PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming???


TroysBadDawg
01-04-2010, 09:20 PM
Global warming video



Want to see something really, really well done to counter Al Gore and the global warming advocates? This video by John Coleman, a meteorologist who is Co-founder of the Weather Channel is really worth watching. It's the best I've seen. No matter how you feel about global warming, this a viewpoint that deserves to be considered. The long term geo-historical record is impossible to deny, although global warming advocates have done their best to hide it. Here it is:


http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=

VegasStlrFan
01-04-2010, 10:05 PM
John Coleman is not the best presenter, but he's spot on with the message!

It's funny that Al Gore was worth around a $1M when he started his Global Warming Campaign and now through his "nonprofit, for the good of the people" BS crusade he is worth over a $100M.

Leftoverhard
01-04-2010, 11:11 PM
Noticing the catch-phrases and buzz words Mr. Coleman uses in the video, I doubted his scientific "research" right away. Scientists like to stay away from political buzzwords - like "politically correct" as a derogatory term or a meteorologist accusing 97 percent of climatologists that they are involved in a "scam." Strong words.

But I listened to the whole thing - and then read some of his stuff and... It turns out there is no scientific research involved here - just plain old opinion from a weatherman! This is a guy who predicts weather - a meteorologist, not a climatologist - big difference.

This is a great break down of how (no matter what you think of Al Gore) Mr. Coleman is expressing his opinion - not scientific fact - to try to debunk Global Warming. Opinion is a very weak argument when talking about science.

"Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

Mr. Coleman is stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

MACH1
01-04-2010, 11:53 PM
Noticing the catch-phrases and buzz words Mr. Coleman uses in the video, I doubted his scientific "research" right away. Scientists like to stay away from political buzzwords - like "politically correct" as a derogatory term or a meteorologist accusing 97 percent of climatologists that they are involved in a "scam." Strong words.

But I listened to the whole thing - and then read some of his stuff and... It turns out there is no scientific research involved here - just plain old opinion from a weatherman! This is a guy who predicts weather - a meteorologist, not a climatologist - big difference.

This is a great break down of how (no matter what you think of Al Gore) Mr. Coleman is expressing his opinion - not scientific fact - to try to debunk Global Warming. Opinion is a very weak argument when talking about science.

"Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

Mr. Coleman is stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

Ummmm K.....We'll all take al gores word as gospel. Global warming = junk science, manipulated crap in, manipulated crap out.

Preacher
01-05-2010, 12:08 AM
Noticing the catch-phrases and buzz words Mr. Coleman uses in the video, I doubted his scientific "research" right away. Scientists like to stay away from political buzzwords - like "politically correct" as a derogatory term or a meteorologist accusing 97 percent of climatologists that they are involved in a "scam." Strong words.

But I listened to the whole thing - and then read some of his stuff and... It turns out there is no scientific research involved here - just plain old opinion from a weatherman! This is a guy who predicts weather - a meteorologist, not a climatologist - big difference.

This is a great break down of how (no matter what you think of Al Gore) Mr. Coleman is expressing his opinion - not scientific fact - to try to debunk Global Warming. Opinion is a very weak argument when talking about science.

"Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

Mr. Coleman is stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

Well, Peer review is a red herring. Why? Because the only things that are allowed in peer review work, are those articles which subscribe to the foundational agreements of the peers. Thus, no peer review work arguing against global warming will be found in peer reviewed journals on global warming.

And I am sorry, but at this point, science is just as much the application of philosophy as "observable data".

VegasStlrFan
01-05-2010, 12:41 AM
Noticing the catch-phrases and buzz words Mr. Coleman uses in the video, I doubted his scientific "research" right away. Scientists like to stay away from political buzzwords - like "politically correct" as a derogatory term or a meteorologist accusing 97 percent of climatologists that they are involved in a "scam." Strong words.

But I listened to the whole thing - and then read some of his stuff and... It turns out there is no scientific research involved here - just plain old opinion from a weatherman! This is a guy who predicts weather - a meteorologist, not a climatologist - big difference.

This is a great break down of how (no matter what you think of Al Gore) Mr. Coleman is expressing his opinion - not scientific fact - to try to debunk Global Warming. Opinion is a very weak argument when talking about science.

"Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

Mr. Coleman is stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

True, he is stating an opinion same as the environmentalists. It also is a fact that our temperatures have been fluctuating up and down forever, without our impact.

The Carbon Footprint is total BS. Scientists from New Zealand recently equated the carbon footprint of a medium sized dog to that of owning an SUV (driving 6,200 miles a year). Now I gotta get rid of my Yukon and my dog, whats next????

MACH1
01-05-2010, 01:04 AM
True, he is stating an opinion same as the environmentalists. It also is a fact that our temperatures have been fluctuating up and down forever, without our impact.

The Carbon Footprint is total BS. Scientists from New Zealand recently equated the carbon footprint of a medium sized dog to that of owning an SUV (driving 6,200 miles a year). Now I gotta get rid of my Yukon and my dog, whats next????

Stop breathing.

Vincent
01-05-2010, 07:28 AM
It's funny that Al Gore was worth around a $1M when he started his Global Warming Campaign and now through his "nonprofit, for the good of the people" BS crusade he is worth over a $100M.

It's all about "green". :chuckle:

Vincent
01-05-2010, 07:39 AM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

revefsreleets
01-05-2010, 09:32 AM
We're up to about 2 feet of global warming in the snowbelt 15 miles North of me, with another 6 inches on it's way today...also, record low temperatures for 2/3rds of the US for this whole week.

fansince'76
01-05-2010, 09:48 AM
We're up to about 2 feet of global warming in the snowbelt 15 miles North of me, with another 6 inches on it's way today...also, record low temperatures for 2/3rds of the US for this whole week.

Well, in that case, it's human-induced climate change. If it gets really hot this summer and there are a few high temperature records broken, then it's back to being human-induced global warming. But it's still all the same thing. Very active hurricane season in the Atlantic? Human-induced climate change is the culprit. Very quiet and benign hurricane season in the Atlantic (such as this past year)? Again, human-induced climate change is the culprit. A flood occurs? Human-induced climate change is the culprit. A drought occurs? Human-induced climate change is the culprit. Make no mistake about it, SUV-driving soccer moms and Rover the dog are destroying the planet. After all, the "science is settled." :rolleyes:

Texasteel
01-05-2010, 10:50 AM
Just sitting here in my SUV, with the engine running. Smoking the largest cigar I could find. Just finished off a can of arousal air freshener, and thinking about when I was a boy. You all know how long ago that was. I remember back then we were told that we were all going to freeze to death in the coming ice age, man made, and if we were alive we would need gas masks just to go out side our homes which will all be equipped with its own air filtration system. This would all happen inside of 30 years, all based on sound scientific research. Still waiting.

Leftoverhard
01-05-2010, 11:13 AM
Just finished off a can of arousal air freshener.

I'm not even gonna ask what that is doing in your SUV...

revefsreleets
01-05-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm not even gonna ask what that is doing in your SUV...


I'm guessing it was the old kind filled with CFC's....and he just sprayed it out for spite.

Texasteel
01-05-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm not even gonna ask what that is doing in your SUV...

I am 60 years old man.

Shoes
01-05-2010, 12:11 PM
.......:chuckle:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z211/vestkap/Gore.jpg

Texasteel
01-05-2010, 12:15 PM
.......:chuckle:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z211/vestkap/Gore.jpg

That must have left one hell of a carbon foot print.

Leftoverhard
01-05-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm guessing it was the old kind filled with CFC's....and he just sprayed it out for spite.

Aerosol - Arousal

I personally laughed more than a person should at a computer screen. Maybe it was too early for you to notice.

X-Terminator
01-05-2010, 01:20 PM
We've had snow showers here the past 5 days, and we're supposed to have more snow the next 5 days. We haven't seen a ray of sunshine around here in over a week and probably won't see any until maybe Saturday or Sunday. Not to mention the fact that it hasn't been above 30 since Christmas Eve.

Damn that global warming! :coffee:

7SteelGal43
01-05-2010, 01:56 PM
I'm terribly afraid of Global Warming, especially since the average high temp this time of year in Memphis is in the mid to high 30s and we've not gotten out of the mid 20s for a high in days. :chuckle:

7SteelGal43
01-05-2010, 01:59 PM
Aerosol - Arousal

I personally laughed more than a person should at a computer screen. Maybe it was too early for you to notice.

Arousal comes in a can now ? :chuckle: What will they come up with next ?

Leftoverhard
01-05-2010, 02:08 PM
I've always believed that humans are inherently good - that doesn't mean I don't believe we aren't inherently stupid and will pompously be our own downfall. Whatever - It is all relative anyway. Believe what you want or not, I just can't stand it when smug people like this old fart use catch phrases and political buzz words to get people behind his OPINIONS that have no basis in science. Amazing.

PS - I've never even seen Al Gore's documentary, my research is self motivated. I prefer to call it "Extreme Human Induced Global Interferance" - because the "warming" part of the phrase Global Warming tends to get a lot of wintertime responses about 3 feet of snow, especially from people who have never even bothered to find out more about it. Go ahead, find out more so you'll understand the difference between weather and climate.

xfl2001fan
01-05-2010, 02:14 PM
All I know is that if we are (indeed) between ice ages...there must be a warming period before a cooling period. The Earth has a cyclical rotation, a cyclical calendar, a cylclical season weather system...and guess what, long term, the highs and lows will follow a cyclical patter for those who care to do the research beyond just the last 10-20 years (very shortsighted, whether you believe the Earth is 5000 years old or over 1Billion).

If this is "Extreme Human Induced Global Interference" (EHIGI...which sounds like a poorly-contained sneeze if you say it right) as you claim...then was it massive dinosaur farts that caused the last Ice Age to come to a screaming halt?

X-Terminator
01-05-2010, 02:31 PM
I've always believed that humans are inherently good - that doesn't mean I don't believe we aren't inherently stupid and will pompously be our own downfall. Whatever - It is all relative anyway. Believe what you want or not, I just can't stand it when smug people like this old fart use catch phrases and political buzz words to get people behind his OPINIONS that have no basis in science. Amazing.

PS - I've never even seen Al Gore's documentary, my research is self motivated. I prefer to call it "Extreme Human Induced Global Interferance" - because the "warming" part of the phrase Global Warming tends to get a lot of wintertime responses about 3 feet of snow, especially from people who have never even bothered to find out more about it. Go ahead, find out more so you'll understand the difference between weather and climate.

OK, here's some science for you: I believe the "warming" is because we are in an interglacial period, and that eventually the Earth will have another extended cooling period - probably a whole hell of a lot of them before the Sun expands and turns the planet into a smoldering cinder. I do not believe and have never believed that man has the power to pollute the planet enough to cause the kind of global warming (climate change, whatever the hell you want to call it) that these people are concerned about in less than 100 years, and that all of this is just another excuse for governments around the world to bilk its citizens out of billions of dollars a year.

However...that does NOT mean that we should not strive to be more conscious of our environment or develop alternative sources of energy that is less harmful on the planet. In fact, I highly encourage it, because fossil fuels like oil are not going to last forever, and overall, it's just the smart thing to do. But not as the result of a bunch of pseudoscientific BS like "climate change."

SteelCityMom
01-05-2010, 02:32 PM
I've always believed that humans are inherently good - that doesn't mean I don't believe we aren't inherently stupid and will pompously be our own downfall. Whatever - It is all relative anyway. Believe what you want or not, I just can't stand it when smug people like this old fart use catch phrases and political buzz words to get people behind his OPINIONS that have no basis in science. Amazing.

PS - I've never even seen Al Gore's documentary, my research is self motivated. I prefer to call it "Extreme Human Induced Global Interferance" - because the "warming" part of the phrase Global Warming tends to get a lot of wintertime responses about 3 feet of snow, especially from people who have never even bothered to find out more about it. Go ahead, find out more so you'll understand the difference between weather and climate.

Extreme Human Induced Global Interference? I'm sorry, that just made me chuckle.

I understand you and others wanting to do good things for the Earth and the animals and all, and I'm all for saving whales and cleaning up oil spill and the like, but you do realize that the whole "global warming" (or Extreme Human Induced Global Interference) idea is just humans worrying about their own preservation in the long run.

The Earth was fine before us when hundreds of volcanoes were erupting at the same time, earthquakes were literally tearing the crust apart and meteors and comets were raining down like snowflakes. The Earth will be fine after humans. If the uber enviromentalists are right and we are causing this much damage, the Earth will simply shrug us off like it did the dinosaurs before us (who's farts alone probably did more "damage" to the ozone than a billion cars and smokestacks could ever do).

Meanwhile, people like Al Gore are lining their pockets every day selling carbon credits (which are a joke...especially to Al Gore) and furthering their own political and business agendas. All while third world countries (and average Americans for that matter) get poorer because they cannot use cheap and reliable (and clean) energy sources (like the kind that comes from nuclear power plants) because of restrictions from the climate change braintrust.

Climate change alarmists rail against our use of the conventional sources of energy that have contributed to our economy prosperity. They have amassed significant support in Washington for "cap and trade" taxation schemes and prohibitions on drilling and energy exploration. The United States should not yield to political pressure and penalize energy use in an effort to garner new taxes. Common sense and good science should rule the day and politicians should not let more than 2,340 global warming lobbyists in Washington, clamoring for "cap and trade" regulation or allow us to seriously drag down our already flailing economy. Our economic health and growth should not be sacrificed for an unproven theory that is fast losing support from the scientific community.

It's all become one big joke. Recycling is a joke, global warming is a joke, climate change is a joke and even the endangered animal acts are pretty much a joke when you REALLY look into the politics and business behind it. All it really boils down to is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We've all been played, simple as that.

Leftoverhard
01-05-2010, 04:15 PM
just humans worrying about their own preservation in the long run.

It's all become one big joke. Recycling is a joke, global warming is a joke, climate change is a joke and even the endangered animal acts are pretty much a joke when you REALLY look into the politics and business behind it. All it really boils down to is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We've all been played, simple as that.

Dismal...

Self preservation of the human race - sounds like a decent reason. Guess we just lay down and die and blame it on the politicians then.

SteelCityMom
01-05-2010, 05:05 PM
Dismal...

Self preservation of the human race - sounds like a decent reason. Guess we just lay down and die and blame it on the politicians then.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't find cleaner and more efficient ways to live, but politicians and lobbyists have made it all backwards to line their own pockets. They sell global warming and recycling as "saving the earth", which is a fallacy. And people are willing to dish out big bucks to basically have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Nuclear energy is a perfect example. Nuclear opponents overstate the impacts on human health and on the environment from nuclear energy and fail to consider the impacts of alternatives, They make the same unbalanced comparisons with respect to economic cost, and they ignore the practical limits of alternatives. Beyond that, the more radical nuclear opponents argue points which are frightening but irrelevant, they misrepresent the facts about nuclear energy and fail to substantiate their statements, and they contradict independent analyses done by unbiased professionals.

Recycling is a joke (unless you're recycling aluminum or copper, etc.) because it does no environmental or economic good other than creating minimum wage jobs that nobody wants (sorting garbage).

Recycling is expensive. Even without taking into account the demands it places on people's time (a valuable resource), I think it is fair to say that most recycling programs are loss making operations. While I could go on and on naming one local authority after another, the fact that private recycling operations are nowhere to be seen - with very few exceptions - neatly settles the argument.

When you read about a recycling program 'paying for itself', what you see in effect is a covert tax on residents. When you see a recycling program losing money, what you are witnessing is a public subsidy to the tree-hugger in all of us.

All the while, and completely discounting current welfare ('financial') considerations, it is at best debatable that recycling lives up to its purported reason for being - saving the planet. The environmental costs of recycling may well be far in excess of simply dumping waste. Extra trucks are needed on the road to collect the recycled bins, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. For many materials, the environmental cost of the energy used in recycling them is more than the environmental cost of simply tapping on nature's reserve to replace them.

Since the consumption of virgin materials or energy is not priced at marginal social cost, it is impossible to say with certainty whether a specific recycling operation is good for the environment simply by looking at the profit and loss account. For most materials, however, the available evidence seem to suggest that recycling is like shooting ourselves in the foot, all the while feeling we are doing the planet a great service.

I could rant on and on about the ESA as well, but that's probably better suited for a separate thread if you or anyone is interested in the "astounding" delisting numbers they have produced that only PETA could be proud of.

SteelCityMom
01-05-2010, 05:10 PM
Personally, my contribution to the environment is wasting paper...and lots of it. Heck, there have been times where I've just taken a whole stack of unrecycled copier paper and just set it on fire, for fun! I'm proud to say that I regularly contribute to the planting of more trees and creation of more logging jobs. Until they legalize hemp and allow businesses to make oodles of money off of it, I'll keep doing my part to get more trees planted.

Vincent
01-05-2010, 05:37 PM
Arousal comes in a can now ? :chuckle: What will they come up with next ?

There was actually a "product" in the 60s called "Instant Sex". It was a spray in a can that, shall we say, "set the mood". Incredible product, really. I have no idea what was in it. And it was before warning labeling on packages, so we wouldn't have known if it was safe for SUVs. Oh, and there weren't SUVs.

Come to think of it, the smog was evident back then. It seems that since we've had SUVs the smog has blown away, so to speak.

Here's a question for the "global warming" / "climate change" ninnies. Once "modern science" had identified chlorofluorocarbons as "the boogy man" and set mankind on its panic trajectory, whole industries "needed" to be changed. All that nasty chlorine in the atmosphere, you know. So, what is the major source of chlorine in the atmosphere?

beSteelmyheart
01-05-2010, 07:23 PM
All I know is that it's effing freezing down here in Florida & we're all gonna die.

revefsreleets
01-05-2010, 09:46 PM
PS - I've never even seen Al Gore's documentary, my research is self motivated. I prefer to call it "Extreme Human Induced Global Interferance" - because the "warming" part of the phrase Global Warming tends to get a lot of wintertime responses about 3 feet of snow, especially from people who have never even bothered to find out more about it. Go ahead, find out more so you'll understand the difference between weather and climate.

It was a joke...anyway, I DO understand the difference between weather and climate and I HAVE done my own research.

If it's not Global Warming anymore, why was it EVER Global Warming?

First it's Global Cooling....then it's Global Warming....now it's Climate Change. What will it be in ten years?

Vincent
01-06-2010, 06:38 AM
A quick perusal of this mornings headlines certainly buttresses this "global warming" theory...

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
Britain braced for heaviest snowfall in 50-years...
GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

Not.

PS - I've never even seen Al Gore's documentary,

Our son was forced to watch that "epic" three times in his senior year alone. Three times. Why are our children being forced to watch that bull@#$% at all?

Shoes
01-06-2010, 10:25 AM
Our son was forced to watch that "epic" three times in his senior year alone. Three times. Why are our children being forced to watch that bull@#$% at all?

They tried to do that out here and everyone kept their kids home from school :chuckle:

Vincent
01-06-2010, 01:53 PM
They tried to do that out here and everyone kept their kids home from school :chuckle:

Apparently they announced the showings there.

TroysBadDawg
01-06-2010, 08:33 PM
Noticing the catch-phrases and buzz words Mr. Coleman uses in the video, I doubted his scientific "research" right away. Scientists like to stay away from political buzzwords - like "politically correct" as a derogatory term or a meteorologist accusing 97 percent of climatologists that they are involved in a "scam." Strong words.

But I listened to the whole thing - and then read some of his stuff and... It turns out there is no scientific research involved here - just plain old opinion from a weatherman! at least he is a weatherman trained in weather patterns This is a guy who predicts weather - a meteorologist, not a climatologist - big difference.

This is a great break down of how (no matter what you think of Al Gore) Gore was trained in what? politics ? and that is lying out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Mr. Coleman is expressing his opinion - not scientific fact - to try to debunk Global Warming. Opinion is a very weak argument when talking about science.

"Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.

Mr. Coleman is stating his opinion as factual and without doubt.

He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman

And what does Gore present his opinion as with absolutely no training in science, weather, or meteorology. Oh yes the almighty dollar that he can make on global warming with fake figures.

43Hitman
01-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Here is some more info I found talking about Global Warming over a 1000 years ago.


Q: Was there a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) roughly 1000 yrs ago?... Was it a "Global Climate" event?... And, if yes to both of those, was it warmer back then, than it is today?

A: The answer to "All of the Above",... according to data published by 752 individual Scientists,... From 442 separate Research Institutions,... Based out of 41 different countries all over the World ,... With at least one of those studies having been done on 6144 individually qualifying "Ice/Soil Borehole" examinations taken from every country & continent around the entire globe,... ALL research & studies having been "Peer-Reviewed" prior to scientific publication,... is a resounding: YES!!!... ABSOLUTELY!!!...

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/boreholes-huang-1997.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php

http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/summaries/boreholes.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N22/C3.php

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

----------------------------
...And also...
----------------------------

Originally posted by
A 2,000-Year Global Temperature Record
-- February 11, 2008

Dr. Loehle notes that many long-term reconstructions of climate are based on tree rings, but “There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not capture long-term climate changes (100+ years) because tree size, root/shoot ratio, genetic adaptation to climate, and forest density can all shift in response to prolonged climate changes, among other reasons.” Furthermore, Loehle notes “Most seriously, typical reconstructions assume that tree ring width responds linearly to temperature, but trees can respond in an inverse parabolic manner to temperature, with ring width rising with temperature to some optimal level, and then decreasing with further temperature increases.” Other problems include tree responses to precipitation changes, variations in atmospheric pollution levels, diseases, pest outbreaks, and the obvious problem of enrichment that comes along with ever higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trees are not simple thermometers!

Loehle gathered as many non-tree ring reconstructions as possible for places throughout the world. There are dozens of very interesting ways to peer into the climatic past of a location, and Loehle included borehore temperature measurements, pollen remains, Mg/Ca ratios, oxygen isotope data from deep cores or from stalagmites, diatoms deposited on lake bottoms, reconstructed sea surface temperatures, and so on. Basically, he grabbed everything available, so long as it did not rely on trees.

Loehle notes “The data show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly.” The plot also shows that 20th century warming is apparently dwarfed by events in the past. If you are curious about the apparent cooling near present, Loehle explains “The series ends with a downtick because the last set of points are averages that include the cool decades of the 1960s and 1970s.” Finally, we learn “It is clear that the 1995-year reconstruction shown here does not match the famous hockey stick shape.”

Believe us—we noticed that fact immediately!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig2.JPG

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

----------------------------
...And also...
----------------------------

Originally posted by
Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered!
-- 04/07/2009

A recent article in the journal Science has provided a new, detailed climate record for the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), also know as the Medieval Warm Period. It was the most recent pre-industrial warm period, noted in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The researchers present a 947-year-long multi-decadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. The interesting thing is that the MCA had basically been removed from the climate record by Michael Mann's infamous “hockey stick” history graph that was adopted by the IPCC a decade ago.

Unlike Mann, these researchers found significant climate warming during the MCA. According to the report: “The Morocco and Scotland reconstructions contain substantial multi-decadal variability that is characterized by antiphase oscillatory behavior over the last millennium.” Their reconstruction can be seen in the figure from the article, seen below.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/MCA_graph1.gif

The researchers' conclusions?...
Originally posted by
The persistent positive phase reconstructed for the MCA appears to be associated with prevailing La Niņa–like conditions possibly initiated by enhanced solar irradiance and/or reduced volcanic activity and amplified and prolonged by enhanced AMOC. The relaxation from this particular ocean-atmosphere state into the LIA appears to be globally contemporaneous and suggests a notable and persistent reorganization of large-scale oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns.
Here AMOC stands for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (i.e. the ocean conveyer belt) and LIA for Little Ice Age, the period of global cooling that followed the Medeival Warm Period and lasted until the mid 1800s. What they are saying is that both the MCA and the LIA were real and had identifiable root causes. This result stands in stark contrast with the hocky stick result where the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age almost disappeared, replaced by a largely benign, slight cooling trend that lasted until ~1900.

(Mann's {discredited} "Hockey Stick Graph", as concocted for the IPCC's report)
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_small.jpg

This is just the latest in a series of reports that quietly contradict some of the more outlandish untruths spread by the anthropogenic global warming extremists of the IPCC.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered

Leftoverhard
01-06-2010, 11:13 PM
at least he is a weatherman trained in weather patterns Gore was trained in what? politics ? and that is lying out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

And what does Gore present his opinion as with absolutely no training in science, weather, or meteorology. Oh yes the almighty dollar that he can make on global warming with fake figures.

Ok - let me make it more clear.
The weatherman is using his opinion as a weatherman wth no actual research to back it up.
Al Gore is not the only person who believes in Global Warming. This isn't Al Gore vs. The Weatherman.
Al Gore used peer reviewed scientific data from research backed up by 97 percent of the world's scientists to make his documentary that so incenses you.

The man offers no evidence other than his very personal opinion that lacks scientific support.

Vincent
01-06-2010, 11:31 PM
Ok - let me make it more clear.
The weatherman is using his opinion as a weatherman wth no actual research to back it up.
Al Gore is not the only person who believes in Global Warming. This isn't Al Gore vs. The Weatherman.
Al Gore used peer reviewed scientific data from research backed up by 97 percent of the world's scientists to make his documentary that so incenses you.

The man offers no evidence other than his very personal opinion that lacks scientific support.

Total bull%$#@!

John Coleman, meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel v leftist hack and career charlatan. Are you serious Lefty? Really? Gore saw his opportunity and ran with it. "Believes in Global Warming"? The only thing Gore believes in is his money as evidenced by how he lives.

"Research". "Peer review". . :poop:

Look outside son.

SteelCityMom
01-07-2010, 12:05 AM
Ok - let me make it more clear.
The weatherman is using his opinion as a weatherman wth no actual research to back it up.
Al Gore is not the only person who believes in Global Warming. This isn't Al Gore vs. The Weatherman.
Al Gore used peer reviewed scientific data from research backed up by 97 percent of the world's scientists to make his documentary that so incenses you.

The man offers no evidence other than his very personal opinion that lacks scientific support.

First off...this 97% is based off of a survey.

Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

This means that info is skewed because they most likely chose who they wanted to survey.

There are scientists who are losing their funding, their jobs, their respect within the scientific community because they dare to question the "findings" that global warming are based off of.

An excerpt of Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential.

As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself.

In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine.

In the meantime, the global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop research and begin acting. I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it is also indicative of the overall attitude toward science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate.

The activities of the Union of Concerned Scientists deserve special mention. That widely supported organization was originally devoted to nuclear disarmament. As the cold war began to end, the group began to actively oppose nuclear power generation. Their position was unpopular with many physicists. Over the past few years, the organization has turned to the battle against global warming in a particularly hysterical manner. In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted. In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

I suggest you read the whole paper and get a good understanding of how the "select" scientific community, politicians, celebrities and media have all worked together to further the "global warming" cause and have kept the voices of those who oppose it out of peer review and out of the popular media.

43Hitman
01-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Lefty, you should really read some of these peer reviewed papers that SCM and I have posted through out this thread. There is some very conflicting information regarding this Climate change scam.

revefsreleets
01-07-2010, 11:33 AM
If the government started giving out grants to Climate Change SKEPTICS, guess what would happen?

43Hitman
01-07-2010, 11:44 AM
If the government started giving out grants to Climate Change SKEPTICS, guess what would happen?

We would have no cap and trade bill proposal? And be told to burn fires outside of our homes daily?

Vincent
01-07-2010, 12:57 PM
Lefty, you should really read some of these peer reviewed papers that SCM and I have posted through out this thread. There is some very conflicting information regarding this Climate change scam.

"Scam" - key word. This scam, like all scams, is about money. "Cap & trade" is all the evidence you need. :mad:

Of course, the actual climate seems to run contrary to the bull@#$% as well. :chuckle:

If the government started giving out grants to Climate Change SKEPTICS, guess what would happen?

The Earth would start to cool?























Sorry. :couch:


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-07-2010, 01:49 PM
Ok - let me make it more clear.

Al Gore used peer reviewed scientific data from research backed up by 97 percent of the world's scientists to make his documentary that so incenses you.


Well actually....no.

Gore told a Global Warming Conference: that his global warming figures were "fresh". He said "Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore quoted said...
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later backpedaled and claimed that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago .

So much for "accurate" or "fresh" figures...In fact...that would be called a lie.

revefsreleets
01-07-2010, 03:10 PM
My biggest problem with the Copenhagen talks was how they all kept bandying about numbers like 1.5 degrees of warming as opposed to 2 degrees of warming. They were speaking as if a reduction in X amount of carbons would equate to the Earth only warming by 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees if Y amount were reduced.

Huh?

This is all INCREDIBLY inaccurate to begin with...it's over-the-top arrogant to think that ANY model is precise enough to actually predict what changes in our behavior would result in. If you are dealing with a group-think this fundamentally flawed to begin with, how can we possibly take it seriously?

43Hitman
01-07-2010, 03:21 PM
My biggest problem with the Copenhagen talks was how they all kept bandying about numbers like 1.5 degrees of warming as opposed to 2 degrees of warming. They were speaking as if a reduction in X amount of carbons would equate to the Earth only warming by 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees if Y amount were reduced.

Huh?

This is all INCREDIBLY inaccurate to begin with...it's over-the-top arrogant to think that ANY model is precise enough to actually predict what changes in our behavior would result in. If you are dealing with a group-think this fundamentally flawed to begin with, how can we possibly take it seriously?

I think we are most certainly dealing with group think here. Which makes any decision that much scarier.

Fire Haley
01-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Thousands protest Global Warming

http://www.westburlingtoncity.com//media/snowmen.jpg

Leftoverhard
01-08-2010, 12:59 AM
Bravo, all very smart arguments (actually some are, if a little condescending). I concede, you win. I no longer care to voice my opinion on this issue here - which was originally very simple (about people believing the weatherman almost as an act of faith seemingly just to disagree with "the left").
I've had funner arguments about whether racism is real on this website. It's 27 degrees outside, the world is fine. And even if it isn't, I've concluded that reading all these links you've all provided has become tiresome. Take it away Vincent or Hitman!

SteelCityMom
01-08-2010, 02:14 AM
Bravo, all very smart arguments (actually some are, if a little condescending). I concede, you win. I no longer care to voice my opinion on this issue here - which was originally very simple (about people believing the weatherman almost as an act of faith seemingly just to disagree with "the left").
I've had funner arguments about whether racism is real on this website. It's 27 degrees outside, the world is fine. And even if it isn't, I've concluded that reading all these links you've all provided has become tiresome. Take it away Vincent or Hitman!

Wow, so you're basically conceding because looking into arguments opposing the idea of global warming and the peer review system involved with it is...tiresome?

Okey dokey then.

And just so you know, I understand your first argument. Nobody should take any argument made for or against anything at face value...especially when politics and media outlets are heavily involved. And I do not think that global warming is a scam just to disagree with the left. I think it's a scam because even though there's no hard evidence to support global warming, the scientific community allows no room for serious debate on the topic. Scientists who question the theory are not being heard in popular media or scientific outlets.

revefsreleets
01-08-2010, 09:05 AM
A big part of the problem is that the data has been doctored to fit predetermined positions from the very beginning. This started with the original IPCC report being "adjusted" by politicians because the evidence the scientists found didn't really support the notion of warming that they were looking for.

It's pretty much been more of the same since...

Vincent
01-08-2010, 09:16 AM
Ideologically driven endeavors are usually tainted by the ideology. Or, put another way, stupid is as stupid does.

GoSlash27
01-08-2010, 09:26 AM
My take:
We're sitting around discussing this while all the continents in the northern hemisphere are sitting under an arctic air mass. Not that this proves or disproves anything about anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Point is that temperatures will still naturally swing of their own accord, just as they have always done. A 2* difference a hundred years from now is not going to be noticeable in the statistical noise, let alone a half a degree swing in it. We will still have record heatwaves and record cold snaps, just as we always have.
More to the point, even the proponents of this AGCC admit that WE ARE HEADED FOR A MINI ICE AGE!
I submit that the effects of that will be much more devastating than any coastal flooding we could hope to avert. I say bring on the global warming, if it mitigates the global cooling at all.
I don't see how any of this justifies the outrageous price tag when the world's economy is already so precariously loaded with debt. I wouldn't pay one thin dime to effect a change of 1/2* in the global average temperature 100 years from now, even if they could promise the result (which they can't).

But you know... that's just me.

revefsreleets
01-08-2010, 09:27 AM
I agree completely.

Is the world ending because of that...?

GoSlash27
01-08-2010, 09:28 AM
Ideologically driven endeavors are usually tainted by the ideology. Or, put another way, stupid is as stupid does.

Or "stupid does as stupid believes"? :chuckle:
/ I'm with ya.

GoSlash27
01-08-2010, 09:47 AM
Another thing that gets me:
If all this arctic ice melting was such a serious threat of coastal flooding (in the face of the fact that liquid water displaces less volume than ice) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGAC1UlK-c), and we have already experienced such a huge melting of the ice caps.... WHERE'S THE FRIGGIN' FLOODING?? Have the sea levels risen any yet? 'Cuz if not, I have serious doubts they're ever going to.

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-08-2010, 09:49 AM
Wow, so you're basically conceding because looking into arguments opposing the idea of global warming and the peer review system involved with it is...tiresome?

Okey dokey then.

And just so you know, I understand your first argument. Nobody should take any argument made for or against anything at face value...especially when politics and media outlets are heavily involved. And I do not think that global warming is a scam just to disagree with the left. I think it's a scam because even though there's no hard evidence to support global warming, the scientific community allows no room for serious debate on the topic. Scientists who question the theory are not being heard in popular media or scientific outlets.

'nuff said
:thumbsup:

revefsreleets
01-08-2010, 10:14 AM
Another thing that gets me:
If all this arctic ice melting was such a serious threat of coastal flooding (in the face of the fact that liquid water displaces less volume than ice) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGAC1UlK-c), and we have already experienced such a huge melting of the ice caps.... WHERE'S THE FRIGGIN' FLOODING?? Have the sea levels risen any yet? 'Cuz if not, I have serious doubts they're ever going to.

While the arctic ice melts, the antarctic ice gets thicker...true fact, you can look it up. Nobody pays much mind to what goes on down under though, as it doesn't really shoehorn very well with the current thinking.

GBMelBlount
01-08-2010, 06:12 PM
This is common thinking among liberals. Develop your agenda then selectively manipulate & use only the data that supports your belief.

It's a shame the "scientists" are acquiescing in order to line their pockets as well.

Ugh! These unethical and greedy liberals!......At least they redistribute some of their ill gotten wealth to placate their voting base. :thumbsup:

Free Healthcare for all! Yippee!!!! :toofunny:

Glace
01-08-2010, 11:11 PM
This is all just government conspiracy and propoganda.

First we get the nation fat....then we make billions off of dieting.

Now we convince the world that we're all going to die because of global warming. Make billions off of "green" solutions.

Fire Haley
01-11-2010, 10:25 AM
We're already in the New Ice Age!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/09/article-0-07CF1BA6000005DC-818_468x353.jpg

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Dino 6 Rings
01-11-2010, 12:56 PM
Its winter, it gets cold...and in the Summer, it'll be hot.

its called Weather.

It happens. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it snows, sometimes there is a Tornado, sometimes, Hurricane, its the way the weather works.

I swear, if I hear "global warming" one more time from anyone around me, I'll punch them in the face.

Oh and for the record, the "global warming" money making scam artists are now trying to change the term from "global warming" to "climate change" see, that way, they can say Climate Change is why its so cold, or Climate Change is why its so hot...even though Climate Change naturally happens 4 times a year, we call it Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall.

revefsreleets
01-11-2010, 04:02 PM
And, in fact, the "Increased natural disaster Factor" is actually a complete farce. We HEAR more about it, what with increased rapidity in exchanges of information and all, but the actual INCIDENCE of catastrophic events is slightly declining.

But what are the ham-n-eggers going to think? They hear the media clamoring that "Global Warming to blame for increased catastrophic weather" and, well, Hell, the paper and the TV said so, so it MUST be true, right?

Fire Haley
01-11-2010, 09:13 PM
Follow the money

How many billions of taxpayer funds are those "scientists" grants worth to perpetuate the scam? That is the question.