22.8 Inches of Global Warming Hits NYC

[Naturalized-Texan]

Nor'easter Slams East From Va. to Maine (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNOIC00.html)

A major storm slammed the mid-Atlantic and Northeast states on Sunday with nearly 2 feet of windblown snow, nearing record levels as it blacked out thousands of customers and shut down air travel from Washington to Boston.

Wind gusting as high as 60 mph blew the snow sideways and threatened coastal flooding in New England. And in a rare display, lightning lit up the falling snow before dawn in the New York and Philadelphia areas.

By late morning, 22.8 inches of snow had fallen in Central Park, the city's second heaviest snowfall on record, surpassed only by the 26.4 inches that fell in December 1947.

"This is a dangerous storm," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said as he urged people to stay home.

Elsewhere, 21 inches of snow fell by early afternoon at Columbia, Md., between Baltimore and Washington, and at East Brunswick, N.J., Hartford, Conn., and West Caln Township west of Philadelphia, the National Weather Service said. Philadelphia's average for an entire winter is about 21 inches.

{More global warming at the link above.}

[routerider]

I thought this article was funny

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fisher/050921

[Trau]

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?

[Suzie]

Snowfall record has been set for New York City, with 26.9 inches in Central Park
<hr style="color: rgb(218, 202, 173);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> Yahoo! Alerts
Breaking News Sunday, February 12, 2006, 1:51 PM PST


NEW YORK (AP) The National Weather Service says a snowfall record has been set for New York City, with 26.9 inches measured in Central Park.


Visit Yahoo! News for more details or search for this story on Yahoo! News Search.


Record breaking global warming. :lol:

[BuckeyeMike]

It's probably only snowing on the blacks though! Where's FEMA, FISA, HSA, where's Geroge.......what did he know and when did he know it!

[UnkHiram]

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?

You do know that Global Warming is pure BS dont you?

[True Grace]

22.8 Inches of Global Warming Hits NYC



http://photobucket.com/albums/v250/Elle232002/th_NEWROLLONFLOOR.gif

[Tumblehome]

What exactly drives this particular wedge in US politics? Why do liberals push for the recognition of global warming and why do conservatives push so strongly to deny it? It doesn't seem to correspond to the other political issues.

[UnkHiram]

Conservatives (At least this one) dont recognize it because it does NOT exist. There is not enough sciencific proof to support the theory, sorta like believing in Santa Clause just because a scientist tells you he is there.

[Montag]

Conservatives (At least this one) dont recognize it because it does NOT exist. There is not enough sciencific proof to support the theory, sorta like believing in Santa Clause just because a scientist tells you he is there.
"No uncertainty about global warming"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html

There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

[UnkHiram]

"No uncertainty about global warming"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html

There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

Opionons are like As*H*l*s everyone has ones and most of them stink. It's amazing the aroganze of man, they think a couple of years of "Statistics" is enough to base yet another end of the world theory on. Perhaps you are too young to remember a mere 25 years ago when these same "Experts" were predicting a new Ice Age.

http://www.junkscience.com/july02/Kenny_Ice_Age.htm

Amazing how Politics change the opionons of "Experts".

[sunsettommy]

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?

Oh really!

Please provide evidence.

This storm to have that much snow that had some subtropical air mixed in requires a lot of cold air to make such widespread snowfall possible.

It is after all a NOR'Easter system.This always means a warm air mass coming in from the south and colliding with the ever persisting cold air from the north that is supposed to fade because of global warming.

21" of snow in a storm in mid February is quite impressive.

[sunsettommy]

"No uncertainty about global warming"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184147,00.html

There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

I do not take scientists who are involved in making gloomy overwrought forcasting a century ahead.

Seriously.

Then we have this crap,


If warming trends continue, Overpeck said, the globe eventually will get a nasty message from the Arctic: a rise in sea levels.

Higher oceans will flow into low-lying parts of the world such as New Orleans, making recovery in that hurricane-ravaged city moot.

"It's hard to imagine why we're wanting to rebuild if we're going to allow global warming," Overpeck said.


A nasty message from a region that has about .05% of the worlds glacial ice? Greenland has about 9% and that area has been shown recently to have new glacial ice growth in the upper levels of the Island.The region is now back into a cooling phase as well.

:hahaha:

The man is not a true scientist with dumb comments like that.

[Native American]

What exactly drives this particular wedge in US politics? Why do liberals push for the recognition of global warming and why do conservatives push so strongly to deny it?

And why do liberals continue to imagine "global warming" results in record snowfalls?

LOL at today's Liberals/Democrat Party!!!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

UnkHiram:
Opionons are like As*H*l*s everyone has ones and most of them stink.

:moo: I don't have an opinion. I have facts.

[UnkHiram]

:moo: I don't have an opinion. I have facts.

LP you are without a doubt one of the most opiniated people I have ever encountered

[Longhorn_Platinum]

UnkHiram:
LP you are without a doubt one of the most opiniated people I have ever encountered

:moo: You really should get out more often.

[DoctorDoom]

As I look out my window here in western MA and see the inch or two of global warming, and read that the liberal scheissholes like Bahstin and N'Yawk are getting dumped on, I reflect that this is God's way of giving liberalosers the cold shoulder.

<hr>
You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?Oh, absolutely! Right! Sure! By golly gosh, if this global warming continues, they'll be holding the Winter Olympics in the Sahara.

<hr>
There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion.There's infinitely more evidence for Jesus than for the existence of a pompous, prattling, puerile pissant calling itself Montag.

[DeclinetoState]

There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion.

I recall that John Lennon said something similar in comparing the Beatles to Jesus. Where is Lennon now? Hmm?

[Naturalized-Texan]

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?
:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: That's the best joke I've seen in years. :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

[Naturalized-Texan]

What exactly drives this particular wedge in US politics? Why do liberals push for the recognition of global warming and why do conservatives push so strongly to deny it? It doesn't seem to correspond to the other political issues.
The answer is simple. Liberals are using the global warming scare as an excuse to impose draconian socialist controls on people and the economies of the nations of the world, especially on the U.S.; while we conservatives, knowing that the global warming scare is nothing more than a liberal fantasy, oppose such draconian socialist controls.

[Rhino]

I thought this article was funny

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fisher/050921ROFL!!! I love it!

I was reading this article today (snip) on how Mars is warming up rapidly and earthquakes may be a concern around the Martian sphere.......

......But after reading this article on Mars I REALLY await the stupidity to gush forth from Liberals on how Global Warming is so tremendously huge that even Mars is being affected from 65 million miles away.

I await the remarks that because Bush refused the Kyoto Treaty, the Martian landscape will be decimated from Earthquakes and heat.

I await the conspiracy theories as to how Bush and all Conservatives are responsible for this extraterrestrial tragedy, and how we are all to blame for not sending FEMA or the EPA to Mars in time to stop it all.

I await the story of how some crazed Republican flew to Mars on a secret government mission and planted explosives beneath the polar cap to have a reason to wage war against Martians.

I wait to be intensely awed at the facts they will pull from thin air that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans have ruined Mars and we need to elect a Liberal to stave off this rampant destruction bought on by Republicans......This guy is funny!

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?Of course they are! Any conspiracy theorist worth his salt will always cover any possibility so he can claim to be right no matter what happens. The dems do that with their politics too.

[DesertFox]

You do know that temperatures of both extremes are part of the global warming theory, yes?So when it gets hotter, it's because of global warming. When it gets colder, it's because of global warming. Got it.

You do know the meaning of the word "fraud"? :question:

[Trau]

You do know that Global Warming is pure BS dont you?

The point is not about the validity of global warming but whether or not a snowstorm disproves it. And it doesn't.

[BaronKelan]

I read something about this over at FreeRepublic.com: if it's really hot, that's a sign of global warming; if it's really cold (and snowy), that's a sign of global warming. There are more and more articles coming out recently that say global warming is junk science. If a volcano can spew out more garbage in a couple of weeks than man can in 100+ years of internal combustion, why do we think we control the weather? And we've had more than one volcano erupt in my lifetime.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There are more and more articles coming out recently that say global warming is junk science.
There has been a small warming trend in the past 100+ years (0.6 deg C) in the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age. Where the junk science enters the picture is the leftist fantasy that global warming is being caused by human activities.

[Unity]

The point is not about the validity of global warming but whether or not a snowstorm disproves it. And it doesn't.

Global warming has indeed been thrown into doubt by a large part of the scientific community, but in this case the troll has a point. One freak snow storm does not disprove global warming.

Scientists have done a good job of disproving it on their own. :)

[DoctorDoom]

The point is not about the validity of global warming but whether or not a snowstorm disproves it. And it doesn't.That same logic also discredits the invariable association of a brief period of hot days with global warming. IAC, who cares about it? Natural forces have been warming and cooling the planet for millions of years.

The GW ecowackos are nothing but lib/left control freaks who lust to have power over America and who will use shameless junk science to support their social engineering agenda.

[Faithful_Servant]

Where are the positives? Lets suspend intelligence for a moment and assume GW is happening:
Temps rise, extending growing seasons, opening new areas to farming and providing new sea-lanes. As the temps rise, so does evaporation. This leads to more rainfall, alleviating the drought conditions the plague so much of the planet.
Iraq will become the bread-basket of the ME with the increaed rainfall allowing them to grow hectacres of wheat across the whole of their country.
Iran, seeing how well Iraq is doing will experience a huge revolution where the Iranian people over-throw thier govt' and create a new one with the US Constitution as it's model.
More food is grown with less effort and people in 3rd world contries can focus thier energy on bettering their lives instead of just surviving. Most of them will undoubtedly progress to the point where they are self-sufficient and can help other nations rise up out of thier poverty.
Rising temps also reduce the need for heating oil and the increase in energy costs during the winter months, driving down energy costs and putting OPEC in it's place. With the cheaper transportation costs due to the new sea-lanes and lowered demand, oil prices will plummet. The ME will fall into chaos and the resulting fallout will the establishment of even more gov'ts with the US Constitution as it's foundation.
Europe will turn into a tourist center with beautiful sunny beaches as far north as Norway. Thier unemployment problems will dissappear as Europe become THE place to go during the 8 months of summer.

With the rising heat, Micheal Moore will lose 100 lbs. and suddenly become a normal person due to the realization that all of his lies were caused by an inferiority complex caused by his obeseness.

It could all be so wonderful, but they don't talk about this part, do they???

[Trau]

Global warming has indeed been thrown into doubt by a large part of the scientific community, but in this case the troll has a point. One freak snow storm does not disprove global warming.

Scientists have done a good job of disproving it on their own. :)

Who are you calling a troll?

[ldb83]

Conservatives (At least this one) dont recognize it because it does NOT exist. There is not enough sciencific proof to support the theory, sorta like believing in Santa Clause just because a scientist tells you he is there.

While we're talking about science, we might as well use the lingo. If there was any scientific proof, would it be a theory? :question: Or would it be a fact?

If you insist there's absolutely no global climate change, you're in denial. There is actual evidence for it. It's an observable thing. When the idea first emerged, it was called global warming, and that's the name that stuck. Thinking harsh winter conditions qualify as evidence against it makes you sound naive.

[DoctorDoom]

The troll drools on his bib again ...

While we're talking about science, we might as well use the lingo. If there was any scientific proof, would it be a theory? Or would it be a fact?And since there is no scientific proof, why are you liberalosers demanding that we formulate national policy based on it?

If you insist there's absolutely no global climate change, you're in denial. There is actual evidence for it. It's an observable thing.Buy a clue, kid: there have been climate changes for hundreds of millions of years. What we oppose is your anal "theory" that man is in any way responsible for them.

When the idea first emerged, it was called global warming, and that's the name that stuck.Typical liberal spin: you have zero evidence for man-caused global warming, so you expanded your term to include any change in climate. Your "theory" predicts all possible outcomes, and when one of them happens to be correct, you claim that your theory was right.

I hereby predict that tomorrow at noon, it will either rain in Miami or it will not. Tomorrow, my prediction will be proved accurate.

Thinking harsh winter conditions qualify as evidence against it makes you sound naive.And thinking that we give a schitte about the uninformeed, ideologically-motivated opinions of trolls makes you clueless.

[Tumblehome]

I think I like the sound of Global Warming. Does this mean that Hudson's Bay will someday be a wonderful tropical beach? Global Warming seems to only bode well for the frozen Canadian north.

[Nutrider99]

There's more evidence for global warming than for Jesus, in my opinion. :rolleyes:
Now that you have demonstrated your opinion to be of no value, you comments will be moved to the ignore bin, where "thoughts" of the thoughtless belong.

[markus3622]

I read something about this over at FreeRepublic.com: if it's really hot, that's a sign of global warming; if it's really cold (and snowy), that's a sign of global warming. There are more and more articles coming out recently that say global warming is junk science. If a volcano can spew out more garbage in a couple of weeks than man can in 100+ years of internal combustion, why do we think we control the weather? And we've had more than one volcano erupt in my lifetime.

This works both ways.To a global warming denier, iff it's hot, it's just an extreme. If it's cold, it disproves global warming.

It goes back to why Climatologists don't look at single events (no decent climatologist will state that any single event is evidence for global warming), but they look at trends that arise from thousands of data points.

[Nutrider99]

If you insist there's absolutely no global climate change, you're in denial. There is actual evidence for it. It's an observable thing. When the idea first emerged, it was called global warming, and that's the name that stuck.
The problem is you people have no credibility. The same America hating environmorons who claim that Ameririca is causing global warming said 30 year ago that America was going to cause another ice age. The fact is, the planet's climate changes due to cycles which go back thousands of years. Man activities of man have little or no long term effect on these cycles.

By the way, the Senate voted 92-0 to opppose Kyotyo. If Bush had signed the anti-America document, it was DOA in the Senate.

[Naturalized-Texan]

This works both ways.To a global warming denier, iff it's hot, it's just an extreme. If it's cold, it disproves global warming.

It goes back to why Climatologists don't look at single events (no decent climatologist will state that any single event is evidence for global warming), but they look at trends that arise from thousands of data points.
In discussions here, you are at least as guilty of looking at single events and claiming global warming as we skeptics are. Oops! I almost forgot. You are NOT a climatologist.

Yeah, junk scientists look at thousands of data points, throw out those points that show that global warming is a natural phenomenom, fudge as many points as they can (e.g., Michael Mann's "hockey stick" fraud), and only keep the few points that support the hypothesis that global warming is human-caused.

[markus3622]

In discussions here, you are at least as guilty of looking at single events and claiming global warming as we skeptics are. .

Why are you trying to personalise this? I've claimed nowhere that any one event is evidence for or against global warming.

Yeah, junk scientists look at thousands of data points, throw out those points that show that global warming is a natural phenomenom, fudge as many points as they can (e.g., Michael Mann's "hockey stick" fraud), and only keep the few points that support the hypothesis that global warming is human-caused.

Unsupported assertion. Remember Mann's work has been verified by numerous independent studies.

[DesertFox]

No, it hasn't. It's been disproven by numerous independent studies. The "hockey stick" is a simplistic fraud typical of the modern Left.

[DoctorDoom]

Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html)

The vote was during Klintoon's regime.

Cooler Heads Coalition
July 30, 1997

Senate Resolution Passes 95-0

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (SRes 98) passed on July 25 by a margin of 95-0 (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 28, 1997). The resolution states that the U.S. Senate will not ratify any treaty signed at Kyoto that:
<ul><li>Would impose binding limits on the industrialized nations but not on developing nations within the same compliance period.
<li>"Would result in serious economic harm to the economy of the United States."</ul>
Senator Robert Byrd argued during the floor debate that climate change is a global problem requiring global action. He hopes that the resolution will give U.S. negotiators the clout they need to complete a truly global treaty.Senate Resolution Passes 95-0 (http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=451)

Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98) (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205)

S.RES.98 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SE00098:)

[Rhino]

Remember Mann's work has been verified by numerous independent studies.And disputed by many as well.

[markus3622]

No, it hasn't. It's been disproven by numerous independent studies. The "hockey stick" is a simplistic fraud typical of the modern Left.

I'm sorry but this is simply false. I don't dispute, as Rhino says, that there are some that dispute this (I can think of two, one of which "shouldn't have been published" according to the editor of the journal who later resigned).

A recent study published in Science last week provided more evidence that the recent warming is anomolous

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5762/841.pdf

Bob Arctor in another thread posted this image, showing the number of climate reconstructions that show the same general point.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Nutrider99]

Bob Arctor in another thread posted this image, showing the number of climate reconstructions that show the same general point.
Now we KNOW it's wrong!

[markus3622]

I have to apologise for cluttering your forum up with stuff on climate change. It's a bit like Bob Arctor on evolution. I'll try not to butt in on stuff about Bush, abortion, etc (although I can't promise). It's just that climate change is one of the things I know a bit about, and it's an issue that is easily distorted by conservative think tanks, that refuse to publish science, but publicise their research in opinion pages on the Wall Street Journal.

[DoctorDoom]

PROVE that humans (specifically Americans) are in any way responsible for climate change. That's the only way you'll convince us that it's not a deliberate attempt by the enemies of America to destroy the US economy by mandating trillions of dollars of expenses in a futile attempt to counteract natural variations in climate.

Junk science makes bad policy.

[markus3622]

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Either global warming is happening and we've proved it, OR, it's a socialist plot to take over America and ruin its economy.

No-one can prove that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations (observed facts) are responsible for the increased global temperatures (observed facts), but there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest a link. Science doesn't "prove" stuff, but supplies evidence for hypotheses. So far, the hypothesis is standing up pretty well to scrutiny.

[markus3622]

I can't understand why conservatives have a problem with climate science. I can see why some have theological problems with evolution and biology. I can see the theological problems with abortion, but climate science does seem to be something that I feel should chime well with conservatism (stewardship of God's Creation, etc.)

Can anyone explain? (Calling it junk science won't work, because quite frankly, it isn't) What explanations are there?

[Nutrider99]

I can't understand why conservatives have a problem with climate science....

Can anyone explain? (Calling it junk science won't work, because quite frankly, it isn't) What explanations are there?
When science is fueled by agenda, it ceases to be science. The global warming nonsense is fueled by a hate America, blame America first agenda. This is easily tested. When someone begins to talk about climate change you pick up a ball bat. As soon as the word "Kyoto" falls from his lips, you take the bat and beat him senseless with it. It won't be long in coming.

The fact is Mars is experiencing global warming at a greatly accelerated rate. Q. How many SUV's are on Mars?

As I stated, you people have no credibility. The same greenhouse gasses that 30 years ago were going to smother the planet and cause a global freeze today are going to cause global warming? B.S. If there was a shred of evidence to the theory, the pollution caused from all of the volcanic activity on the planet would have long ago incinerated all of life. Are we dead? No!

The fact is, the warming of the planet has more to do with geothermal heating than anything else. What is the number one cause of human polution? Cooking fires in third world countries. Want to cut human emmisions? Build more nuclear power plants. However, that solution could never be accepted by environmental wackos.

[DesertFox]

I'm sorry but this is simply false.I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

[DoctorDoom]

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Either global warming is happening and we've proved it ...Nothing has been proven. It's political, not scientific.

OR, it's a socialist plot to take over America and ruin its economy.Take over America? Not at all. Destroy America? Yes, indeed. Lefties are obsessed with that goal, and have been since Reagan was instumental in the collapse of communism.

No-one can prove that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations (observed facts) ...No one can prove that said increases, if they exist, are the result of human activity. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is flawed logic.

... are responsible for the increased global temperatures (observed facts) ...Twisted statistics. Draw the curve and then plot whatever data fits it, ignoring the rest.

... but there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest a link."Evidence to suggest a link" is NOT a valid argument for imposing a crushing, multi-trillion-dollar burden on the US economy.

Science doesn't "prove" stuff ...Either global warming is happening and we've proved it ...If "Science doesn't 'prove' stuff," who proved that global warming is happening? Hairdressers?

... but supplies evidence for hypotheses. So far, the hypothesis is standing up pretty well to scrutiny.You continue to ignore the central issue, i.e., that human activity is in any way responsible for the warming (assuming that it exists). It takes a mighty schitteload of arrogance for man to assume that he is capable of affecting the climate on a global scale.

[Bob_Arctor]

PROVE that humans (specifically Americans) are in any way responsible for climate change. That's the only way you'll convince us that it's not a deliberate attempt by the enemies of America to destroy the US economy by mandating trillions of dollars of expenses in a futile attempt to counteract natural variations in climate.
Looks like you've committed the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

At any rate, if you were at all familiar with the literature, you'd know that the case is pretty much closed on GW - and the consensus is that we're partly at least the cause.
Junk science makes bad policy.
True enough. That's what our bad policy on this issue is the direct result of the junk science of GW deniers.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Either global warming is happening and we've proved it, OR, it's a socialist plot to take over America and ruin its economy.
No one doubts that global warming is happening. However, there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. That is where the UN Commission on Global Governance is using the hypothesis of human-caused global warming as an excuse for the UN to control the economies of the nations of the world, especially the United States. The Kyoto Treaty was the means to that end. If the Kyoto Treaty had been ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. would well on its way to becoming socialist state whose economy is being controlled by the UN and we would be heading towards a Depression.

BTW, I used the word, "hypothesis" advisedly because in the claim of human-caused global warming there is insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. There is not enough evidence of human-caused global warming to even reach the level of a theory.

No-one can prove that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations (observed facts) are responsible for the increased global temperatures (observed facts), but there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest a link.
Then it makes absolutely no sense for us to allow the UN to place draconian controls on the American economy based on nothing more than a hypothesis. When and if there is ever proof (There will never be proof of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming because it is a natural phenomenon), there will be plenty of time to act.

Science doesn't "prove" stuff, but supplies evidence for hypotheses. So far, the hypothesis is standing up pretty well to scrutiny.
Nonsense, the hypothesis hasn't yet reached the level of a theory and it never will.

[DoctorDoom]

Looks like you've committed the fallacy of appeal to consequences.And it looks like you, the world's greatest authority on every subject, a veritable legend in your own mind, can't offer a coherent argument against my point and thus are forced to resort to the classic liberal "logic fallacy" bullshit to divert attention from your ignorance.

BTW, Bachelor Bobby, why is it that 80% of the nations are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, including some of the world's worst polluters? And why are so few of the signatories to it actually abiding by it? If it's so wonderful, nations should be stumbling over each other in their rush to adopt the KP. Could it be that they know as well as we do that it's horepuckey?

At any rate, if you were at all familiar with the literature ...The trouble with most folks ain't so much their ignorance as knowing so many things that ain't so.
-- Josh Billings

... you'd know that the case is pretty much closed on GW - and the consensus is that we're partly at least the cause.Ah, yes, science by consensus, eh, Bachelor Bobby? You know all about that. You've been pushing it relentlessly in the <s>Junk Science</s> Evolution forum.

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France

And if fifty million liberals blame America for global warming, it's still damned foolishness.

True enough. That's what our bad policy on this issue is the direct result of the junk science of GW deniers.

So what is your concept of "good policy"? Spend trillions of dollars futilely attempting to stop something that is not only not proven, but not even evinced, and is nothing more than "consensus"?

Stop blowing your cubic miles of hot air at FC. It will help more than any of your harebrained liberal notions.

[Suzie]

Everyone remember when Jimmy Carter told all of us we would be out of fossil fuels in ten years .... back in the 1970's. And they wonder why we doubt. :shake:

[DoctorDoom]

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

"Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point."
-- Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970

We're still wainting 36 years later. The only thing one can expect of envirowackos is their absolute consistency in being stupid and wrong.

[Suzie]

"Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world."
-- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

Actually we found quality about 10 years later when we elected Reagan, so he wasn't entirely wrong. :lol:

[DoctorDoom]

A few more gems from the ecoloonies:

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000….This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
-- Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."
-- Louis Proyect, Columbia University

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
-- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

"…I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
-- Judi Barri of EarthFirst! quoted by Walter Williams, columnists with Heritage Features, Syndicate, State Journal Register, June 25, 1992.

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
-- Stephen Schneider, proponent of the theory that CFCs are depleting the ozone.

"…I honor Earth First for having the guts to do the things they do. It's not for me, but I understand why they do what they do. And, ultimately, we all help each other."
-- Brock Adams, VP, Audubon Society, quoted in the Los Angeles Times.

"…If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
-- Earth First! newsletter.

"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
-- Carl Amery, German Green Party.

[DoctorDoom]

Further info:

Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change (http://www.envirotruth.org/myths.cfm)

Some of the Many Experts Who Contest Kyoto's Scientific Foundation (http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm)

Note that the combined expertise of all those scientists listed on the second page cannot begin to compare with the unfathomable understanding and comprehension of all branches of sciences that Bachelor Bobby and Markie constantly assure us that they possess, but still the scientists are worthy of mention.

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Looks like you've committed the fallacy of appeal to consequences. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And it looks like you, the world's greatest authority on every subject, a veritable legend in your own mind, can't offer a coherent argument against my point...
:rolleyes: Poor double d. It's a shame I have to explain to you - again - that a "point" based on a fallacy isn't a point at all. You do understand this simple idea, yes?
...and thus are forced to resort to the classic liberal "logic fallacy" bullshit to divert attention from your ignorance.
Ha ha ha! First there was "liberal science", now there's also "liberal rules of formal logic"!

Don't complain to me when I point out your invalid arguments based on fallacies. Make valid arguments. Improve yourself; don't whine.

BTW, Bachelor Bobby, why is it that 80% of the nations are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, including some of the world's worst polluters?
Worst polluters on what basis? Historical? Per capita? Gross?
And why are so few of the signatories to it actually abiding by it? If it's so wonderful, nations should be stumbling over each other in their rush to adopt the KP.
How few? In what capacity? Something like 160 countries are in on the deal. Therefore, almost all have adopted it.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">At any rate, if you were at all familiar with the literature ... </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The trouble with most folks ain't so much their ignorance as knowing so many things that ain't so.
-- Josh Billings

So, you're not familiar with the work on the subject, so of course you believe the industry funded outlets.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">... you'd know that the case is pretty much closed on GW - and the consensus is that we're partly at least the cause. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ah, yes, science by consensus, eh, Bachelor Bobby? You know all about that. You've been pushing it relentlessly in the <S>Junk Science</S> Evolution forum.
It's not my problem that you're ignorant of multiple branches of science. Apparently you don't see it as a problem either. It's bliss, I hear.

At any rate, if you were at all familiar with the literature, you'd know about the consensus.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">True enough. That's what our bad policy on this issue is the direct result of the junk science of GW deniers. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So what is your concept of "good policy"?
Doing something about a growing problem. What's yours? Oh wait - ignore it. Yes, that one always works well.

I'll bet you were heavily against auto emissions standards and mileage requirements back in the 70s, too. I can see your arguments now - "it's a plot to destroy us, it'll kill the auto industry, it'll obliterate jobs..." Oddly, these requirements never seem to eliminate work, they always create it and stengthen the economy.

[DoctorDoom]

It's not my problem that you're ignorant of multiple branches of science.However, it IS your problem that you delude yourself that you are not ignorant thereof. IAC, I've forgotten more science than you'll ever know, and none of what I know comes from the liberaloony/junk-science websites and ecowacko tracts that are your sole source of your spin jobs and your myths.

So, you're not familiar with the work on the subject, so of course you believe the industry funded outlets.And you believe the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, EarthFirst!, ELF and other envirowackos and ecoterrorists.

Of the two, who is more credible? And speaking if big business:

I count myself fortunate to call Paul Driessen my friend. He is one of those doughty warriors among the small circle of those who fight the lies of environmental organizations.

What are we up against? You may think of the movement in terms of its books, calendars and stuffed animals it deems endangered. You may think of it in terms of striving to "save" the rain forest and avoid "global warming", but, as he points out, the environmental movement is a powerful $4 billion-a-year industry in the US and an $8 billion-a-year international goliath.Killing Millions to 'Save' the Earth (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200311\COM2 0031121b.html)

Bobby, you're mindbogglingly unimpressive, but don't let that stop you from displaying your ignorance and arrogance. It's how we recognize you.

Believe whatever liberal bullshit strikes your fancy, but remember that many of us were involved in the world when you were hugging your bwanky and pissing your didies. When you grow up, gain a little real-word experience, and discover that 99% of the crap that you post here is pseudoscience, get back to us. We'll graciously accept your humble apologies.

I'll now leave you in the capable hands of my astute, learned colleagues, who will further demolish your science fantasy and your scaremongering.

[DeclinetoState]

I note that Bob, in his rebuttal, failed to address the comments made by the environmentalists in the '70s that were all proven with the passage of time to be untrue.

[DoctorDoom]

Bachelor Bobby never addresses facts. He ignores them and uses diversionary tactics to conceal it, usually involving accusing everyone who doesn't kiss his ass of being unscientific and/or uneducated. BB cannot debate. He can only recite liberal propaganda and spout unsubstantiated opinions, and he vilifies those who do not grovel at his feet.

He's not stupid, but he's still a kid. He has to do a lot of maturing and gaining experience before he can hold his own on web boards. And the remnants of teenage omniscience have to fade away before he understands that he really doesn't know everything.

[markus3622]

The point about the scares in the 1970s, they were often touted by a few individuals - they got a lot of coverage in the media.

However, what we see today is a consensus among the scientific community, a far cry from what was going on in the 1970s.

[DoctorDoom]

You too, hey? Science is NOT by consensus (you libs love that word). Unfortunately, I won't be around in a hundred years when the "consensus" of the "scientific" Chicken Littles is proved wrong ... again. However, I won't need to be here. I already know that it's so much BS.

[Rhino]

No one doubts that global warming is happening. However, there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. That is where the UN Commission on Global Governance is using the hypothesis of human-caused global warming as an excuse for the UN to control the economies of the nations of the world, especially the United States. The Kyoto Treaty was the means to that end.BINGO!

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus3622:

Doesn't it bother you that one data source, shown in black in the graph you posted, is wildly out of step with the other data sources in that graph? No, I'm sure it doesn't, but it bothers me and it certainly should bother any other honest person.

[markus3622]

markus3622:

Doesn't it bother you that one data source, shown in black in the graph you posted, is wildly out of step with the other data sources in that graph? No, I'm sure it doesn't, but it bothers me and it certainly should bother any other honest person.

It isn't out of step. I'll give you a link to that page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The black line is in good agreement with the other trends in the period it measures. The other lines are reconstructions that go back further and many of them end earlier. However, the black line is the most reliable and takes us up to date. What it shows is that the recent warming is anomolous going back over the past 1000 years. Other reconstructions have taken us back 160,000 years and it's still anomolous

The dispute isn't over the black line, but over the reconstructions of past data (the colored ones)

The data for the black line can be found here

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

[Naturalized-Texan]

On another thread, the topic is about James Hansen improperly using his employment with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) as a platform for political advocacy, so it should be interesting to see the GISS graph of global temperatures for comparison to the one Markus posted:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

You will note that this graph supports my position that half of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age occurred prior to 1940.

More interesting GISS graphs can be found here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).

From another GISS graph one can easily see that temperatures in the U.S. have changed very little in the past 125 years:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

[markus3622]

First thing to point out is that the graphs you present are over different time scales to the one I've presented. They do however demonstrate the recent warming.

The second graph you present firstly is data over the US (there's a reason why it's called global warming). Secondly the y-axis is of a scale and demonstrates that the warming post 1950 is around that demonstrated in your first graph (anomolies of around 0.6 degrees).

I agree with you that much warming occurred prior to 1940 (and would strengthen your case if we were here in 1940 arguing over whether the warming was some rebound from the Little ice age). However as it slows down and then continues to grow post 1960, it actually does not demonstrate that the warming is some rebound from the Little Ice Age.

It's worth noting that more warming occurs post 1970 than does pre 1940. If someone can find some evidence that this recent warming can be explained by natural factors, that would be great - it's just that so far, no one has.

[Bob_Arctor]

IAC, I've forgotten more science than you'll ever know, and none of what I know comes from the liberaloony/junk-science websites and ecowacko tracts that are your sole source of your spin jobs and your myths.
Ahh, that one never gets old. I once compiled a list of your blunders - most amusing to me was your assertion that biologists try and hide the fact that mutations to somatic cells aren't passed on. That was priceless.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">So, you're not familiar with the work on the subject, so of course you believe the industry funded outlets. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And you believe the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, EarthFirst!, ELF and other envirowackos and ecoterrorists.
Red herring (another fallacy, just so you know!) I'm more objective than you, and put no stock in biased sources from either side. Note I've never one supplied a reference to any of those groups. My references are strictly scientific, and don't depend of environmental group or industry funding.

Too bad you can't be as objective.

Of the two, who is more credible?
Neither. Too bad you can't recognize that.

Believe whatever liberal bullshit strikes your fancy, but remember that many of us were involved in the world when you were hugging your bwanky and pissing your didies. When you grow up, gain a little real-word experience, and discover that 99% of the crap that you post here is pseudoscience, get back to us. We'll graciously accept your humble apologies.

I'll now leave you in the capable hands of my astute, learned colleagues, who will further demolish your science fantasy and your scaremongering.

And I collect yet another Doomie concession! :grin:
<!-- / message -->

[Bob_Arctor]

I note that Bob, in his rebuttal, failed to address the comments made by the environmentalists in the '70s that were all proven with the passage of time to be untrue.
Why should I? I don't have to address any speculations of layman environmentalists. They weren't based on scientific work, if I'm not mistaken. I'm actually quite sceptical of many environmentalist ideas - for example, I work with genetics, and hear all the time idle speculation from the uneducated about the horrors soon to strike us all as a result of genetic engineering.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: In 1975 Newsweek published an article describing the panic among climatologists and other scientists because of the threat of global COOLING and the possibility of massive world-wide starvation brought on by the shorter growing seasons that would ensue. That panic was caused by the precipitous decline in global temperatures between the early 1940s and 1975. That cooling trend continued until 1980. The following graph was lifted from that Newsweek article:

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/globalcooling.jpg

[Bob_Arctor]

Hi NT

Yes, I'm familiar with this as you've brought it up before.

You may not be aware that the scientists of the day had nowhere near the consensus on the issue as they do on GW today. There was no panic, only recommendations for further research. Further, Newsweek is not a scientific journal - it's a popular magazine.

The situations aren't comparable, and you're only introducing a red herring by bringing this up as though it had anything to do with GW today.


"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90)) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74) ). You can find it in various other places too [here (http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6l53f/greatnoncatastrophesofthelate20thcentury/), mildly here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week2/week2.htm), etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=global+cooling+1970&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&sa=N&scoring=d) though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html); though National Geographic (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html) did better). But we're only responsible for the scienti press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/).
...

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now."


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

"Concern peaked in the early 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s), partly because of the cooling trend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages). Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend was not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example:[5] (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/mason.1976.html)). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports."

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


In short, you're perpetuating a myth.

Bob: In 1975 Newsweek published an article describing the panic among climatologists and other scientists because of the threat of global COOLING and the possibility of massive world-wide starvation brought on by the shorter growing seasons that would ensue. That panic was caused by the precipitous decline in global temperatures between the early 1940s and 1975. That cooling trend continued until 1980. The following graph was lifted from that Newsweek article:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob: Actually, the graph that you posted and markus copied shows the same 35 years of global cooling.

Why do you and he perpetuate the myth that there is a "consensus" that global warming is human-caused when you know very well that the current warming is merely the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age. The graph you and he posted shows that very clearly as well as the 500-year Medeival Warm Period.

Here are some more graphs showing the natural correlation between solar activity and those 500-year cycles:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/MWE-LIA.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/sunspots.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/solar.gif

Source: The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm)

It obvious that we are in the early stages of another 500-year cycle - this one a 500-year warming cycle caused by increased solar activity. The sun is now hotter than it was in the late 19th Century - hence, global warming.

[DoctorDoom]

Ahh, that one never gets old. I once compiled a list of your blunders ...I most likely ignored it, since anything from you isn't worth the electrons used to display it on the screen. And BTW, any list that you consider "blunders" is suspect, given your severe overestimation of your knowledge and authority.

... most amusing to me was your assertion that biologists try and hide the fact that mutations to somatic cells aren't passed on. That was priceless.When was that? I haven't waded in your fatuous evoreligious sewage in the Junk Science forum for quite a while. Anyone as dismissive of reason and logic as you appear to be is scarcely worth attention.

And I collect yet another Doomie concession! You're a typical liberal, Bachelor Bobby. You frustrate the hell out of anyone who attempts to reason with you, and then you crow about winning when they throw up their hands in resignation and walk away.

"I WIN! I WIN! I BEAT DOOM! LOOKIT ME MOMMY! LOOKIT ME!" No, BB, you lose. Constantly.

[DoctorDoom]

NT, you naughty man, you keep hitting the children with facts. Tch tch! I wonder how they're going to attribute increases in insolation to human activity (or to Bush).

Why do you and he perpetuate the myth that there is a "consensus" ..."Science by consensus" is their latest notion. To hell with actual research. Just see what the majority thinks and call it science.

[Bob_Arctor]

And BTW, any list that you consider "blunders" is suspect, given your severe overestimation of your knowledge and authority.
Oh? So it is a guarded secret that mutations to somatic cells aren't passed on? Or, if it isn't, why did you assert that it was? You choose.
When was that?
It's been a while, I admit.
Anyone as dismissive of reason and logic...
Don't you find that an ironic line, given that you rely on logical fallacies as much as you do? Remember how I pointed out your fallacy of consequences in this very thread? That was just yesterday, and in responce you said logical rules don't matter. So, now they do? Consistency is necessary for logical thought, you know.
...as you appear to be is scarcely worth attention.
So you say, but you write post upon post to me. You give me plenty of attention. And I think you're worth a bit of attention; you're hilarious! You bring more smiles into the world than you know.
You're a typical liberal, Bachelor Bobby. You frustrate the hell out of anyone who attempts to reason with you, and then you crow about winning when they throw up their hands in resignation and walk away.

"I WIN! I WIN! I BEAT DOOM! LOOKIT ME MOMMY! LOOKIT ME!" No, BB, you lose. Constantly.
Hehehehe...I knew that would goad you into responding. In a sense, I can control you. It's amusing.

[Bob_Arctor]

"Science by consensus" is their latest notion. To hell with actual research. Just see what the majority thinks and call it science.
The consensus is based on research. You wouldn't know that, as you've never looked at the research. You're more content to be a puppet - which is a little more on your level, it seems.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT, you naughty man, you keep hitting the children with facts. Tch tch! I wonder how they're going to attribute increases in insolation to human activity (or to Bush).
I would also like to know how the libs are going to attribute global warming on Mars to human activities. The ONLY possible explanation for global warming on Mars is that the sun is now hotter.

"Science by consensus" is their latest notion. To hell with actual research. Just see what the majority thinks and call it science.
Yeah! Science by majority vote. However, I doubt that there is even a majority among REAL scientists that global warming is human-caused. The majority they tout is only among politically-motivated, left-wing junk scientists.

BTW, according to several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster-Online (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consensus) I have consulted, the synonym for "consensus" is "unanimity". In other words, there is NO consensus on global warming.

[DeclinetoState]

I would also like to know how the libs are going to attribute global warming on Mars to human activities. The ONLY possible explanation for global warming on Mars is that the sun is now hotter.


Uh-uh-uh! Did Mars sign the Kyoto Protocol? I think not. That's why they're suffering global warming.

:D

[sunsettommy]

Similarities with our Present World

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html



<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 22° C (72° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times,our present atmosphere,like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.


In the link is the chart that shows the disconnect between

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time.



There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were theonly geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm<O:p></O:p>

The Chart is a revealing picture.

:whistle:

[Warlady]

Great post Tommy. I cleaned up all of the ugly html codes and repaired your link.

[markus3622]

Tommy,

I've noticed that you've brought that link up before. The graph you refer to is badly referenced, stating "Berner 2001", and in the past I couldn't find it anywhere. Today I was lucky.

The paper it refers to is "CO<SUB>2</SUB> and Climate Change, T. Crowley and R. Berner Science, Vol. 292. no. 5518, pp. 870 - 872, 2001"

It can be found here

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5518/870

The paper that you refer to states that

It is important to reevaluate the validity of the assumed CO<SUB>2</SUB>-climate link. Here we address this issue by comparing estimates of Phanerozoic CO<SUB>2</SUB> variations and net radiative forcing with the continental glaciation record and low-latitude temperature estimates

especially in consideration that one paper (J. Veizer et al., Nature 408, 698 (2000)) notices a there is "a major discrepancy during the mid-Mesozoic (120 to 220 Ma) between cold low-latitude temperatures deduced from the oxygen isotopic composition (d<SUP>18</SUP>O) of fossils (panel C) and high levels of CO<SUB>2 </SUB>and net radiative forcing<SUB> </SUB>(panel B)."

This is the period pointed out in the graph you refer to. The paper points out some possible solutions to this discrepancy (while suggesting more research), but the paper is able to conclude that

The first-order agreement between the CO<SUB>2</SUB> record and continental glaciation continues to support the conclusion that CO<SUB>2</SUB> has played an important role in long-term climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol292/issue5518/images/medium/870-1-med.gif

The graphs give us a better visualisation of the CO2 climate link than the one in your graph and the link is quite remarkable. The Vostok ice-cores give us an even better representation of this over more recent history. Additionally, it's peer-reviewed.

This is an interesting detour, and strengthens our confidence in the CO2-climate link, but it is important to stress one thing.

Climatologists must look at each climate change separately. Whatever happened in the Mesozoic period might give us some insights into what's happening today, but so far, the scientists researching the recent warming are confident that humans are at least partly responsible.

[markus3622]

I think Bob has dismissed NT's red herring successfully. There's no comparison between an article in Newsweek in the 1970s and the scientific consensus we see today.

Stephen Schneider gives a good account of the "contrarians" http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html#TheDayAfterTomorrow

I think it's quite important to realise that there really are only a handful of climate scientists out there who dispute the consensus. Many that NT like to quote are "freelance" scientists, lawyers, classicists, economists, historians, who rarely have any training in climatology.

You can be pretty sure that either the skeptics evidence is so laughable (consider the 1970s red herring) or if it has any smidgen of credibility at all, it is dealt with directly in the link above. Schneider is able to lay out quite clearly the position of the handful of papers that come anywhere near supporting the skeptics' position that have been published. In fact, his site is a goldmine of information.

[DeclinetoState]

From markus's link (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html#TheDayAfterTomorrow):


A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there. Like all scientific fields, when contrary claims appear in climate research, they are to be given due attention by climatologists. But initially, they are not usually given much weight, as it is highly likely that most claims calling for radical revisions to conventional wisdom will be disproved or contain many inconsistencies that lead scientists to doubt them. When asked about my opinion of the paradigm-altering claims of most contrarians (wasn't Galileo also dismissed by the establishment?), I typically reply that indeed, we must carefully examine all claims that, if true, would lead to paradigm shifts like that caused by Galileo, but at the same time, it is wise to note that for every real Galileo or Einstein who radically alters conventional wisdom, there are probably a thousand "fossil fools" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204194,00.html). Nevertheless, these contrarians are given disproportionate representation in the media (see Mediarology (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html)) and by certain governments, especially the Bush Administration, so far (see below).

Two of the most visible contrarians, astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, have challenged both of these notions (warming and anthropogenic causation). They contradicted the conclusions of Mann and others that temperatures rises in the late twentieth century are unusual (discussed in this section, and in It is well-established that the Earth's surface air temperature has warmed significantly (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Science.html#ItiswellestablishedthattheEarth146ssu rfaceairtemperaturehaswarmedsignificantly)), saying that medieval temperatures were greater than those of recent years (see Soon and Baliunas, 2003 (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf) and an accompanying press release (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html), as well as Baliunas' opinion article in the Providence Journal (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/BaliunasProvidenceJournal25Jul03.pdf)). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Soon and Baliunas received about $53,000, or 5% of their 2003 study's cost, from the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry's main trade organization (see "Warming Study Draws Fire" (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723)). In addition, they are members of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that opposes limits on CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions and supported ths "Star Wars" space-based missile defense proposals. (For a revealing look at the contrarian views of The Marshall Institue, see their May 2004 Policy Outlook (http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/213.pdf).)


The main claim is that scientists who debunk or attempt to debunk the notion of global warming are almost always tools of the fossil-fuel industry. In short, they're probably lying, or at least fudging the facts.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I think Bob has dismissed NT's red herring successfully. There's no comparison between an article in Newsweek in the 1970s and the scientific consensus we see today.
During the 1970s, using your fallacious definition of "consensus", the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a danger to the future of the Earth and the scientific consensus was that we were headed towards another Ice Age. Even the graph that Bob and you posted showed a significant cooling trend from the early 1940s through the late 1970s. Some scientists in the 1970s were using that cooling trend to project that we were heading into another Ice Age just as today some scientists are using the warming trend in the past 25 years to project that we are heading into a dangerous global warming period. There is no reason to believe that the projections of today's scientists are any more accurate than the projections of the 1970s scientists.

Of course, even if today's projections turn out to be accurate (highly unlikely, since they are based entirely on invalid climate models), there is no way that any honest person can attribute that warming to human activities, especially when we know that the sun is much hotter now than it was during the Little Ice Age and we know that there is global warming on Mars that can ONLY be attributed to that hotter sun.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The main claim is that scientists who debunk or attempt to debunk the notion of global warming are almost always tools of the fossil-fuel industry. In short, they're probably lying, or at least fudging the facts.
It is also true that scientists who promote the notion of human-caused global warming are almost always tools of the United Nations and other leftist organizations that provide their financial grants. In short, they're likely lying, or at least fudging the facts in order to keep that left-wing money flowing.

[Warlady]

ROFL!!! I love it!

This guy is funny!

Of course they are! Any conspiracy theorist worth his salt will always cover any possibility so he can claim to be right no matter what happens. The dems do that with their politics too.

I just read that article. I'm dying laughing. I'm going to email the author and invite him here.

I loved the entire piece but especially this part of his article:

So my solution is to bring as much attention to Martian Global Warming as we can. This way we can incite the Liberals to crusade the destruction we have wrought upon alien soil. Then we can revive the NASA initiative to send ships to Mars.

We can tell the Liberals that they can settle Mars. Free land, free ride there, and let them know in advance they can refuse to post "In God We Trust" and the Ten Commandments on Martian soil.

Then we take a few billion dollars and make sure it does not go into the best O rings and safety studies for this ship, telling Liberals that the money is going into an African AIDS fund. And then we pack them all in nice and tightly where they will have no problems holding hands while singing "We Are The World" or polluting the air with aerosol deodorant. And we Conservatives can line up with all of our Hitler mustaches and sing "God Bless America" while firing our guns into the air as a final sendoff.

And before I forget, lets' not poison space with rocket fuel fumes. Let's send the up using a hybrid engine from a new Toyota.

[DoctorDoom]

The consensus is based on research. You wouldn't know that, as you've never looked at the research. That's your stock response, Bachelor Bobby. If someone disagrees with you, they are ignorant and uneducated. They don't have the perceptiveness and wisdom to realize that you are dazzlingly brilliant and invariably right, no matter what BS you are peddling.

Your shtick became boring about 2290 posts ago. You don't want debate. You want worship. Sorry, BB, but I can't oblige you by massaging your towering ego. There is only one God and you're not Him.

You're more content to be a puppet - which is a little more on your level, it seems.WHOSE puppet, little boy? Those EEEEEEEEE-vill corporations? "Big Oil"? Answer that question in a way that won't further demonstrate that you're nothing more than a fawning tool of Big Envirowackos.

You're wrong as usual, kid. Live with it.

[DoctorDoom]

Re "global warming" on Mars, it is obvious that Bush is responsible because he did not support the installation of an output control on the sun. Drat him!

[DesertFox]

Well, I mean, after all, no one can deny that as President of the US, it was Bush's responsibility to turn down the thermostat.

[markus3622]

During the 1970s, using your fallacious definition of "consensus", the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a danger to the future of the Earth and the scientific consensus was that we were headed towards another Ice Age. Even the graph that Bob and you posted showed a significant cooling trend from the early 1940s through the late 1970s. Some scientists in the 1970s were using that cooling trend to project that we were heading into another Ice Age just as today some scientists are using the warming trend in the past 25 years to project that we are heading into a dangerous global warming period. There is no reason to believe that the projections of today's scientists are any more accurate than the projections of the 1970s scientists.



Come on NT, are you serious with this? Are you seriously trying to suggest a few scientists in the 1970s and an article in Newsweek is comparable with the IPCC, AMS, AGU, etc, etc? Bob and RealClimate have debunked that myth.

Of course, you're welcome to provide some evidence for your claim. I won't hold my breath in the mean time.

Having said that, even if we ignore the evidence and assume that your hypothesis is correct (Newsweek is a scientific journal and climate scientists were all in thrall to the global cooling theory), what would it show? Because a group were wrong in the past, they're wrong now.

Your argument is based on distorting evidence and then adding a logical fallacy.
...there is no way that any honest person can attribute that warming to human activities, especially when we know that the sun is much hotter now than it was during the Little Ice Age...

False

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

...and we know that there is global warming on Mars that can ONLY be attributed to that hotter sun.

This is most likely a regional change
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/MGCM.html
http://www.msss.com/others/preview12Sept05release/spolar4years/

Note however, that the cause of the climate change on Mars may actually be due to our good friend CO2 (although not in this case because of human emissions)

[Nutrider99]

Let's see if I get this straight. The problem is CO2 emmissions. CO2 is emmitted by humans as part of normal respiration. More humans = more CO2 emmissions. There are as many people alive today as have ever existed in the history of the planet. What does that have to do with my Buick?

There are a billion Muslims in the world. Muslims emit CO2. Muslims are the enemy of the human race. Therefore, eliminate all Muslims, and you've cured the global warming problem. After all, which would you rather have in your garage, your car or a Muslim? I rest my case.

The Final Solution, then, is obvious.

[markus3622]

Nutrider, I'm sorry, but you couldn't justify a second holocaust on the basis of global warming. The amount of CO2 released due to breathing is miniscule compared to that released by cars, airplanes, power stations, etc.

Just doing a quick calculation, the average american releases 19,100 kg of CO2 per year through industry, cars, etc and 300kg by breathing. That's a ratio of 60:1. Even done on a global basis it's 12:1.

[DesertFox]

markus, you forgot to factor in cattle, hosses, spiders, amoebas and all the other living things that emit CO2. Would you do that for us, please?

[DoctorDoom]

Worrying about CO₂ is SOP. However, one of the great sources of emission is being ignored: humans exhaling CO₂.

The human body produces about one kilogram of CO₂ daily. The world's population is about 6.44 billion. Ergo that is about 6 billion KG (allowing for kids exhaling less), or about 6,613,800 tons per day. In a year of 365.25 days, human breathing contributes 2,415,690,450 tons of CO₂.

Volcanic activity now releases about 130-230 million metric tons (145-255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities.Carbon Dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Taking the high value in short tons, 255 million, and multiplying by 100, we get 25.5 billion tons/year from human activity. Assuming that "human activity" doesn't include breathing, our exhalation of CO2 increases the human-created amount by 9.5%.

But, don't tell liberals about that. They'll find a way to tax us for breathing.

BTW, if the ecowackos really want to make a contribution, they should stop breathing. Every little bit helps.

BTW #2, water vapor is a major contributor to the "greenhouse effect". How do the enviroloonies propose dealing with that? Perhaps we should enclose all the oceans, lakes, rivers and swimming pools, and drain the wetlands.

[markus3622]

I'm afraid I don't have the figures at hand - having said that, I don't think anyone is proposing a cull of all creatures to stop global warming.

DD, you have to admit, that's a lot of carbon we emit.

[DoctorDoom]

Yep, and yet ...

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

[Nutrider99]

Nutrider, I'm sorry, but you couldn't justify a second holocaust on the basis of global warming. The amount of CO2 released due to breathing is miniscule compared to that released by cars, airplanes, power stations, etc.
Yes, but cars, airplanes and power stations are beneficial to the world. Muslims are parasites.

By the way, if we built nuclear power plants throughout Asia and supplied electricity for people to use instead of cooking on wood stoves, the amount of CO2 emissions on the planet would go down dramatically as well.

For that matter, logging the old growth forests in America would do more good than all the emission laws ever passed, because it would remove fuel for forest fires, cut roads which would enable us to better fight forest fires, and replace mature grees with growing trees which produce far more oxygen and absorb far more CO2. However, that would make sense so we can't consider it.

All of which doesn't make a nickles worth of difference, of course, because solar and geothermal activity is the catalyst behind warming trends, not lawnmowers.

By the way, are you all ready for massive inflation? It's coming! The tree huggers have driven up the cost of semi tractors by $20,000. in the last 3 years, and that cost is about to go up another $10,000. after January 1 because of idiotic and impractical emissions laws. On top of that, to meet new emissions the engines will have decreased fuel economy, increased maintenance and decreased efficiency. This despite the fact that the air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. A tractor trailer driven into the city of Huston will become a mobile air purification system, because the exhaust will have to be cleaner than the ambient intake air. Since everything we consume moves by truck, the cost of EVERYTHING is going up. When you see the inflation, don't blame Bush. Blame the tree hugger lobby and spineless politicians.

By the way. The exhaust temperature 3 feet off the tip of the stack will be over 800 degrees. Since the kindling point of paper is 451 degrees, you can rest assured that in major truck crashes there WILL be fires and people WILL be burned to death. When this happens, thank the democreeps, spaghetti spined RINO's and the treehuggers.

[markus3622]

I think this is the issue in a nutshell. Doom's post highlights the problem, and is a classic example of how the skeptics work.

We have a paper saying "Science has spoken". The authors are Robinson and Zachary Robinson who work at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They're chemists. They've got some graphs. It all looks rather impressive.

However, we then begin to see the flaws. The paper is written in a newspaper, so it isn't peer-reviewed science. The paper is 8 years old. The Oregon Institute is a rather small fringe set up on a farm. The graphs are unreferenced (they say Journal of Astrophysics, but what paper?). In short, a few minutes looking at it makes it clear that the work is a sham.

This is the crux of the issue. It comes down to whether one fundamentally accepts science. Science is a bit like free speech. The true test of whether you support free speech is not when you support the right for someone to say something you agree with, but when it's something you disagree with. It's the same with science. We can all support science when we can look at rockets and explosions and lasers, but when science says that our lifestyle is changing (detrimentally) the planet, fewer of us are willing to accept it. Science is about looking at the evidence and it leading you where you didn't think you'd go.

If one's not willing to look at the scientific evidence (not stuff that just looks like science) then they're not going to see the effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions

[Nutrider99]

If one's not willing to look at the scientific evidence (not stuff that just looks like science) then they're not going to see the effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions
When a scientist tries to tell me that there is no God, then I simply accept that the man is a fool and take whatever he says at face value. These quacks have been blowing panic out of the same trumpet for 60 years and haven't been right yet.

[DoctorDoom]

Markie, you WANT to believe the crap DESPITE the evidence to the contrary. That's not science. It's ideology. And ideology is NOT a rational basis for policy-making.

PROVE that human activity contributes to global warming and that an increase in carbon dioxide is dangerous. There is no sound reason for investing trillions of dollars in attempting to prevent something without overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the expense will serve a useful purpose other than helping leftists f**k up America.

Consensus isn't nearly good enough, kid. Prove it or stuff it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Come on NT, are you serious with this? Are you seriously trying to suggest a few scientists in the 1970s and an article in Newsweek is comparable with the IPCC, AMS, AGU, etc, etc?
You're damn right I do. You, child, are too young (Were you even alive in 1975? I doubt it.) to remember the panic in the 1970s about the significant decline in global temperatures between the early 1940s and the late 1970s and the predictions of an impending ice age. I remember it well.

Bob and RealClimate have debunked that myth.
Only in your imagination, child. Only in your imagination.

Of course, you're welcome to provide some evidence for your claim. I won't hold my breath in the mean time.
You and Bob have already provided the evidence in the graph you both posted. Thanks! No further evidence is necessary.

Having said that, even if we ignore the evidence and assume that your hypothesis is correct (Newsweek is a scientific journal and climate scientists were all in thrall to the global cooling theory), what would it show? Because a group were wrong in the past, they're wrong now.
The projections of an impending ice age based on the global cooling trend from the early 1940s to the late 1970s were every bit as valid as today's projections of dangerous warming based on the global warming trend from 1980 to date.

Your argument is based on distorting evidence and then adding a logical fallacy.
My argument is based on far more than your blind worship of the highly questionable hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

Note however, that the cause of the climate change on Mars may actually be due to our good friend CO2 (although not in this case because of human emissions)
:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:
That's the best joke I've heard in years, child. You can't really believe that crap.
:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Markie, you WANT to believe the crap DESPITE the evidence to the contrary. That's not science. It's ideology. And ideology is NOT a rational basis for policy-making.

PROVE that human activity contributes to global warming and that an increase in carbon dioxide is dangerous. There is no sound reason for investing trillions of dollars in attempting to prevent something without overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the expense will serve a useful purpose other than helping leftists f**k up America.

Consensus isn't nearly good enough, kid. Prove it or stuff it.
Absolutely! If Markus & Bob can't provide proof, they should stuff it. Even if there was a consensus, even under their fallacious definition, it does not provide proof of human-caused global warming, only a questionable hypothesis.

[markus3622]

Absolutely! If Markus & Bob can't provide proof, they should stuff it. Even if there was a consensus, even under their fallacious definition, it does not provide proof of human-caused global warming, only a questionable hypothesis.

What would be the point in presenting evidence (proof is for math and alcohol) for global warming when you have a fundamental problem with science?

The pattern is tedious. You present some "evidence" from a crank website, or the National Review, or the Wall Street Journal. Bob and I find some peer-reviewed science that disputes this. Rather than tackling the rebuttal, you move on to some other claim. Again, it's rebutted and you move on to another claim. After enough time is elapsed, you go back to your first claim and the cycle just repeats itself.

Let's see if you can break this cycle. It's not crucial to the debate but it would be fun. Can you provide some evidence that there was a consensus anything comparable to today (when we have the IPCC, NAS, hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, etc, etc, etc) on global cooling in the 1970s? A graph doesn't show it. Neither does saying "I'm old enough to remember..."

If you can deal with this directly, it provides a glimmer of hope for the discussion.

[DoctorDoom]

Okay, you pompous, arrogant, "more scientific than thou" elitists, it's time to can the crap and cut to the chase. You twits are trying to sell us on the idiocy that mankind is responsible for what every bit of SCIENTIFIC evidence demonstrates is a totally natural phenomenon. We don't believe you because you're nothing more than touchy-feely liberals whose capacity for thought is at best atrophied. Now let's put all that aside and make the ridiculous assumption that you twits are correct. Here comes your challenge, lefties:

Tell us what mankind can do that will arrest the warming.

I don't want vague, generalized bullshit. I will not accept "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". I want specific, definable steps to accomplish what you are trying to convince us must be done, backed up with verifiable evidence. And be forewarned that EVERYTHING you suggest will be thoroughly dissected and analyzed. If you bring up "alternative energy" sources, you will list each of them and tell us how they can reduce global warming.

Do so with the expectation that each and every one of them will be considered with cold objectivity. I've been dealing with ecowacko assholes for thirty-plus years, and you don't intimidate me.

I've about had it with your horseshit. The rubber meets the road here. You liberals insist that man is causing global warming despite the evidence to the contrary. Pull your heads out of your butts and tell us SPECIFICALLY what man is supposed to do about it.

The ball is in your court. Play or get the hell out of the game.

[markus3622]

DD,

You say that

You twits are trying to sell us on the idiocy that mankind is responsible for what every bit of SCIENTIFIC evidence demonstrates is a totally natural phenomenon

Firstly, this is simply false. If you don't accept that the increased CO2 emissions are partly responsible for the current warming, you're unlikely to accept that reducing these emissions is part of the solution.

Tell us what mankind can do that will arrest the warming.

I'll be honest with you. I don't know. However, part of the solution does involve reducing CO2 emissions. Other techniques include carbon capture and storage.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn238.pdf

A solution much talked about is increasing nuclear power facilities.
There's no "one solution" to tackling climate change. Certainly, one could write entire theses and books on it, so a BB isn't a great place to outline any plans.

However, it's a bit like AA. You have to admit there's a problem before tackling it. How one tackles global warming is a different question to accepting it exists. I can't offer detailed solutions here and make no apology for it.

If you and NT were to say that you recognised the problem, but felt it wouldn't be worth the money tackling it, that would be a more reasonable position. However, the problem is when you're using scam "research" to deny that global warming exists.

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus3622:

Where's the proof? Put up or shut up!

Everything that you have presented since you first entered the discussion of global warming has been nothing more than a hypothesis that global warming is human-caused based on supposition and speculation backed up by invalid climate models.

The most hilarious :hahaha: claim that you have made was "that the cause of the climate change on Mars may actually be due to our good friend CO2". :hahaha: So you're actually claiming that Mars has an atmosphere in which CO2 causes a greenhouse effect that traps heat from the sun and causes global warming. :hahaha: That claim about CO2 on Mars causing global warming makes almost as much sense as the claim that global warming here is caused by human activities. :hahaha:

[BuckeyeMike]

When these "experts" on GW can start putting out "evidence" that is not laced with might, could, possible, may , probabable, should, can etc then and only then will I think about giving any credence to their blatherings.
Hell, the "meteorologist" can't even assure me that information they give me will be correct or viable for the next 24 hours let alone convince me they are correct about what MIGHT occurr within the next decade or more! SCROOOOM! Gotta remember too, that there are fancy paychecks involved with these "experts" too, not unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etal that have to keep racism alive and well. IMHO

[markus3622]

Where's the proof? Put up or shut up!

You know science doesn't provide proof, but rather evidence. However if you want evidence...

www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch)

Regarding Mars, your little smileys make you look silly. I'm just pointing out what our good friends over at NASA have observed

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/

I noticed you've ducked the opportunity to provide some evidence for your global cooling theory.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You know science doesn't provide proof, but rather evidence. However if you want evidence...

www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch)
Thanks for proving that there is no proof that global warming is human-caused. Until and unless you provide such proof, you are doing nothing more than taking up space and wasting bandwidth with your hypothetical suppositions and speculations.

Regarding Mars, your little smileys make you look silly.
You're the only one looking silly with you absurd claims.
I'm just pointing out what our good friends over at NASA have observed

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/
There is nothing there that has anything to do with global warming on Mars. :hahaha:

I noticed you've ducked the opportunity to provide some evidence for your global cooling theory.
Since you and Bob provided the evidence, there was no need for me to repeat it. However, I will provide a quote that illustrates the panic about an impending ice age in 1978:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity_files/image007.jpg

Familiar language, isn’t it? But it’s not about global warming, it’s about global cooling. Fear of a new ice age. Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?

(Source: Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html))

[Rhino]

Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?I'm all broke up about it. I sold my fridge at a loss.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm all broke up about it. I sold my fridge at a loss.
Everything following where I wrote, "Since you and Bob provided the evidence, there was no need for me to repeat it. However, I will provide a quote that illustrates the panic about an impending ice age in 1978:", came from the source at the end of my post.

[DoctorDoom]

DD,

You say that
You twits are trying to sell us on the idiocy that mankind is responsible for what every bit of SCIENTIFIC evidence demonstrates is a totally natural phenomenonFirstly, this is simply false. If you don't accept that the increased CO2 emissions are partly responsible for the current warming, you're unlikely to accept that reducing these emissions is part of the solution.You're utterly ignoring my challenge, boy. I stated that for the sake of argument, your fatuous claims are true. Your response is to accuse me of saying that your claims are not true.

Kid, you can't comprehend even the most basic arguments if they aren't 100% in sync with your agenda.

Tell us what mankind can do that will arrest the warming.I'll be honest with you. I don't know.More accurately, you don't know whether it's possible or not.

However, part of the solution does involve reducing CO2 emissions. Other techniques include carbon capture and storage.My challenge granted that. What I demanded is that you detail for us effective methods of doing it, with cost-benefit ratios to justify it. Simply calling for "reducing CO2 emissions" without the slightest attempt to explain effective ways of doing it is exactly what I rejected: vague, generalized statements that prove nothing.

A solution much talked about is increasing nuclear power facilities.On that, there is no argument. Replacing fossil fuel plants with nukes will eliminate all the CO₂ and other pollutants emitted by the coal and oil burners. In fact, since coal is mildly radioactive, it would reduce radionuclide emissions into the environment.

However, ask any ecowacko about resuming the building of nukes and they'll go spastic.

There's no "one solution" to tackling climate change.I didn't say there was, primarily because my position is that climate change is natural, and thus is immune to our pathetic efforts to affect it.

IAC, I assumed that your claims were correct, and I asked for your proposals about however many ways you see fit, justified by objective sources of information, and accounting for all the environmental and economic impacts of each one of them.

Certainly, one could write entire theses and books on it, so a BB isn't a great place to outline any plans.Nor is it a place to post a few misleading or ambiguous charts and claim that they are evidence that man is at least partly responsible for climate change. If the topic is too complex to use a BB for outlining hypothetical ways of countering global warming (the climate change du jour), then it is equally too complex to provide a rationale for considering those hypothetical ways. If this BB is inadequate for discussing how to address man's alleged impact on the climate, then it is inadequate for discussing whether or not man's alleged impact has any basis in fact.

You claim that you have science on your side, but all I'm seeing are generalities and broad assumptions based on very little solid evidence. There is nothing in the posts of the GW Chicken Littles to motivate us to consider forcing America to invest trillions of dollars in a futile venture.

As we have repeatedly stated, these warming and cooling periods have been going on for millions of years. Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now, and it is irrefutable that none of those warming/cooling cycles involved mankind. Thus, the claim that we are responsible for the latest cycle is subject to a mighty shipload of skepticism, and the demands to bankrupt nations in a useless attempt to alter those natural changes will be met with an appropriate level of ridicule.

However, it's a bit like AA. You have to admit there's a problem before tackling it.That's a preposterous simile. AA deals with a scientifically-tested and -understood condition of health. No one is arguing that alcoholism does not exist. What has that to do with a political/ideological agenda that uses bad science and unsupportable assumptions as its basis?

How one tackles global warming is a different question to accepting it exists.And I repeat that my challenge was based on accepting that it exists.

I can't offer detailed solutions here and make no apology for it.So your argument is as follows: it exists, and therefore something must be done about it, even if nothing can be done and there is no evidence that anything SHOULD be done if it COULD be, the end. In short, you are incapable of addressing my challenge. Do not expect further credence.

If you and NT were to say that you recognised the problem ...We recognize that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Only you leftist ecowackos call it a "problem". Earth have survived them for a VERY long time and it will survive this one as well. It's only a "problem" to those who want to use it as a means to gratify their lust for power and control.

... but felt it wouldn't be worth the money tackling it ...Inasmuch as it's a natural phenomenon, the money would be far more wisely spent preparing to live with it than trying to prevent it.

... that would be a more reasonable position.Ours IS the reasonable position. Yours involves screeching, "THE SKY IS FALLING!" and demanding that nations spend trillions of dollars building roofs to deflect it.

However, the problem is when you're using scam "research" to deny that global warming exists.How many times must it be repeated before it penetrates that reinforced concrete skull of yours: we accept global warming and cooling as a natural order of things. What we do NOT accept is your mindless, ritualistic chanting of the ecomantra, "Man is causing the world to heat up! OMMMM OMMMM!"

Address my challenge or go away.

[Bob_Arctor]

During the 1970s, using your fallacious definition of "consensus", the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a danger to the future of the Earth and the scientific consensus was that we were headed towards another Ice Age.
No, it wasn't, as my description and links clearly stated. There is no comparison between ideas then and now.

Even the graph that Bob and you posted showed a significant cooling trend from the early 1940s through the late 1970s. Some scientists in the 1970s were using that cooling trend to project that we were heading into another Ice Age just as today some scientists are using the warming trend in the past 25 years to project that we are heading into a dangerous global warming period.
Very few of them did anything like that, as my links showed. The small cooling trend was recognized as being far too short to predict anything.

[sunsettommy]

Tommy,

I've noticed that you've brought that link up before. The graph you refer to is badly referenced, stating "Berner 2001", and in the past I coul