Global Warming hype!

[Gipper]

Whom can have a serious debate with anyone that signs every post with "Comrade Stalin"?

I can assure you, you can not.

He is a propagandist.

My advice to you, do not waste your time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

actuly its about weather.. one year does not make climate...Just like here in MN, the fact that El Nino is having a effect this year...does not change climate overall..just weather for this period of time.

/QUOTE]


Coldest in 1,000 years is just the weather.

You warmers are really out there.

well played, nice how you ignored everything I said

 

[Gipper]

well played, nice how you ignored everything I said

I don't think so.

The article stated the UK was colder than at any time since 1683 and maybe for the past 1,000 years. That is not one year and its not insignificant. And, it is not just WEATHER. Cold weather records are being broken all across Europe not just the UK.

Why can't you accept the truth. AGW is one of the biggest hoaxes ever devised by man you and fall for it. Now, will you learn from our mistake or will you continue to believe lies?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't think so.

The article stated the UK was colder than at any time since 1683 and maybe for the past 1,000 years. That is not one year and its not insignificant. And, it is not just WEATHER. Cold weather records are being broken all across Europe not just the UK.

Why can't you accept the truth. AGW is one of the biggest hoaxes ever devised by man you and fall for it. Now, will you learn from our mistake or will you continue to believe lies?

IS UK the earth? no
end of story

WORLD temps are going up...simple fact.

 

[Rick]

So let me ask you this...if even there is a decent chance that its mostly do to CO2 and Pollution...or at least its playing a significant role...how long do you think we should wait around waiting for "proof" 100% before we do anything about it?

The ol' "why wait for proof" idiocy. Lets give new, gigantic power to government, let's completely change our way of life, and lets throw scores of millions of people out of work. Proof, schmoof, let's get on with it.

 

[Stalin]

There was no fake debate like this when the hole in the Ozone was discovered.

The experts presented their evidence that CFC's probably caused it and the process to stop their production and use was started.

The CFC industry did not have the political clout and long experience at manipulation that the energy industry has and did not even attempt to launch a bogus denial movement such as we see now.

The bulk of the denial movement was initially funded by the energy industry who have manipulated the issue into a left versus right issue, which is patently ridiculous. Most of scientists I know are very conservative.

Unlike the rise in effective stratospheric chlorine values in the 20th century which have slowed and reversed in the last decade, the CO2 levels are growing.

What does that tell you ?

More importantly, are you being conned into seeing climate change as a liberal cause without any foundation and based on erroneous data ?

Comrade Stalin B.Sc in Chemistry

 

[Rick]

There was no fake debate like this when the hole in the Ozone was discovered.

The experts presented their evidence that CFC's probably caused it and the process to stop their production and use was started.

The CFC industry did not have the political clout and long experience at manipulation that the energy industry has and did not even attempt to launch a bogus denial movement such as we see now.

AGW is not the ozone hole, and your assertion of a "bogus denial movement" is just trash talk.

The bulk of the denial movement was initially funded by the energy industry who have manipulated the issue into a left versus right issue, which is patently ridiculous. Most of scientists I know are very conservative.

Riiiiiiiight, if you are willing to ignore the specific objections to the AGW cultists here and elsewhere, you can imagine that they raise those just because of something the energy industry did, but that's just mental masturbation.

Unlike the rise in effective stratospheric chlorine values in the 20th century which have slowed and reversed in the last decade, the CO2 levels are growing.

What does that tell you ?

Nothing in particular, and what an eighth grade science student will tell YOU is that correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

[Stalin]

You are correct that climate change is not the ozone hole but they are related.

At least you did not have the contrariness to deny that phenomenon.

To what specific objections are you referring ?

I have no idea of what "mental masturbation" is.

Perhaps you could explain the meaning of your phrase.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Rick]

You are correct that climate change is not the ozone hole but they are related.

At least you did not have the contrariness to deny that phenomenon.

To what specific objections are you referring ?

Reread the thread.

I have no idea of what "mental masturbation" is.

Perhaps you could explain the meaning of your phrase.

Comrade Stalin

Mental maturbation is eg you simply smearing opponents of ecofascism with out taking on the task of refuting their arguments.

 

[Gipper]

NOAA on Miami Florida: Coldest December on Record
Posted on December 30, 2010 by Anthony Watts

From the NOAA National Weather Service Office in Miami comes this year end report:

2010 South Florida Weather Year in Review
Coldest December on Record Concludes Year of Extremes
December 30th, 2010: Temperature and precipitation extremes marked the weather of 2010 across South Florida. A cool and wet January through March was followed by the hottest summer on record, and then concluded with the coldest December on record for the main climate sites in South Florida (details on the above mentioned periods will be included below).

Here are December 2010 temperature averages for select sites (through 7 AM Dec 30th):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/noaa-on-miami-florida-coldest-december-on-record/

When its cold its global warming. When its hot its global warming. When its dry its global warming. When its wet its global warming. When its snowy its global warming. When its windy its global warming. When its sunny its global warming. When its cloudy its global warming.

I know its illogical, but apparently many believe.

 

[Stalin]

Reread the thread.



Mental maturbation is eg you simply smearing opponents of ecofascism with out taking on the task of refuting their arguments.

I did not need to re-read the thread, because I read it.

Debate is based on facts not ad-hominem attacks and advertising slogans.

Climate change is hypothetical, and as such should be the subject of debate.

So let us start with the so-called hockey stick graph.

First, of the initial researcher, Michael Mann

"..Mann is best known for his work on the temperature record of the past 1000 years, which has involved reconstructing climatic fluctuations over the past several millennia, based on evidence from tree rings, ice cores, corals and other physical proxies. In 1998 Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes co-authored a study titled Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries which included a graph showing an abrupt rise in global temperatures in the late 20th century after centuries of relative stability. In 1999 they extended their study to cover ten centuries, in a paper titled Northern hemisphere temperature during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties and limitations. The equivalent graph from the 1999 paper was dubbed the "hockey stick" for its shape. His most recent work has focused on the contribution that changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation have made to the pre-industrial climate.[5]

The hockey stick graph was prominently featured in the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001, and became an iconic symbol of that report and of the scientific consensus on climate change. The methodologies which underly the hockey stick, as well as numerous papers with similar results, have since become the focus of much controversy. Individuals and groups opposed to the scientific consensus have attempted to use this controversy to advance their views.[6] A 2006 report by the United States National Academy of Sciences supported the conclusions represented by the graph, especially during the period subsequent to 1600 AD, but was critical of the manner in which results from earlier periods were communicated.[7] Mann has said his findings have been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources."[8] More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original graph, and almost all agreed that the warmest decade in the last thousand years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

and the controversy

"...The hockey stick controversy refers to debates over the technical correctness and implications for global warming of graphs showing reconstructed estimates of the temperature record of the past 1000 years; at a political level, the debate is about the use of this graph to convey complex science to the public, and the question of the robustness of the assessment presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

By the late 1990s a number of competing teams were using proxy indicators to estimate the temperature record of past centuries, and finding suggestions that recent warming was exceptional.[1] In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes produced the first quantitative hemispheric-scale reconstruction, from an analysis of a variety of measures, which they summarised in a graph going back to 1400 showing recent measured temperatures increasing sharply. Their 1999 paper extended this study back to 1000, and included a graph which was featured prominently in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) as supporting the mainstream view of climate scientists that there had been a relatively sharp rise in temperatures during the second half of the 20th century. It became a focus of attacks from those opposed to this scientific consensus.[2] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming the hockey stick's "shaft", followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the "blade".[3]

In 2003, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas argued against this pattern in a paper which was quickly dismissed as faulty in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.[1] In the United States there was already a hot political dispute over action on global warming following lobbying regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and on July 28, Republican Jim Inhofe made a Senate speech citing Soon and Baliunas to support his view "that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".[4] Also in 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al paper, and there was continued debate on these issues. Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism.[5] At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[6] U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported the view that there were statistical failings, although their report has itself been criticized on several grounds.

More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6].."

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

Please leave all dogma at the door. This is not a class issue.

Looking forward to a inspired debate.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Rick]

Gosh, thanks for the wikipedia text dump. And that article verifies exactly what I said - eg, in classic global warming cult distortion it whacks off the last ten years of global temperature, since that refutes the PC thesis:

FACT: When you include the last ten years, we see that global temperature is falling while CO2 is rising. CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa, temperature data from East Anglia University.

The infamous "hockey stick graph" of ecofascist reverence should be called the "broken hockey stick graph" - the inconvenient part for the last ten years is.....uh........er......snapped off.

 

[Gipper]

Well it looks like we are all going to die from global warming because China plans to burn a lot more coal...

This from George Will's recent column...

Half of the 6 billion tons of coal burned globally each year are burned in China. A spokesman for the Sierra Club, which in recent years has helped to block construction of 139 proposed coal-fired plants in America, says, "This is undermining everything we've accomplished."
America, say environmentalists, is exporting global warming.
Can something really be exported if it supposedly affects the entire planet? Never mind.
Fallows reports that 15 years from now China expects that 350 million people will be living in cities that do not now exist. This will require adding to China's electrical system a capacity almost as large as America's current capacity. The United States, China, Russia and India have 40 percent of the world's population and 60 percent of its coal.

A climate scientist told Fallows that stabilizing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would require the world to reduce its emissions to Kenya's level — for America, a 96 percent reduction. Nations with hundreds of millions of people in poverty would, Fallows says, have to "forgo the energy-intensive path toward wealth that the United States has traveled for so many years."
In his new political science treatise ("Don't Vote — It Just Encourages the Bastards"), P.J. O'Rourke says, "There are 1.3 billion people in China, and they all want a Buick." So "go tell 1.3 billion Chinese they can never have a Buick." If the future belongs to electric cars, those in China may run on energy currently stored beneath Wyoming and Montana.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110103...te-activists--coal-still-needed#ixzz1A0DymbIz

I bet you greenies hate this. America is exporting global warming...now that is funny.

China needs coal and lots of it. Who are we to say they can't burn coal?

Don't libs like to say live and let live - well excepting fetuses, Fox News, Sarah Palin, conservatives, Republicans, capitalism, Constitution, oh...I guess they don't really believe in live and let live...

 

[steveox]

Then how come the Media didnt make a big deal 3 weeks ago when we had cold weather? Not one word outta Katie Courics mouth about this? But Oh yeah when its 110 degrees in New York City in hot july Katie Couric blames it in Global Warming. You see CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC doesnt serve the people and public intrests. All they serve is liberals and the Democritcs party. Like The Media Blamed mayor Bloomberg for snowfall in New York City just like they did to George Bush on Hurricane Katrina. Want proof? here it is

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101229/us_nm/us_usa_weather_4

See Liberal media will blame republicans for disasters just like they blamed Bush on Hurricane Katrina. But heres the real truth about the Snowplow workers

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...rts-of-work-slowdown-during-snow-removal.html

See Its the Unions getting even against mayor Bloomberg because he fined the union for the Mass Transit strike 5 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10466982/

You see mayor Bloomberg took the union to court and then the union loses pays fines. Thats the reason why they got even. You see theres an old sayin in politics"" DONT GET MAD! GET EVEN!!! "" You see You see CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC doesnt serve us. Only Fox News Channel tell it like it really is theryre fair & balenced.

 

[Stalin]

Gosh, thanks for the wikipedia text dump. And that article verifies exactly what I said - eg, in classic global warming cult distortion it whacks off the last ten years of global temperature, since that refutes the PC thesis:

FACT: When you include the last ten years, we see that global temperature is falling while CO2 is rising. CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa, temperature data from East Anglia University.

The infamous "hockey stick graph" of ecofascist reverence should be called the "broken hockey stick graph" - the inconvenient part for the last ten years is.....uh........er......snapped off.

I posted in the vain hope that the vaildity of data would be discussed but I wasted my time.

No data is supplied to support your advertising slogans, just some hacked graph from a non-reference source.

"...Trends in annual mean temperature anomalies for the globe show relatively stable temperatures from the beginning of the record through about 1910, with relatively rapid and steady warming through the early 1940s, followed by another period of relatively stable temperatures through the mid-1970s. From this point onward, another rapid rise similar to that in the earlier part of the century is observed. The year 2009 was the sixth warmest in the global record (0.43°C above the 1961-1990 reference period mean), exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 2004. [Jones et al. (1999) report the 1961-1990 reference period means for the globe, northern hemisphere, and southern hemisphere as 14.0°C, 14.6°C, and 13.4°C, respectively.]

An additional summary of the Jones et al. temperature record (along with several other informative climate-related "Information Sheets" available from the CRU) may be found here. The period 2001-2009 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2009). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).

The northern and southern hemisphere annual trend series show some general similarities, e.g., little sign of trends before about 1900, a peak in the early 1940s, and the highest temperatures occurring after 1980; but there are several notable differences. A steady period of warming is seen for the northern hemisphere from about 1910 through the mid-1940s. For the southern hemisphere, there is less warming observed from about 1910 through 1930, with sudden and rapid warming from about 1930 through the mid-1940s. The northern hemisphere record shows gradual cooling from the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, followed by rather steady temperature increases thereafter. The southern hemisphere shows an abrupt shift to cooler temperatures after 1945, quite variable temperatures until the mid-1960s, followed by a gradual increase over the remainder of the record...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

You obviously have some sort of issue with sexual self-abuse.

As far as I am concerned, the real debate is between those who hold to the current hypothesis and those who belive a darker more apocalyptic scenario.

Comrade Stalin