now trying to figure out why there was no temperature increase for over a decade and why the "extra heat" that your cartoon character in the white lab coat predicted  is nowhere to be found.
Neither in the atmosphere nor in the oceans with 3255 Argo buoys that sample down to a depth of 2000 meter...since 2002.
Stillstand der Temperatur: Erklärungen für Pause der Klimaerwärmung - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *15 years have gone by without any increase in near surface air temperatures.
> The stalled averages show how large the uncertainty of the climate prognosis really was.
> The public is waiting to see if the UN`s IPCC will mention this in their report which is due in September
> At this time advisers to the IPCC are meeting in Hobart Australia to discuss what could have stopped the temperature increase.
> *



Phänomen "fehlende Wärme": Klimaforscher rätseln über Meereskälte - SPIEGEL ONLINE


> *
> *
> 
> Phänomen "fehlende Wärme": Klimaforscher rätseln über Meereskälte


"Missing heat puzzles climate science researchers "

Nice try bozo...teaming up with your buddy, the "Journalist in Finland" who has to Google who the PM of Finland is trying to bury the facts with a squall of troll-garbage.
Why don`t you go to the IPCC`s advisory meeting in Hobart and tell them how to address that "dot they forgot" and the "sentence that ended with a preposition"...
Assholes like you pretend to be smarter than 80 full time professional fact checkers and an entire international convention of people who have nothing in common with you or your childish cartoon.
It`s no problem to paste and re-post the reality that childish cement heads like you & "Saigon" can`t handle.
Nobody reads your crap anyway, you and the likes of you don`t want that anybody else gets to see whatever facts have come to light and bury it.
It`s not so easy to bury what has been in the international press and why the IPCC is having a damage control meeting in Australia how to address these "minor details" in the September annual report.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's all part of the ebb and flow of glaciers silly person.  The fact remains that it has advanced more than it has retreated in the last 25 years.
> ...







And 90% of the retreat occured before the CO2 percentages were at "bad" levels.  Funny how you all ignore that.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't mind the discussion of hazardous environmental effects which are real and dangerous even if they aren't permanent. That's the sad part; is that (fake) global warming takes us from talking about the real dangers that are often fatal or life shortening.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Remember these "snow experts" that this "Saigon" quoted?
I wonder what they will rant after all that snow melts due to "global warming"...eventually, but not just yet. Imagine how they will gloat (again) if some farmers get flooded out
Tonight my region drops to -29 C...again!...we have been in a deep freeze since October :
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZBJZqKnq5g&feature=youtu.be"]Manitoba Spring - YouTube[/ame]
And 20 feet tall glaciers are forming around shopping center parking lots.
It`s under control though. Our Highways department has installed huge concrete culverts all over the place and the Nelson River dams up north are already dumping water into the Hudson Bay to make room for all the melt water our friends south of the border will send down the Red River.
All we do is open our flood way gates and send the water the Red can`t handle on our side of the border up North and generate a shitload of Hydro power...which we send via Dipole1,2 HVDC lines and soon also DP#3 into the US.
Fargo tried to get a flood way system like that, but your feds don`t want to help pay for the infra structure. Obama does not mind if Minnesota and ND get flooded out...else the warmers can`t gloat any more.
They do come to Manitoba though and take pictures of "starving polar bears" when we open the Nelson River spill way gates and the Hudson Bay ice gets pushed back a few kilometers.
Next day the ice is back and the polar bears are gone, so are the enviro-paparazzis. Churchill flea bag motels make some phone calls when they know that the gates will open and "melt" the ice in the bay. Within hours they are booked out solid at inflated $$$ by every green-peace wacko with a camera.None ever mention the spillway gates. It all happens because of "unusually high temperatures" in the Hudson Bay..even if it was 40 below when they took their pictures.

Look at the lies they fabricate:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/for_hudson_bay_polar_bears_the_end_is_already_in_sight/2293/


> *For Hudson Bay Polar Bears,
> The End is Already in Sight*
> 
> _The polar bear has long been *a symbol of the damage wrought by  global warming*, but now biologist Andrew Derocher and his colleagues  have calculated how long one southerly population can hold out. Their  answer? No more than a few decades, as the bears&#8217; decline closely tracks  that of the Arctic&#8217;s disappearing sea ice. _
> ...


2012 Aerial surveys have shown that there* are more than 2300 just in the Foxe basin part of the Hudson Bay.*
All the while Nunavut have been allowed to kill 450 polar bears each year and the pb population around Churchill just keeps increasing...and that`s why Canada did not endorse the U.N. endangered species status for the over 25000 polar bears on Canadian Territory.
*It`s got dick all to do with global warming or not enough ice in the Hudson bay
*
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp


> If a friend has ever shown you a snapshot of a polar bear, the odds are good that the photo was taken in Churchill. While Churchill is legendarily the Polar Bear Capital of the World, it is also the Polar Bear Tourism Capital of the World. There are 19 polar bear populations on the planet &#8212; 13 of them in Canada &#8212; and none is as accessible as in Churchill, which draws an estimated 10,000 visitors every year. If you&#8217;d like to scratch your itch for bear sighting in Baffin Bay or Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., you&#8217;ll probably need float planes, ski-touring gear and a solid knowledge of igloo architecture. But in Churchill, all it takes is a whole lot of disposable income. With hotels, ranger stations and perky multilingual guides, the town is entirely geared toward the modern ecotourist. For the modest sum of $11,349 (per person), you can have the &#8220;Ultimate Polar Bear Experience&#8221;: 10 days in the Tundra Buggy Lodge, essentially an oversized RV parked at the water&#8217;s edge.


P.S.: my snapshots below are not from Churchill:
 left side northern tip of Ellesmere Island. CFS Alert during August, right side Lincoln Sea ~ 300 km from the North pole.
But I do have family in Churchill visit often and know* EXACTLY *what`s going on there!
I`ve never seen a footprint of an adult polar bear that weighed less than 900-1000 pounds


----------



## IanC (Mar 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And then we have the rising temperatures....





I question things if they dont make sense, from either the skeptical or warming sides.

does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results? there is more variation in different versions of GISS or UAH than between the unofficial Salinger version designed when he was a PhD student in the 80's and the official version that was concocted to save face in 2009.

more importantly though, _does it make sense?_ the southern hemisphere has shown less 'global warming' than the northern hemisphere. why should a small island nation surrounded by ocean show _more global warming_ than almost anywhere else?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 22, 2013)

> does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results?



Yes, it does.

It proves that the accusations made against the Niwa were - as most of us knew at the time - politically motivated and made largely by a right wing politician. 



> why should a small island nation surrounded by ocean show more global warming than almost anywhere else?



Actually, NZ records are similar to Australia's, but with less of the extreme heat waves and floods that Australias has suffered with for the past 20 years of climate change.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results?
> 
> 
> 
> ...









  The last 20 years?  Dude, you're priceless!  Punch in any year, and I mean ANY year, and you will see that Australia has been the same since record keeping began.  The last 20 years look remarkably similar to the 20 before, and the 20 before that, and the 100 before that!

In other words silly person, you are full of it as usual.  And NIWA was falsifying data...but you know that too.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 22, 2013)

Why not go with the best evidence? 
Ice core data. How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Each of us need to go and research that. I have extensively for many years.
Tree rings? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Coral reefs? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
How were each and every scientific test and method conducted in each of those three areas? How were these tests conducted and what instrumental results were observed and collected on air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and green house gas concentrations?
The evidence is overwhelming and convincing to those that are willing to shed their political ideology and focus on the preponderance of this evidence which is growing every year.
Skeptics offer nothing other than their unexplained natural variations and solar radiation hitting the earth.
And where is there any of their evidence to refute any of those tests?
Now let us look at the flip side which I USED to be on for many years. What is their evidence and what methods do they use to come to their conclusions?
Their top researchers NOW, they used to, do not dispute that there is warming. They note specifically the warming of the 30s and the 40s, slight cooling in the 40s-70s and warming again in the last 10 years. They call it "natural" mainly due to ocean circulation changes and numerous other factors and NOT human induced in any way.
Now let us look at the collection of results from the folks that report that there is global warming and it is man made induced:
There are numerous, as many as 20, different lines of evidence that the earth is warming and greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere.
And not one from the skeptics to refute it. If folks have one here then please post it. Keep in mind the earth is the earth and not one stretch of land.
Issac Newton was laughed at 350 years by skeptics that claimed his theories were frauds. His thesis was that if separate sets of data are best explained by 1 theory or idea then that explanation is most likely the truth.
And 350 years of scientific testing has proven him right.
None of the models used by skeptics that only use their single theory natural variation as their cause of global warming can account for the increase in global warming seen over the last 30 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 22, 2013)

Alert me by pm when the earth is warming again. Thanks.


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why not go with the best evidence?
> Ice core data. How is that political? What does it show and prove?
> Each of us need to go and research that. I have extensively for many years.
> Tree rings? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
> ...






Well, the problem with tree rings is the rings don't really measure heat do they?  They measure the amount of moisture the tree got in that particular year.  However, I agree that the use of ice core data can be very helpful.

That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water.  No politics, just simple science.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water.  No politics, just simple science.



When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.  Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif


----------



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water.  No politics, just simple science.
> ...



As usual "Saigon"  with a quote from "skepticalscience.org"...the web site that desperately want`s to collect mouse clicks so that it does not dwindle into insignificance.
So what was the orbital change from 1350 to 1850 when the temperature has dropped 3 times to ice age levels, in 1650, 1770 and 1850 ?

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their  soft drinks with CO2 
When dissolved CO2 evaporates from a liquid it has twice the volumetric cooling capacity as ice has.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

polarbear said:


> It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
> That has been tried out more than once.







polarbear said:


> When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
> That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2



Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
> ...



But on the other hand...wouldn`t it be great if we could make positive feed back amplifiers that that don`t draw more power when you crank them up?
It would revolutionize power plant engineering.
A positive feed-back loop amplifier as in "AGW" transforms a tiny energy flash from an infrared LED into a big bright light in just 7 loops.
But as it does it drew the extra energy from the lap-top batteries when the screen produced the ever larger and brighter light flashes.
There is no free lunch...more light requires more power, no matter what the wavelength and that goes for infrared too.




> "Saigon"..:
> The CO2 amplifies the warming


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
> ...



So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.


----------



## westwall (Mar 27, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...







I suggest you use a little common sense and actually LOOK at who is saying what.  NOAA DOES NOT ascribe to the AGW theory wholesale.  There are significant maajorities within the agency who feel the claims are at best hyperbole and at worst outright fraud.

The same go's for NASA.  GISS (a division of NASA, headed by the head warmist Hansen)
is the proponent of AGW "theory".  Hansens former boss at NASA thinks he has harmed the agency.


Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASAs vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen embarrassed NASA with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was was never muzzled. Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made, Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. I was, in effect, Hansens supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results, Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASAs official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankinds effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress, Theon wrote.

http://www.qando.net/ - Hansen?s Former NASA Boss Declares Himself An AGW Skeptic

Finally, the government organisations are all in favor of the "theory" because it does two things...first it gathers ever more power to the governments involved leading eventually to a mass collectivist world government and second it takes money away from the public and gives it to the aforementioned governments so they can more easily accomplish their goals.

They all admit it too.  You just have to actually read what they say amongst themselves and yes, those discussions are available.


----------



## westwall (Mar 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water.  No politics, just simple science.
> ...









Hmmmm, how did all the cold periods AFTER the end of the last ice age occur then?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 27, 2013)

Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

The whole thing is behind a paywall, but a quick summary is:

1. Warming -- as defined by less heat leaving the earth than arriving -- has definitely accelerated over the past 15 years.

2. Most of that heat has been going into the deep ocean, making it less visible in the air.

3. That confirms the solution of the "missing heat" issue, that of why the satellite measurements of heat/energy flux imbalances weren't matching air/sea surface temps.

4. The predominant La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean and bringing up cold water to chill the air. Once it flips to a strong El Nino, temps will skyrocket.

Denialists, you may now proceed with business as usual. You know, claiming all the data must be forged because you fail so hard at understanding it and because it disagrees with your very strange claims. And make sure to add some personal attacks, because that makes you so much more credible. I don't suggest you do the usual thing of running back to your political cult for instructions, because this is too new for them to have come up with any OfficialPartyResponse.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
> You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.



What I am saying is that climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade much like the hard science medical community is presently reeling from.  It happens when bad science is accepted as good science and used as a basis for further research and claims.

Don't you think it odd that no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect have ever been made, or no mathematical model of the greenhouse effect has ever been put forward...The only "evidence' of a greenhose effect as claimed by climate science is the output of computer models...not even a single bit of real observable evidence exists for it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
> Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)



The first question is how did this heat sneak past the argos system?  That global system has not detected any of the claimed heat....and the idea of warm water sinking to the cold depths and hiding out there is about as rediculous as anything climate science has put out thus far.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.
> 
> Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
> Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
> ...



Where the hell did you that crackpot idea get from?
That`s called "up welling" and during this process *no heat *"is transported deep into the ocean"....*and it is limited to a depth of ~ 30 meters and occurs only along coastal lines.*

Argo buoys sample all the way down to 2000 meters and the heat that the CO2 increase was supposed to have caused could not be found with all these buoys:






It`s not in the atmosphere either.
Why don`t you go to Hobart Australia to the IPCC meetings that started last month and go on till September where they are trying to figure out where the "missing heat" went.
According to you 





> "La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean "


 ... the warmer water went deep down into the ocean way down past the thermocline, 
(lurks there for a while and is going to re-appear soon ?)

Is it legal to smoke pot where you are ?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



"colectivist world government"
Your claim that NASA and NOAA want collectivist world government is total bull shit.
Very surprised you would claim such nonsense.
Oh, please, is that all you have? 
The NOAA web site clearly states their position on global warming and it is clear. 
Their site SPECIFICALLY states that from 1880-1995 there is clear evidence of warming and that "warming in the last 15 years is significantly faster than that of the long term (1880-1995)
And I can post dozens more if you need it that all state the same thing, from all of the research at NOAA. 
From their statement on their web site titled _*INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE CONFIRMS GLOBAL RECORD IN INSTRUMENT RECORD*_


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 27, 2013)

I am sure the researchers at The University of South Carolina want a "collectivist world government"

Heads in the sand.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.
> 
> Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
> Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
> ...



They remind me of one of my coaches years ago. Inside traps and reverses are a DE's worst nightmare if one forgets their gap responsibilities and outside reads.

"Coach, my cleats got caught in the turf" was heard more than once from a DE that had trouble with his outside reads.

"Well, then line up in your damn bare feet but be careful not to step in your own bull shit"


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2013)

Warming Ocean Threatens Sea Life: Scientific American

It stands to reason that as the atmosphere warms from the buildup of greenhouse gases, so does the ocean. Scientists have long suspected this was true, but they did not have enough solid evidence. Now they do. Data compiled by Marinexplore in Sunnyvale, Calif., not only confirm previous studies that the world's oceans are simmering, but they also bring surprising news: the heating extends beyond the first few meters of surface waters, down to 700 meters. Because most organisms live in the top 400 meters, the data suggest that warming could affect most marine life, altering food chains and migrations. It could change the distribution of life&#8212;from tiny phytoplankton to big whales&#8212;across the seven seas. &#8220;The more the atmosphere warms up, the more heat it transfers to the ocean,&#8221; says Roberto De Almeida, an ocean data engineer at Marinexplore. &#8220;That heat propagates downward.&#8221; Indeed, the extra energy could affect massive ocean currents and the weather patterns they influence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2013)

Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?: Scientific American

Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected. More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is disappearing than had been forecast. Regions of permafrost across Alaska and Siberia are spewing out more methane, the potent greenhouse gas, than models had predicted. Ice shelves in West Antarctica are breaking up more quickly than once thought possible, and the glaciers they held back on adjacent land are sliding faster into the sea. Extreme weather events, such as floods and the heat wave that gripped much of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 are on the rise, too. The conclusion? &#8220;As scientists, we cannot say that if we stay below two degrees of warming everything will be fine,&#8221; says Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam in Germany.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 27, 2013)

Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?: Scientific American

Also surprising is how little extra energy, or &#8220;forcing,&#8221; was required to trigger past swings. For instance, 55 million years ago the Arctic was a subtropical paradise, with a balmy average temperature of 23 degrees C (73 degrees F) and crocodiles lurking off Greenland. The tropics may have been too hot for most life. This warm period, dubbed the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), apparently was sparked by a preceding bump of about two degrees C in the planet's temperature, which was already warmer than today. That warming may have caused a rapid release of methane and carbon dioxide, which led to more warming and more emissions of greenhouse gases, amplifying further warming. The eventual result: millions of years of a hothouse earth [see &#8220;The Last Great Global Warming,&#8221; by Lee R. Kump; Scientific American, July 2011].


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

News


 'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate 

by:Graham Lloyd 
From:The Australian
February 22, 201312:00AM














*
THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.*






Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 28, 2013)

Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 28, 2013)

Old rocks, 

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?



Matthew - 

If you are going to make sweeping statements which contradict every scientific document ever published, it is probably worth at least going through the motions of making a case.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Old rocks,
> 
> why are these people saying what westwall is posting?



Because open debate is good. We should encourage it. 

Everyone seems to understand that temperatures have risen in uneven steps for the past several hundred years, and each step is hotter than the one before it. As Westwall's source says, it would only be if one of those 'steps' began to last for 30 or 40 years that the current accepted science might seem to be inadequate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Old rocks,
> 
> why are these people saying what westwall is posting?



A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years. 

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Old rocks,
> ...


Nice try my friend, nice try.
But neither the Ninas nor the Ninos can account for it else the IPCC would have said so already.
The "Chinese aerosols" can`t reflect enough sunlight on a global scale either to explain the heating-halt of the last 12 years
Matter of fact as the IPCC Ozone gurus claimed these destroy the Ozone layer. Less Ozone means more high energy UV hits "black-body" earth which then radiates more IR that CO2 is supposed to radiate back to earth heating it even more than without the Chinese aerosols.
Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight". The droplets evaporate leaving you with a transparent vapor from the propellant and the chemical which was dissolved in it.
Unlike the rest of the crowd  which is as usual switching the temperature stall topic to football coaches and politics you did not evade the facts the IPCC is already trying to address and gave it your best shot.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Old rocks,
> ...


I have a better idea how you could proceed. But that requires a lot of expertise in spectral physics which overlaps physical chemistry.
Global warming at 380 ppm CO2 is as good as it gets. Higher concentrations add no additional effect. The molar extinction coefficient for CO2 is such that at a 10 meter path length you get a 20 % absorption and after that it slopes off, because I1/I0 is logarithmic.
It takes a 100 meter path length to get an 80% extinction and a 1 kilometer long path to get a 100% extinction (absorption).
There is no way that CO2 100 meters, 1 kilometer or more above the surface can radiate enough IR back to earth through the same layer that absorbed it...to heat the surface to a higher temperature.
Climatologist should have realized that a long time ago when "greenhouse effects" were studied with greenhouses.
Normal window glass absorbs even more IR than CO2.
That`s why you can`t use glass lenses on a IR spectrophotometer...we use lenses made out of polished rock-salt for the sample tubes.
There was no difference between greenhouses that used rock-salt instead of a glass ceiling. Both got warmer at exactly the same rate because convection was blocked by the ceiling.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?



Really, good show.
Ya think that the reduction of the ozone layer may have caused that?
And what causes that good man?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



So you agree with IPCC and use them as your source for the truth?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Your team has been claiming politics is the entire motivation for the results of all the scientific testing that man is causing the warming from day one.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> [
> Argo buoys sample all the way down to 2000 meters and the heat that the CO2 increase was supposed to have caused could not be found with all these buoys:
> 
> 
> ...



The missing heat is the ficticious greenhouse effect.  Model the earth as a rotating sphere receiving radiation on one side and dark on the other, factor in the gradual heating up and cooling down of the illuminated side and the darkness on the unilluminated side and you don't need a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth.

Model the planet as a flat disk with no rotation and weak illumination 24 hours a day and you need a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight".



Polarbear fails to grasp that atmospheric aerosols are _particles_, not droplets that evaporate. After all, being a common-sense conservative, he knows that aerosols are what comes out of a spray can, and no pointy-headed scientist is going to convince him that there can be other meanings.

That, of course, leads to his usual thing where he takes some basic misunderstanding of the science and runs with it to a conspiracy-theory conclusion.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight".
> ...



On your best day...the very best day you have in your entire life polar bear will toss out more scientific knowledge in his fingernail clippings than you have in your entire being.  The fact that you can read his comments and still suggest that he doesn't know what aerosols are is a clear indication that you can't even begin to understand what he writes.

You are, without a doubt, at the bottom of the heap on this board insofar as grasp of the science goes.  Even rocks and yes, even siagon appear as intellectual giants in comparison to you even though they are also victims of the hoax.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Your team has been claiming politics is the entire motivation for the results of all the scientific testing that man is causing the warming from day one.



What scientific testing?  Show me any results from actual scientific testing that prove the AGW hypothesis or even prove the existence of a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.  

Good luck with that.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The first question is how did this heat sneak past the argos system?



Where did you get such a crazy idea about the Argo Float System?

Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported the cooling, Josh Willis, said he was totally wrong about making that claim. The denialist leaders have known for over 5 years that they're pushing a big lie about Argo, but they still push it. Here's the report on it in _Nature_ from 2007:

http://w3.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/Nature-2007.pdf

No matter. The cult orders them to parrot the big lie, therefore SSDD and PolarBear and the rest will continue to repeat the big lie about Argo, no matter how many times they see it refuted.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> On your best day...the very best day you have in your entire life polar bear will toss out more scientific knowledge in his fingernail clippings than you have in your entire being.



Then why did PolarBear get it so laughably wrong?

One-third of PolarBear's stuff is gibbering hate at liberals, one-third is laughably bad physics, and the remaining third will be correct, but will have nothing to do with the topic of AGW. And cultists like you can't see through the snow job.

There is a way to show you're not a brainless cultist. Reveal the sources that lied to you about Argo, and publicly renounce them here. Fail to do so, and that's solid evidence that you will defend known liars, provided those liars are on your side.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You are, without a doubt, at the bottom of the heap on this board insofar as grasp of the science goes.  Even rocks and yes, even siagon appear as intellectual giants in comparison to you even though they are also victims of the hoax.



SSDD - 

You must realise yourself - you must - that you are the ONLY person on this board who can not understand what "left wing" and "right wing" means. 

Let's face it, man, you can scarcely read or write. There is not a single poster on this board who could read the sentence in my sig line and not cringe for you. 

I can't imagine why you are still here, except to be the board's whipping boy.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight".
> ...


Name some widely used "Chinese aerosols" that spray solid particles other than spray paint...which leaves a residue that does not evaporate after the "Chinese" solvent=popellant = CFC`s is gone and reflect enough sunlight to stop this extra Trenberth heat that should have appeared in the last 12 years.
Non evaporating contents of a typical aerosol that sprays particles are in *the order of micrograms per cubic meter*
There should be a "Chinese aerosol" fog bank surrounding the globe if that "Chinese aerosol" sun blocking was the case.
Show me a satellite picture then....(not just some  downtown Beijing local smog )
You can`t, so it`s back to the conspiracy-theory conclusion that dimwits like you conjure up as usual.
Won`t be long and then you`ll be quoting Adolf Hitler in the same sentence as "being a common-sense conservative, he knows"


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> You must realise yourself - you must - that you are the ONLY person on this board who can not understand what "left wing" and "right wing" means.



I understand what you wish it means.  To bad you are wrong.  Both the left wing and right wing of socialism require large overbearing governments.  Conservativism, by defninition requires a small, inoffensive government.  If government becomes large and overbearing, by defninition, it is not conservative...or classicaly liberal.



Saigon said:


> Let's face it, man, you can scarcely read or write. There is not a single poster on this board who could read the sentence in my sig line and not cringe for you.



I am sure that it galls you for a country boy such as myself to have beaten you so badly on a topic you thought you knew something about.  Pretending that you did anything but fail on that thread is nothing but some sad and wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > You must realise yourself - you must - that you are the ONLY person on this board who can not understand what "left wing" and "right wing" means.
> ...







Yes, saigon is as delusional as he is dishonest.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > You must realise yourself - you must - that you are the ONLY person on this board who can not understand what "left wing" and "right wing" means.
> ...



So he is back again to bash anything but communists 


and the cat in the hat from "Treehouse" 





is trying to say that a few parts per billion "Chinese aerosol" non-evaporating residues can reflect enough sunlight to account for the stall in warming..The Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That!  PBS KIDS
....and meows "conspiracy theory"


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yes, saigon is as delusional as he is dishonest.



Nah...I think he is much more dishonest than he is delusional.  Very poor character.  He must have had liberal parents and without meaning to, stunted, and crippled his characer.  He lies like bill clinton lies....with a straight face and every expectation that he will be believed....no matter how outrageous the lie.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> few parts per billion "Chinese aerosol" non-evaporating residues



I doubt that mamooth could accurately describe what those words mean in her own words. much less make any rational argument about what the are or are not capable of doing.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, saigon is as delusional as he is dishonest.
> ...


I get a kick out of the entire Democrat cluster fuck and their consensus decisions.
Every time you show examples how dumb they are, they turn around and claim you are part of an "oil-lobby conspiracy" and accused them of a conspiracy.






Julia Dickson, Obama`s secret service boss

Obama holt erstmals Frau an die Spitze des Secret Service - SPIEGEL ONLINE





*                                 Obamas Limousine falsch betankt: Das Biest hat sich verschluckt*


"The beast,"  was filled up  with gas instead of diesel and a second one had to be flown in

*Since when is it a conspiracy theory when you point out how dumb a herd of sheep-heads is,  that consents  doing the same dumb stuff over and over again.

If 2 wrongs don`t make a right, blame it on Bush and try for 3
*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

First we had the oil-lobby conspiracy which "financed global warming denier scientists" 
http://www.petitionproject.org/

31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition,
 including 9,029 with PhDs     







Soon we`ll have a *"Chinese aerosol conspiracy"* which made a shambles out of the predicted AGW run-away effect...because the Chinese like burning cheap coal and fossil fuels.




All the while Obama`s $ugar daddy Warren Buffet is making a killing running rail-tanker trains from Alberta to Texas on dilapidated tracks...as long as "erudite" Democrats can prevent the construction of the evil Keystone pipeline


mamooth said:


> One-third of PolarBear's stuff is gibbering hate at liberals, one-third  is laughably bad physics, and the remaining third will be correct, but  will have nothing to do with the topic of AGW. And cultists like you  can't see through the snow job.


*So which "third" is that?*


> *aerosol solids are in the order of micro-grams per cubic meter*
> t*here are no Chinese aerosol fog banks reflecting sun light visible on any satellite pictures.*
> *Cold water up-welling occurs only in shallow water *and the missing *warm water *that over 3000 Argo buoys could not find *is not "driven down*" below Argo buoy sampling depths of 2000 meters.
> [FONT=Arial, Geneva]Inserting e = 20.2 m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]/mol for the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band into Lambert-Beer's law, using 357 ppm for the CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] concentration and a 10 m layer, we find the extinction[/FONT]
> ...


[FONT=Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
*If 2 wrongs don`t make a right, blame it on Bush and try for 3
*





*If 2 wrongs don`t make a right, blame it on Bush and try for 3
Fuck Mammoth Idiots like you did not even know what an Argo buoy was till I posted it here
*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Obama is turning out to be a real clown. lol


----------



## polarbear (Mar 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Did you know that they hung up another limo in Ireland  had to leave it there?
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/...ousine-in-israel-falsch-betankt-a-890184.html


> *Ärger mit Auto und Baum*
> Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass Obama auf einem Staatsbesuch liegen  bleibt. Schon 2011 hatte er auf einer Auslandsreise Pech mit einem  seiner Wagen. Ein Ersatzfahrzeug setzte damals beim Verlassen der  US-Botschaft in Irland auf einer Bodenwelle auf und saß fest.


In Ireland 2011, they drove it into a ditch and got it stuck....and had to get a second limo from the US embassy in Ireland to rescue Obama

This is how the the Diesel/Gas blunder was "explained" by Edwin Donovan, spokes person for the secret service, in an international  press conference:
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/...ousine-in-israel-falsch-betankt-a-890184.html


> "Eines unserer geschützten Fahrzeuge hat in Israel ein mechanisches  Problem gehabt", bestätigte Edwin Donovan, Sprecher des Secret Service,  in Jerusalem. Demnach fiel das Fahrzeug schon vor Obamas Ankunft aus.  Zur Ursache der Panne äußerte Donovan sich nicht.


One of our best protected vehicles had a "mechanical problem"...but refused to give further details

I`m waiting for the day when Obama inaugurates another wind mill and throws the high speed breaker personally when the wind mill is just a tad off 60 Hertz and 2 milliseconds out of phase. I would even pump up the pneumatic high speed piston up for him...and watch from a safe distance:


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....oh peanutbrain, you are such a clueless retard.

*Aerosol*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas.[1] Examples are clouds, and air pollution such as smog and smoke.[1] In general conversation, aerosol usually refers to an aerosol spray can or the output of such a can. Aerosol science covers a wide range of topics, such as generation and removal of aerosols, technological application and their impacts on the environment and people.[1]

Definitions

An aerosol is defined as a suspension of solid or liquid particles in a gas. This includes both the particles and the suspending gas, which is usually air.[1] The name aerosol is thought to have been first used by F.G. Donnan during World War I to describe clouds of microscopic particles in air.

Atmospheric
(Main article: Atmospheric particulate matter)





_Aerosol pollution over Northern India and Bangladesh_

Earth's atmosphere contains aerosols of various types and concentrations, including quantities of:
natural inorganic materials: dust, smoke, sea salt, water droplets.
    natural organic materials: pollen, spores, bacteria
anthropogenic products of combustion such as: smoke, ashes or dusts​
Aerosols can be found in urban Ecosystems in various forms, for example:
Dust,
    Cigarette smoke,
    Mist from aerosol spray cans,
    Soot or fumes in car exhaust.​
The aerosols present in earth's atmosphere have many impacts including on climate and human health.


***


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







Aaaaaaaannnddd Blunder shows up with his usual cut and paste BS* BECAUSE HE'S TOO STUPID TO ACTUALLY WRITE SOMETHING IN HIS OWN WORDS*....what a sad, sad pathetic little twerp you are....


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



And the walleyedretard posts more meaningless drivel because he's too stupid to realize when one of his fellow denier cult dimwit's ignorant statements have been debunked by the facts. The walleyedretard hates it when anyone posts actual evidence from real sources because he's too retarded to ever manage that particular feat.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Wiki?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2013)

polarbear said:


> Name some widely used "Chinese aerosols" that spray solid particles other than spray paint..



Anything burning sulfur-laden coal without scrubbing the exhaust. Meaning about every power plant in China. This is grade-school level stuff, yet you fail it over and over.

You just can't seem to grasp that these atmospheric aerosols are mostly particles, not droplets from aerosol sprayers. It's not that complicated, but you simply refuse to believe it, so off you go on more clueless and hilarious rants.

SSDD is every bit as retarded as you, of course. Given how his mouth seems to be sewn to your rectum human-centipede style, it's impressive that you two manage to work a keyboard. Now go have a tasty burrito or some cuttlefish, since SSDD needs a meal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2013)

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998?2008

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998&#8211;2008

Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, 
Heikki Kauppib, 
Michael L. Manna, and 
James H. Stockc

 Author Affiliations

Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011) 



Abstract

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2013)

Is China's coal pollution helping slow down global warming? - StormWatch 7 | WJLA.com

I think there are several interesting points to be drawn from the study, performed by researchers from Boston University, Harvard and Finland's University of Turku:

1) China more than doubled its consumption/burning of coal from 2004 to 2007. (The last time China&#8217;s coal consumption doubled, it took 22 years.)

2) Sulfur aerosol emissions created by burning coal tend to have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere.

3) Before 2002, there was a net worldwide decrease in sulfur emissions, primarily because of clean-air acts and mitigation efforts in the U.S. and Europe.

4) The cooling effects of sulfur aerosols has essentially countered any global temperature rise caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide.

5) This balancing act between sulfur and carbon dioxide, along with the slight decrease in solar energy during the solar minimum and the cool La Nina, meant there was essentially no statistically meaningful change in the global temperature from 1999 to 2008.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So, walleyed, is there some alternative reality where the meaning of the term "*aerosol*" is different from what I posted? LOLOLOL.

*Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Pilot Comparative Study of Online Encyclopaedias Yields Insights into Wikipedias Accuracy and Quality*
August 2, 2012
*Wikipedia articles in general emerge commendably in a number of respects, and it was possible to identify a pattern of qualities: Wikipedia articles were generally seen as being more up to date than other articles and were generally considered to be better referenced. Furthermore, they appeared to be at least as strong as other sources in terms of comprehensiveness, lack of bias and even readability.*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 29, 2013)

I`m not saying that the wordsmith who coined the word "aerosol"  was too stupid to know what the root words were for his neologism of  "dissolved in air"
I`m saying that the people who still use his stunt- word over a century later for  particles suspended in air are stupid.
They are without exception instant Wikipedia "scientists"  that post pseudo science crap from  doomsday.org blogs
The correct scientific term is "Airborne Particulate Matter" and not even the EPA is using the gross misnomer "aerosol" any more
and hasn`t  since a few decades now.
There are "Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers" all over the place and none of them call themselves "Aerosol Research Centers"...except
the AGW nuts :
KIT - IMK-AAF - AIDA


> Welcome to the division "Atmospheric Aerosol Research" of the Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research


Everybody else calls it an  Airborne Particulate Matter Research Center:
Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers - Original (1998)

    * EPA Harvard Center for *Ambient Particle* Health Effects
    * EPA NYU PM Center: Health Risks of* PM Components*
    * Northwest Research Center for *Particulate Air Pollution* and Health
    * Rochester *PM* Center
    * Southern California Particle Center and Supersite
Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers - New (2005)

    * Harvard* Particle *Center
    * Johns Hopkins *Particulate Matter Research* Center
    * Rochester *PM* Center
     * Southern California *Particle Center*
*Because they know that  they are not dealing with an "aerosol" in the scientific sense.*
The engineers who developed and designed the instruments which are used for Airborne Particulate Matter analysis* don`t call these "aerosol testers" *:






 They are called *Smoke Spot Tester**s
*
* and they  measure "smog" (= neologism for smoke +fog) which is by far more scientifically correct than "aerosol"
A smoke spot is not what  Al Gorists and Obama  understand as a (joint) "smoke spot"  
It looks like this:





* "smog", or more accurately called *Airborne Particulate Matter *has been further sub-classified  as *DPM* and  *Photochemical smog.
* 
This is photochemical *smog* because of  the nitrogen oxide the brown  coloration:






> *Photochemical smog* was first described in the 1950s. It is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles and ground-level ozone


*it`s not called "aerosol" except by Wiki-"educated" wannabees
*
This is just plain  smog , because no photochemical smog was visible.





*it`s not called an aerosol...only Wikipedia reading AGW forum idiots still call it "aerosol"*
One of them even called the SO2 coming from dirty coal burning an aerosol ...The "Chinese aerosol" which is preventing the IPCC from doing a victory dance...*while SO2 is a transparent gas that absorbs IR even stronger that CO2*

*And the chief  moron posted a picture of some smog* near India and Bangladesh..






....which is preventing the rest of the globe from overheating..*.but apparently not India and Bangladesh, downtown New York or  any other  city under a smog dome . 
The effect is the exact opposite and the only way "climate scientists" and assorted dimwits can explain  **Chinese "aerosols" reflecting sunlight and cooling the globe, is going  back to the 17th century and use their beliefs to "explain" the temperature stall  during the last 12 years  using outdated Arrhenius math  +  "frigoric fluid" and "phlogistons" 
*
_ aerosol_. 1923, from Gk. aero- "air" (combining form) + solution
in (real) science a *solution* is when a substance is* dissolved** IN A LIQUID. Air as a gas can`t dissolve anything ** not even another gas.
That`s why we call it a "gas mixture", you dimwit*
So while you think that the "Study of Online Encyclopedias Yields Insights",  in fact it shows that  you are nothing more than an ignorant moron 
 just like "Saigon from Finland".

Shake hands with the Mammoth moron cat in the hat from PBS "that  knows best" and "teaches" 5 year old kids


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2013)

Give it up already. You got the whole aerosol thing laughably long, and now you're trying to rewrite English and the history of science to cover for your screwup. That's right, PolarBear says all scientists across the globe for the past century have been doing it totally wrong, while he alone knows the RealTruth. Standard cultist behavior, the claim that the select few in the cult have superior knowledge.

To rational people, it's much easier to admit your mistakes and move on, but this right-wing-fringe political cult isn't rational. One of their commandments is "Thou shalt never, ever admit the dirty liberal was right", hence all the bizarre contortions they'll go into so they can claim their dumb mistake was really correct.

I do suggest PolarBear find some more denialists to aid him here in his crybaby bully act. 3 or 4 isn't enough. Denialists require at least a 10:1 advantage before their "avalanche of bullshit" tactics can completely drown out all rationality.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2013)

It hasn't been ten years.  There's been no global warming for 20 years.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Scientists are puzzled.  _Puzzled!_  They were wrong.  They were wrong because they abandoned the science in favor of making science reflect they quest for money to fight something that does not exist.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I`m not saying that the wordsmith who coined the word "aerosol"  was too stupid to know what the root words were for his neologism of  "dissolved in air"
> I`m saying that the people who still use his stunt- word over a century later for  particles suspended in air are stupid.
> They are without exception instant Wikipedia "scientists"  that post pseudo science crap from  doomsday.org blogs
> The correct scientific term is "Airborne Particulate Matter" and *not even the EPA is using the gross misnomer "aerosol" any more and hasn`t  since a few decades now.*


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....ROTFLMAO......you are such a hilarious little retard.......

*Aerosol
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1) a small droplet or particle suspended in the atmosphere, typically containing sulfur
Aerosols are emitted naturally (e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as the result of human activities (e.g., by burning fossil fuels). There is no connection between particulate aerosols and pressurized products also called aerosols. *

*Aerosols in the Stratosphere
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Most volcanoes do not penetrate the stratosphere. In fact, only a small number of eruptions have produced a significant amount of aerosols in this century. (Note that volcanic aerosols are totally unrelated to consumer aerosol products, like hair spray, that have not used ozone-depleting substances since the 1970s.) One example is Mt. Pinatubo, which injected 30 million tons of aerosols into the stratosphere during its 1991 eruption in the Philippines.*








polarbear said:


> There are "Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers" all over the place and none of them call themselves "Aerosol Research Centers"...except
> the AGW nuts
> *Because they know that  they are not dealing with an "aerosol" in the scientific sense.*


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you just get more and more insane and out of touch with reality.....your meltdowns are hilariously pathetic......

*The American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR)
The American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR) is a nonprofit professional organization for scientists and engineers who wish to promote and communicate technical advances in the field of aerosol research. The Association fosters the exchange of information among members and with other disciplines through conferences, symposia, and publication of a professional journal, Aerosol Science and Technology (AS&T).

Association membership represents all areas of aerosol science including: Global Environment, Microcontamination, Air Pollution, Instrumentation/Measurement, Aerosol Chemistry, Material Synthesis, Aerosol Physics, Pharmaceutical Aerosols, Occupational and Public Health, Filtration/Separation, Atmospheric Sciences, Combustion, Biological Aerosols, Metrology/Standards, Indoor Air Quality, and Radioactive Aerosols/Nuclear Safety. Committed to the development of aerosol science and its application to important societal issues, AAAR offers an international forum for education, communication, and networking among leading aerosol researchers.
*

*AAAR Related Links*

*Universities

    American University of Beirut, Aerosol Research Lab
    California Institute of Technology, Division of Engineering and Applied Science
    California Institute of Technology, Chemical Engineering
    University of California, Davis, Air Quality Research Center
    University of California, Riverside, Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering
    Carnegie Mellon University
    University of Cincinnati, Center for Health-Related Aerosol Studies
    Clarkson University, Center for Air Resources Engineering and Science (CARES)
    Colorado State University, Atmospheric Science Department
    University of Colorado, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
    Universität Duisburg, Process- und Aerosolmesstechnik (German)
    University of Essex, UK, Aerosol Science Group
    University of Florida, Aerosol & Particulate Research Laboratory (APRL)
    Southern Illinois University, John Koropchak's Research Group
    University of Illinois, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
    Lund University (Sweden), Consortium for Aerosol Science and Technology
    University of Minnesota, Particle Technology Lab
    University of Maryland and National Institute of Standards and Technology, Center for NanoEnergetics Research (CNER) UMCP/NIST Co-Laboratory on NanoParticle Based Manufacturing and Metrology
    University of New South Wales, Australia, Department of Environmental and Applied Physics
    New York University Medical Center, Department of Environmental Medicine
    Peking University Bioaerosol Laboratory
    University of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
    Queensland University of Technology, Environmental Aerosol Laboratory
    Rutgers University - Bioaerosol Science and Technology Laboratory
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego
    Texas A&M - Aerosol Technology Laboratory
    Washington University (St. Louis, USA), Aerosol Science and Engineering
    Washington University (St. Louis, USA), Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend Analysis
    University of California, San Diego - ATOFMS

Government and Research Organizations

    ASFERA (French Aerosol Research Association)
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Health and Safety Laboratory (UK)
    Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
        Clean Air Science Advisory Board
    Finnish Meteorological Institute, Air Quality Institute
    Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, Atmospheric Aerosol Research
    Max-Planck-Institute für Chemie (Mainz, Germany)
    NARSTO
    NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, Climate and Radiation
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
    National Science Foundation
    NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
    VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Aerosol Technology Group
    World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Climate Research Programme

Commercial

    AlburtyLab, Inc.
    Bangs Laboratories Inc.
    BGI
    Biontech ltd
    BIRAL
    Brechtel Manufacturing Inc. (BMI)
    Cambustion
    Droplet Measurement Technologies
    Duke Scientific Corporation
    Ecotech Pty Ltd
    In-Tox Products
    Ioner
    Kanomax USA, Inc.
    MSP Corporation
    Nanoparticles.org
    ParticleCounters.org
    Particle Measuring Systems
    Quant Technologies LLC
    Sunset Laboratory Inc.
    Thermo Electron Corporation
    TSI Incorporated

Professional Societies

    The Aerosol Society (UK)
    Air and Waste Management Association
    American Conference of Govermental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
    American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
    American Geophysical Union
    Brazilian Association for Aerosol Research
    The Electrostatics Society of America (ESA)
    Gesellschaft fur Aerosolforschung e.V. (GAeF)
    International Society of Exposure Science
    International Society for Aerosols in Medicine
    Israeli Association for Aerosol Research (IAAR)
    Nordic Society for Aerosol Research
    Particle Society of Minnesota

Funding Opportunities

    Health Effects Institute (HEI)

Educational Sites

    Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Journal
    Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health is a multi-disciplinary journal that focuses on atmospheric consequences of human activities and their implications for human and ecological health. The journal publishes original research articles and integrative reviews relevant to this theme.
    Eqilibriums
    Workshop on Nanoparticle Aerosols
    On June 27-28, 2003, a Workshop was held at UCLA on "Emerging Issues in
    Nanoparticle Aerosol Science and Technology". The Workshop was sponsored
    by NSF and the Southern California Particle Center (EPA supported) and was
    co-chaired by Sheldon K. Friedlander and David Y.H. Pui. The 119 page
    Workshop report which includes research recommendations is available
    through the following link: Nanoparticle Aerosols Workshop Report
    OEHS Library Central
    Occupational health and safety research, knowledge and information is now in one convenient location at OEHS Library Central. This digital library was created specifically for the occupational health and safety professional. It offers downloadable versions of all AIHA print publications to site subscribers and links to abstracting and indexing databases for more than 150 science and technical journals. *


*Aerodyne Research*
*Aerosol & Cloud Chemistry

The Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry performs laboratory and field experiments to understand heterogeneous processes associated with aerosol and cloud particles in the atmosphere. This includes processes that directly determine the distribution of both size and chemical composition of aerosols, as well as gas-particle interactions that impact gas phase species. Extensive laboratory studies have investigated the fundamental kinetics and thermodynamics of gas/liquid interactions. Current programs are aimed at developing advanced field measurement techniques for sampling ambient atmospheric particles from ground based and airborne platforms. Measurement methodologies for both particle and gas phase species are based on mass spectrometric methods. CACC has established and maintains a network of collaborators within the US and internationally. Research and development activities are supported by government agencies, private companies and private sector research consortia.

Government sponsors include: the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Naval Research.

Private sector sponsors include: the Electric Power Research Institute, the Coordinating Research Council, Air Products, Inc, the Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental Acceptability Study and the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Research & Development Areas

    Cloud and Aerosol Chemistry and Physics
    Aerosol Sampling - Chemical Composition and Size
    Aerosol Mass Spectrometry
    Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry
    PM1 and PM2.5 Aerosol Monitoring
    Urban and Regional Air Pollution
    Soot Emission Characterization
    Aerosol Nucleation and Growth
    Gas-Particle Processing
    Kinetic Modeling
*


*Aerosol Research
Washington University in St. Louis
	The field of aerosol science and technology covers the basic principles that underlie the formation, growth, measurement and modeling of systems of small particles in gases. These systems play an important role in nature and industry, and in the study of nanoparticles that are the building blocks for nanotechnology. Advances in aerosol science and technology have applications in many fields that include, but are not limited to, (1) microelectronics (2) medicine and pharmaceuticals (3) space exploration (4) environment (5) energy (6) nanotechnology, (7) advanced materials.*


*Aerosol Research
Texas A & M University
Chemical Changes in Atmospheric Aerosols
Aerosols containing soot and polyaromatic hydrocarbons are emitted into the atmosphere as products of incomplete combustion. Sarah Brooks' group is using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Horizontal Attenuated Total Reflectance to identify the chemical characteristics of surfaces of soot and polyaromatics and to observe how those characteristics evolve over time in an oxidizing atmosphere.*


*Center for Climate and Aerosol Research
Portland State University
CCAR seeks to serve as an internationally recognized, multidisciplinary engine for transformative research and teaching on the reciprocal effects between atmospheric aerosol particles and global/regional climate.

CCAR conducts externally funded research that is relevant both nationally and regionally on the topics of:  1) greenhouse gases and atmospheric aerosol particles and their effects on global energy budgets; 2) feedbacks between greenhouse gases, aerosols, and climate; and 3) probable changes in global and regional climate and the simultaneous effects on ecosystem health, human health, and economic sustainability.  CCAR maintains close connections with other relevant entities within PSU and OUS that have climate-related missions, including the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium and the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute.* 








polarbear said:


> *it`s not called "aerosol" except by Wiki-"educated" wannabees*
> 
> *it`s not called an aerosol...only Wikipedia reading AGW forum idiots still call it "aerosol"*
> One of them even called the SO2 coming from dirty coal burning an aerosol ...The "Chinese aerosol" which is preventing the IPCC from doing a victory dance...*while SO2 is a transparent gas that absorbs IR even stronger that CO2*
> ...



Oh peanutbrain, you are sooooo full of shit, it is pouring out your ears. You must enjoy making a complete fool out of yourself for all to see.

*Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, and Why Are They So Important?
NASA
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)

Aerosols are minute particles suspended in the atmosphere. When these particles are sufficiently large, we notice their presence as they scatter and absorb sunlight. Their scattering of sunlight can reduce visibility (haze) and redden sunrises and sunsets.

Aerosols interact both directly and indirectly with the Earth's radiation budget and climate. As a direct effect, the aerosols scatter sunlight directly back into space. As an indirect effect, aerosols in the lower atmosphere can modify the size of cloud particles, changing how the clouds reflect and absorb sunlight, thereby affecting the Earth's energy budget.

Aerosols also can act as sites for chemical reactions to take place (heterogeneous chemistry). The most significant of these reactions are those that lead to the destruction of stratospheric ozone. During winter in the polar regions, aerosols grow to form polar stratospheric clouds. The large surface areas of these cloud particles provide sites for chemical reactions to take place. These reactions lead to the formation of large amounts of reactive chlorine and, ultimately, to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. Evidence now exists that shows similar changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations occur after major volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, where tons of volcanic aerosols are blown into the atmosphere (Fig. 1).





Fig. 1 The dispersal of volcanic aerosols has a drastic effect on the Earth's atmosphere. Following an eruption, large amounts of sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrochloric acid (HCL) and ash are spewed into the Earth's stratosphere. Hydrochloric acid, in most cases, condenses with water vapor and is rained out of the volcanic cloud formation. Sulphur dioxide from the cloud is transformed into sulphuric acid (H2SO4). The sulphuric acid quickly condenses, producing aerosol particles which linger in the atmosphere for long periods of time. The interaction of chemicals on the surface of aerosols, known as heterogeneous chemistry, and the tendency of aerosols to increase levels of chlorine which can react with nitrogen in the stratosphere, is a prime contributor to stratospheric ozone destruction.

Volcanic Aerosol

Three types of aerosols significantly affect the Earth's climate. The first is the volcanic aerosol layer which forms in the stratosphere after major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo. The dominant aerosol layer is actually formed by sulfur dioxide gas which is converted to droplets of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere over the course of a week to several months after the eruption (Fig. 1). Winds in the stratosphere spread the aerosols until they practically cover the globe. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. In 1995, though several years had passed since the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, remnants of the layer remained in the atmosphere. Data from satellites such as the NASA Langley Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II) have enabled scientists to better understand the effects of volcanic aerosols on our atmosphere.

Desert Dust

The second type of aerosol that may have a significant effect on climate is desert dust. Pictures from weather satellites often reveal dust veils streaming out over the Atlantic Ocean from the deserts of North Africa. Fallout from these layers has been observed at various locations on the American continent. Similar veils of dust stream off deserts on the Asian continent. The September 1994 Lidar In-space Technology Experiment (LITE), aboard the space shuttle Discovery (STS-64), measured large quantities of desert dust in the lower atmosphere over Africa. The particles in these dust plumes are minute grains of dirt blown from the desert surface. They are relatively large for atmospheric aerosols and would normally fall out of the atmosphere after a short flight if they were not blown to relatively high altitudes (15,000 ft. and higher) by intense dust storms.

Because the dust is composed of minerals, the particles absorb sunlight as well as scatter it. Through absorption of sunlight, the dust particles warm the layer of the atmosphere where they reside. This warmer air is believed to inhibit the formation of storm clouds. Through the suppression of storm clouds and their consequent rain, the dust veil is believed to further desert expansion.

Recent observations of some clouds indicate that they may be absorbing more sunlight than was thought possible. Because of their ability to absorb sunlight, and their transport over large distances, desert aerosols may be the culprit for this additional absorption of sunlight by some clouds.

Human-Made Aerosol

The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days.

The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.

Climatic Effects of Aerosols

The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases. The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric trace gases - cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.

The warming effect of the greenhouse gases is expected to take place everywhere, but the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas. No one knows what the outcome will be of atmospheric warming in some regions and cooling in others. Climate models are still too primitive to provide reliable insight into the possible outcome. Current observations of the buildup are available only for a few locations around the globe and these observations are fragmentary.

Understanding how much sulfur-based pollution is present in the atmosphere is important for understanding the effectiveness of current sulfur dioxide pollution control strategies.*


----------



## polarbear (Mar 30, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Give it up already. You got the whole aerosol thing laughably long, and now you're trying to rewrite English and the history of science to cover for your screwup. That's right, PolarBear says all scientists across the globe for the past century have been doing it totally wrong, while he alone knows the RealTruth. Standard cultist behavior, the claim that the select few in the cult have superior knowledge.
> 
> To rational people, it's much easier to admit your mistakes and move on, but this right-wing-fringe political cult isn't rational. One of their commandments is "Thou shalt never, ever admit the dirty liberal was right", hence all the bizarre contortions they'll go into so they can claim their dumb mistake was really correct.
> 
> I do suggest PolarBear find some more denialists to aid him here in his crybaby bully act. 3 or 4 isn't enough. Denialists require at least a 10:1 advantage before their "avalanche of bullshit" tactics can completely drown out all rationality.


After I wrote what an "aerosol" is  in  today`s technology  Thundercrap and you posted  a picture of  smog which only climatologists are calling an "aerosol" while everybody who analyses smog
calls it  Arirborne Particulate Matter


It`s measured as the  "smoke spot number" either by  air filtration which is the ASTM standard or by  remote optical sensing  per
DIN 51402       and  also expresses the readings as  a "smoke spot number. which can be converted to micrograms airborne particulate matter per cubic meter.
ASTM = ASTM International - About ASTM International
DIN =  the German Standard Norm which is for decades also the International Norm, the "ISO"  and both
*use the internationally agreed on nomenclature "Airborne Particulate Matter" ...not "aerosol".*

I wrote 2 *"aerosol"* patents how the particle size can be controlled with a 1 micrometer accuracy using spray dryers
and subsequent micro encapsulation in one single "U-tube" run...*you would not  even know what that is..because you`ld have to*
*Google for it and  then lecture me  what the  standard Internet Idiot definition for Youtube is.*



> Aerosols  are used in the delivery of drugs to the lungs, the
> fabrication of nano-
> structures in spray
> drying, and the
> delivery of fuels.




*I got paid over a hundred grand per year while I was working on it  for my  "failure to understand  grade -school level stuff"
So I don`t really give a shit what some armchair dim-wit  expert like you wants to call me.*


> Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which  _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that  software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported  the cooling,


 No the "Error" was not fixed ! And the IPCC propaganda was that over 2500 Argo buoys were wrong and that the data needed to be "corrected".
 Every engineer who was involved with the design of these buoys protested  and threatened to go public..and  did.


 After that "climatologists" caught yet again with their pants down while they were cheating called it a "software error".
 It did not help, because in January 2013 the  buoys  now more than 3000 + the "removed software error"  still showed the same temperature stall
*



			Trenberth Response to Today's Loeb et al Paper on Missing Energy
		
Click to expand...

*


> We did not make a big deal about the uncertainties in the observations  which are highlighted in this paper.  But we were well aware of them.  The main point of our paper was that yes, perhaps the observations are  consistent within the error bars but if so, the error bars  (uncertainties) are so large as to make the values useless. A key  purpose of our paper was to challenge both the ocean heat content  community and the CERES (atmospheric radiation) communities to do  better. Both have responded and the situation has improved somewhat. The  latest CERES data as reported here has corrected their data and found  about *20% of the problem. ..*
> So while their conclusions may be valid: yes there is no evidence of a  discrepancy, given their uncertainties, and yes there is no  "statistically significant" decline in OHC rates of change, but the  uncertainties are so large that neither data set is useful to know what  is really going on, and that is the key point. *The discrepancies among  OHC data sets remain huge.* We MUST do better. So the key point in their  title is "within uncertainty". It should add: "but the uncertainty is  too large."


And that`s why the IPCC has been holding meetings in Hobart  since February 2013.

After the "software error" which the IPCC was trying to use in 2007 to "explain" the temperature stall came the " El Niño &  La-Niña cop-out.
On closer examination by non- IPCC scientists that could not account for the stall either.
After that came the IPCC`s  Airborne Particulate coming from  China and India excuse which claimed that  these blocked 0.1 Watts per square meter.
But that was untested and unproven Computer Model which was hastily conjured up by Susan Solomon`s work group
That model has been proven wrong and it has been shown that airborne paricualate matter like soot do not block 0.1 Watts per m^2 but actually add
more than that. It`s been published in book from:



> *This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer  review* but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination  and proofreading process
> However, global atmospheric absorption attributable to black carbon is  too low in many models, and should be increased by a factor of almost  three. After this scaling, the best estimate for the industrial-era  (1750 to 2005) direct radiative forcing of atmospheric black carbon is  +0.71&#8201;W&#8201;m-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of (+0.08, +1.27) W&#8201;m-2. T
> Climate forcings from co-emitted species are estimated and used in the  framework described herein.
> The uncertainties in net climate forcing from black-carbon-rich sources  are substantial, *largely due to lack of knowledge about cloud  interactions with both black carbon and co-emitted organic carbon. *
> *The major sources of  black carbon are presently in different stages with regard to the  feasibility for near-term mitigation. This assessment, by evaluating the  large number and complexity of the associated physical and radiative  processes in black-carbon climate forcing, sets a baseline from which to  improve future climate forcing estimates*.


A parallel study has shown that airborne particulates are a major factor in "cloud seeding" and do not contribute to cooling  but should have added  to warming.
So it`s back to the drawing board for the IPCC who has to publish the next A.N. in September this year which is expected to address the stalled temperature increase
while CO2 has increased significantly....*the predicted  heat is still missing despite the crap you keep posting.*


> Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which  _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that  software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported  the cooling,



P.S.:
I still get paid for my work even though I`m retired and have fun with retards like you for a few minutes per day.
After that, unlike you I have a life and don`t sit in front of my PC all day long posting crap because childish assholes like you are obsessed with having the last word..this self delusional and symbolic debate winner symptom you have in common with all the other fag-libtards in this forum


----------



## mamooth (Mar 30, 2013)

U mad bro?

You're over the edge now, jabbering out nonsense that has no relation to anything in the real world. And it's fun to watch.

By the way, if you'd come out openly, you might be less hostile towards gays. Just a suggestion.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Give it up already. You got the whole aerosol thing laughably long, and now you're trying to rewrite English and the history of science to cover for your screwup. That's right, PolarBear says all scientists across the globe for the past century have been doing it totally wrong, while he alone knows the RealTruth. Standard cultist behavior, the claim that the select few in the cult have superior knowledge.
> ...


*"arirborne"???*

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......soooooooo retarded and soooooooo clueless........








polarbear said:


> DIN =  the German Standard Norm which is for decades also the International Norm, the "ISO"  and both
> *use the internationally agreed on nomenclature "Airborne Particulate Matter" ...not "aerosol".*


*"the internationally agreed on nomenclature"???
*
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you poor deluded retard, you were just shown this information....
*The American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR)
Related Links
Universität Duisburg, Process- und Aerosolmesstechnik (German)
University of Essex, UK, Aerosol Science Group
Lund University (Sweden), Consortium for Aerosol Science and Technology
University of New South Wales, Australia, Department of Environmental and Applied Physics
Peking University Bioaerosol Laboratory
Queensland University of Technology, Environmental Aerosol Laboratory
The Aerosol Society (UK)
Brazilian Association for Aerosol Research
Gesellschaft fur Aerosolforschung e.V. (GAeF)
International Society of Exposure Science
International Society for Aerosols in Medicine
Israeli Association for Aerosol Research (IAAR)
Nordic Society for Aerosol Research*








polarbear said:


> I got paid over a hundred grand per year while I was working on it  for my  "failure to understand  grade -school level stuff"
> So I don`t really give a shit what some armchair dim-wit  expert like you wants to call me.
> I still get paid for my work even though I`m retired and have fun with retards like you for a few minutes per day.
> After that, unlike you I have a life and don`t sit in front of my PC all day long posting crap because childish assholes like you are obsessed with having the last word..this self delusional and symbolic debate winner symptom you have in common with all the other fag-libtards in this forum



Translation - Peanutbrain just got his ass kicked but he's in denial about this too. He foolishly imagines that making unverifiable claims on an anonymous forum about his supposed expertise based on his claimed supposed salary is going to impress anyone but other retards. He claims to be an expert but obviously knows very little and is often hilariously wrong about basic stuff. His lame and very uneducated drivel concerning 'aerosols' has been debunked by the undeniable facts but he is sooooooo stupid that he continues to insist that he is right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Classic psycho behavior.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 30, 2013)

Doesnt matter.......the science still doesnt matter.

Oh.....and more bad news for the k00ks from REALCLEARSCIENCE today...........







http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2013/03/29/the-end-of-energy-as-we-know-it-in-three-graphs/




The retarded denialists............still winning!!!





The AGW OC's???? >>>>>>>>


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 30, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> .......the science still doesnt matter......and more bad news..........The retarded denialists...........



What actually 'still doesn't matter' is your exceptionally retarded and totally clueless bullshit, kookles.


----------



## polarbear (Apr 6, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Doesnt matter.......the science still doesnt matter.
> 
> Oh.....and more bad news for the k00ks from REALCLEARSCIENCE today...........
> 
> ...
























69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?


> *69% Say It&#8217;s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research*


What are standard IQ scale rates


> *70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115
> *


IQ below *50-70 = Mild mental retardation  *


*Pretty good correlation* !
*There is almost the same correlation when you ask people how many have cheated on exams.
The same 30% idiots believe that nobody  cheats on exams while the rest are aware what`s going on since we got WiFi*


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 12, 2013)

Still wearing a winter coat here....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 12, 2013)

When are we going to see clear warming again?


----------



## RollingThunder (Apr 12, 2013)

polarbear said:


> IQ below *50-70 = Mild mental retardation  *



LOL. You've got yourself pegged pretty well there. Brave of you to admit just how retarded you are. Although I suspect, based on the quality of your posts on this forum, that you may have grossly underestimated the extent of your retardation, peanutbrain.


----------

