Up front, I am a staunch Warmer skeptic. What happened to the 1-2 mile thick sheet of ice which covered half of North America during the Ice Age, which ended 10,000 years ago? It got warmer, and the ice melted, of course. Up to 2 MILES THICK OF ICE COVERED MILLIONS OF SQUARE MILES OF LAND, AND IT DISAPPEARED, FOLKS. What happened to the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted for about 400 years, 800-1200 AD, and grapes were grown on the now frigid, Arctic-like coast of the province of Labrador in Canada? It got colder, and the settlements were abandoned, of course.
Did man have anything to do with those dramatic climate change examples? Absolutely not. Yet now, we are supposed to believe that MAN is causing, largely through carbon dioxide emissions of his activities in the past 150 years, the temperature of the Earth to warm. A scant 40 years ago, similar scientists were warning the planet was heading towards a mini-Ice Age.
I don’t buy the Warmer hysteria, which is exactly what it is, and I am not alone in my skepticism. Read on.
A List of Quotations from Scientists Who Reject Global Warming
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by UN-IPCC are not supported by the data.” (Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock, an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming”)
“The UN-IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics…They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them.” (Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences; co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans; author of over 140 scientific papers)
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s a consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t a consensus. Period. The greatest scientists in the world are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” (Michael Crichton, biological anthropologist, “Science” writer and author)
“I am flabbergasted at what the promoters of global warming have so far gotten by with. These ideological fanatics have invented a belief complete with predictions that cannot be wrong: Rainstorms — global warming! Drought — global warming! Snow storms — global warming! Freezing winters — global warming! Warm winters — global warming! Hurricanes, tornados, tidal waves — global warming! If someone had told me thirty-years ago that a group of professionals of varied scientific disciplines would mob up together and pull this ruse off, I would have declared that person insane. Yet every day, to my chagrin and embarrassment, I see that it has happened.” (Henrik Kleist, physicist/mathematician)
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.” (Will Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University)
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen… Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” (Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems)
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” (Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering)
“Who are these scientists that present manufactured consensus as science? Who are these scientists who threaten the whole world with deadly forecasts in a desperate effort to force them to believe their postulate? Who are these scientists in the lead position of a proposition who refuse to show (much less accept or respect) qualified opposing views? They are the scientists behind manmade global warming — who represent a sharp u-turn back to the Dark Ages where dissenters were likely to find their heads in a bucket.” (Steven Hapberg; multi-disciplinary scientist)
“Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.” (Physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned from the American Physical Society for its promotion of the “Global Warming Hoax”)
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore, and UN-IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” (South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics)
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of the earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Further, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, and so on, which make up the climate.” (Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, at the University of Copenhagen; Christopher Essex, of the University of Western Ontario; and Ross McKitrick, of University of Guelph, in Canada)
“Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” (Will Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University)
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences (physics)… AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary schooltextbooks.” (Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency”)
“The US Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) report is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites… Given the strength of the science on this subject, the USGCRP must have gone to some effort to mischaracterize it by 180 degrees. In areas where I have expertise, the flood example presented here is not unique in the report (e.g., Hurricane Sandy is mentioned 31 times)… A four-year effort by the nation’s top scientists should be expected to produce a public draft report of much higher quality than this. However, given the problematic…treatment of extremes in earlier UNIPCC and US government reports, I’d think that the science community would have its act together by now… ” (Environmental studies professor, Roger Pielke Jr.)
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” (Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” (UN-IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN-IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium)
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to the natural overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” (Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere, and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.)
“The temperatures at the North and South Poles are lower now than they were in 1930. The Antarctic Peninsula, the finger of land pointing north towards Argentina (and the equator) has been getting warmer…The other 97 percent of Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960s.” (S. Fred Singer, Research Professor, George Mason University, and Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and co-authors of “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”)
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what science has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed… Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” (Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring)
“I am an environmentalist — but I strongly disagree with Mr. Gore” (Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming: the Skeptic’s View.”)
“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” (Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, “The Resilient Earth,” described as “bringing a dose of reality to climate science and the global warming debate”)
“The new scientific report directly challenges the conclusions of the UNIPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” – Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”)
“Observations are ambiguous, models are inadequate, and our understanding of the complex interactions of the climate system is incomplete.” (Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences and over 140 scientific papers)
“The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and the UN conference should be closed.” (UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn regarding Climategate and what should be done about AGW claims)
“Climatic changes have natural causes according many geological data. I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” (Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d’Annunzio in Italy; past president of the Society of Italian Geologists)
“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic so-called greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” (Atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board; served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies)
“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical. When it’s a little warmer than normal, the media yells. When it’s cooler, they say nothing.” (Chemist Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane)
“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” (Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA’s top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world’s first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new book that contends AGW is false, “The Resilient Earth” )
“Belief in climate models compares to ancient astrology.” (Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change”)
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” (Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.)
“The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that the US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” (Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age)
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” (UNIPCC Scientist Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (UNIPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions)
“[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same during the Middle Ages. It didn’t change at all. So there is something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don’t really understand. The problem does not in fact exist, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.” (Will Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University)
“The UN-IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a `true consensus’ of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the UN-IPCC numerous scientists have harshly criticized. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no `consensus’ for Copernicus’s idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; that is for politicians.” (Zbigniew Jaworowski; multidisciplinary scientist: M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc.; professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw; has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. Article in “21st Century Science & Technology”: “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase”)
“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” (Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 scientific journal articles, monographs, and papers)
“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” (Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin is the winner of the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society)
“If global cooling will come soon — scientists will lose trust. And it’s coming.” (Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change. He is far more fearful of a short span of “global cooling,” brought about by the natural processes of our solar system)
“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it. I have never been vilified so for being skeptical of global warming claims.” (Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicistwho has published more than 25 scientific papers specializing in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.)
“The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” (Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.)
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” (Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.)
“I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied the prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” (Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.)
“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” (Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers)
“It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” (Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr., who has co-authored numerous analyses of geological and seismological hazards.)
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics…What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. And that’s what I’m doing by denying AGW.” (Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.)
“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” (Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto is a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.)
“Whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” (Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University who has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.)
“My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end…The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet — not a rational scientist.” (Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department)
“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the UNIPCC…The UNIPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” (Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.)
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic AGW theory wrong!!” (NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace)
“Climate prediction is complex, with many uncertainties. The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such prediction — called ‘verification’ — is simply impossible, because we have to wait a decade or more to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.” (The American Association of State Climatologists.)
“Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as ‘climate change deniers’; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change — it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.” (Philip Stott; author of books on climate; he resigned as a member of the Scientific Alliance because he deems it important to be academically independent of all organizations, industry, and green groups — so that he can comment independently of the pressure they place on members to agree with majority opinion)
“The orthodoxy that claims global warming is a fact must be challenged.” (Nigel Calder, scientist and former editor for the New Scientist)
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” (Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s “Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Division of Oceanography” and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research)
“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet. His enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” (Engineer and aviation/space pioneer, Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine. Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”)
“To the satisfaction of a judge in the High Court in London — that there were multiple serious errors not of mere interpretation or `theory’ but of fact in Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie; that the errors all tended to invent problems where they did not exist or exaggerate them where they did; and that, therefore, the movie was political rather than scientific. The judge found in our favor, saying that `The Armageddon scenario that [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view. I wrote the scientific testimony that convinced Gore’s allies in the case that they should concede his film was seriously, serially inaccurate. Had they not made that concession, and had they not agreed to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance, the judge said he would have banned the movie.” (Christopher Monckton, author, virulent critic of the UN-IPCC methods; has begged Albert Gore to debate “global warming”; Gore refuses)
“The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No.’ In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.” (Philip Stott; author of books on climate; he resigned as a member of the Scientific Alliance because he believed it important to be academically independent of all organizations, industry, and green groups — so that he could comment independently of the pressure they place on members to agree with majority opinion)
“Climate warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases is usually presented as a gloomy catastrophe that will induce the mass extinction of animals and plants, epidemics of contagious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods, and even invasions of mutated insects resistant to insecticides. Melting glaciers are predicted to raise sea level by 3.67 meters; densely inhabited coastal areas, and great metropolises will flood. There will be mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental effects — always detrimental, never beneficial. That is the propaganda they spread.” (Zbigniew Jaworowski; multidisciplinary scientist: M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc.; professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw; has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. Article in “21st Century Science & Technology”: “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase”)
“What global warmers claim is climate science is truly dogma. There are no testable hypotheses. Instead there is consensus backing claims that are impossible to disprove. Any and all results support the theory. If the weather is warmer: `We told you so.’ If the weather is cooler: `Weather is not climate.’ More hurricanes: `Just as we said.’ African dust storms: `Ah yes, definitely proof of global warming.’ Excellent scientists refute the science they claim is behind `global warming’: `All the best scientists agree — the debate is over.’ And on and on this charade continues with no end in sight.” (Martin Hellig; multi-disciplinary scientist and mathematician)
Al Gore says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
12th February 2013 at 11:05 am
Hollow man says:
It is about control just like health care, just like the war on terror.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:10 am
Al Gore says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:12 am
Eddie says:
Climate change, regardless of the causes, is very real and very scary.
The scientists who don’t subscribe to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are mostly going along now with the data on warming. They just want to argue that it’s random and not man-made.
The ice caps are melting. The methane being released may eclipse the effects of CO2.
If the oceans warm up another 5 or 10 degrees it doesn’t present a good scenario for mankind.
No real mitigation of CO2 is going to happen, so I don’t worry about that, except to regret the likely political scenario that a carbon tax will look really good to a government that’s broke, and that further redistribution of wealth wil result from that and crap like carbon credits, which are corporate welfare.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
16
12th February 2013 at 11:42 am
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
Oh, SSS, you are just in the pocket of Big Oil, aha, aha.
Actually the entire Green movement is just communism/statism rebranded. It is all about control, period, Hollow man is spot on.
James Delingpole has a great book about it, I highly recommend it, as well his columns in the Telegraph are absolutely hilarious, British satire at its best, IMHO.
The global warming punks can never refute the following:
1. When the Earth was warmer and wetter and had higher CO2, like during the Triassic and Jurassic periods, the number of species and total biomass of the Earth was at its highest point EVER.
2. The Medieval warming period, conveniently left off all those graphs, occurred PRIOR to the Industrial Revolution and was responsible for an explosion of advances in agriculture, science and technology that became the foundation of our society today.
3. Tropical/sub tropical climes, which are warm and wet, have 10-1000X the species diversity and biomass of temperate/subartic climes.
4. Face it: You would rather live next to the beach than next to, or on, a glacier.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:44 am
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
Oh, almost forgot:
The entire IPCC and every other analysis was based on the SAME DATA set from the Climate Research Unit that was,
1) derived from THE SAME DATA POINT READINGS.
2) data point readings that were placed next to known sources of heat and CO2, like next to volcanoes and AC unit exhausts,
and 3) were NEVER shared and independently verified by other scientists.
That is not how science is done but the climate Nazi’s are not about science, they are about emotion and ideology and, quite frankly, trying to figure out a way to get rid of about 90% of humanity without getting their own hands bloody.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
12th February 2013 at 11:50 am
TPC says:
Climate change models are shit. They can’t even predict the weather a month in advance, let alone GLOBAL weather over the course of YEARS.
”
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996″
Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
The US is undergoing a drought. Other countries get hit with floods. We have record highs, they have record lows.
A farmer in Ohio thinks the weather is fine, while is brethren in Nebraska are selling the farm because they haven’t see rain in 8 months.
Once again: The weather happens to us, we don’t happen to it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
12th February 2013 at 11:56 am
TPC says:
@HZK – The globe also had higher Oxygen levels back then (supporting more animal biomass).
If we continue to completely destroy all plant life, then we may indeed cause another extinction level event.
I still think the human race would survive it though.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:58 am
Razzle says:
This may be of interest to some. My “weather source” every a.m. My apologies in advance if this has already been posted
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:00 pm
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
Hello? Hello? Anybody remember their high school biology and chemistry?
CO2 is GOOD!!
It is the other side of photosynthesis, whereby plants take up CO2 and give us OXYGEN.
Even CO (carbon monoxide) isn’t bad. It is what methanogenic bacteria eat to make acetylcoenzymeA, is produced within humans in the nervous sytem and is part of cellular respiration. There are bacteria that live near volcanic vents that just love all the CO that comes out of these vents.
Sheeit, people, remember your chemistry and biology.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:00 pm
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
@TPC: Yes, there were higher oxygen levels because there were higher CO2 levels, see my pix of photosynthesis above.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:02 pm
sangell says:
Isn’t the Martian atmosphere almost entirely CO2. Admittedly it is a thin atmosphere but there doesn’t seem to be much ‘greenhouse effect’ going on on Mars.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:10 pm
AWD says:
The partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping for decades. I’m all for global warming, winter blows. So does Al Gore.
Al Gore, what a douche
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:22 pm
majormocambo says:
The Arctic is melting at an exponential rate. The methane gas releases because of it are also increasing at an exponential rate. This is a game changer. The earth is changing and its obvious that it is happening at an ever increasing rate. The combined effects of all the positive feedback loops certainly have us at a tipping point. We are not ready for the changes. Did man cause this? Changing the naturally occurring changes by pumping into the atmosphere the CO2 from burning the hydrocarbons is not helping. How anyone with an ounce of common sense or empathy for the earths natural systems cannot see this is mind boggling. There’s some good literature out there on denial. It doesn’t matter, 95% of the population believe in some form of god. We’re doomed.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
11
12th February 2013 at 12:38 pm
Olga says:
An Alternative view on climate change …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:41 pm
TPC says:
“@TPC: Yes, there were higher oxygen levels because there were higher CO2 levels, see my pix of photosynthesis above.”
Yes, I’m well aware of it ^.^ My point was that we are destabilizing that lovely self correcting cycle by our insane slash and burn habits. To me this is the biggest issue we face from a climate perspective.
“The Arctic is melting at an exponential rate.”
Not really, see above quotes from SSS.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:02 pm
majormocambo says:
TPC, do you know north from south?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
12th February 2013 at 1:05 pm
TPC says:
My apologies, I read and applied “ant” to your arctic.
Be that as it may, we have so little data as to what transpired in the past that its idiocy to run around shouting DOOM! every time ice melts or forms.
Our models are shit, as is the data they are based on.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:10 pm
backwardsevolution says:
majorocambo – I agree with you. Yes, the earth is probably changing all on its own (agreed that that’s probably happening), but we are NOT helping matters by what we’re doing. How can you deny that we are not adding to the mess? How can you say we are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
Humans are so fu%ked up! We will start to see the effects of Fukushima within the next five years, but, hey, let’s build more of them! Yeah, that’ll work well. And then we get the fu%kheads who say, “Don’t worry, space is the next frontier.” %*#(#@%^)
Paul Craig Roberts had a good article on what man is doing to the earth. Read it! Then tell me we’re not doing any harm. All short-term thinkers should be shot because they’re flat-ass dangerous!
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/01/24/natures-capital-is-the-limiting-resource-paul-craig-roberts/
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:35 pm
Chicago999444 says:
I accept climate change as a given. I believe it is cyclical, that nothing we do can change it, and that all we can do is adapt, which will not be easy.
It might make food production much more difficult, while rendering our coastal cities much less habitable-and bankable. Disease vectors might move further north. Crops that used to be mainstays might be very difficult to grow. Cities like NYC and Boston might become impossibly expensive and difficult to operate, with large sections becoming uninhabitable and billions in investment in buildings and infrastructure having to be written off.
It really shouldn’t be a political issue and it wouldn’t be if about half the human race wasn’t comprised of fascist control freaks who use every crisis- climate change, crime waves, the prevalence of divorce, pollution, you name it- as a justification for imposing their own programs and priorities by forcible means.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:52 pm
card802 says:
So, a guy in my office, Brian, holds the stance that the 70′s cooling scare was nothing but a myth and that man caused global heating is true.
Help me destroy him, he is so fun to get pissed off.
http://2012andallthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/climate-denialist-myth-series-7-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:55 pm
Administrator says:
Card802
Send him this picture
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
12th February 2013 at 2:20 pm
Muck About says:
I have a personal opinion on global warming.
Right now and for the past 150 years, on a global basis, we are warming up the earth. There is a good chance that we would already been in the first throws of a new mini-ice-age if the industrial revolution and huge gulps of hydrocarbon burning had not occurred.
It doesn’t matter whether one “believes” in global warming or not. Global warming is happening and instead of arguing whether it is or not (believe me, please, it is!) what we need to do is start taking action to cope with what this situation will bring us.
Trouble is, human beings can’t think farther than tomorrow morning and will never take action on anything that will require action taken over 20 lifetimes. We react to black swans, never plan ahead as to what happens when that black sucker smacks you in the ass.
We will start losing cities from storm surge (think Katerina) and coastlines (think Sandy) and what do we do? Spend money we don’t have to rebuild things in the same place.
Or the drought continues in the mid-west, the Mississippi slowly dries up and all that corn and wheat can’t make it to market.
All the result of global warming – not to mention if the San Andreas will need its’ back scratched and the West Coast will have a big die off and we all will have in instant depression.
We need to figure out what to do to live with what’s coming down the pipe and remember that Ma Nature doesn’t give a rats’ ass about thee or I and we’ve been living through a very pleasant 100 years of so that will come a cropper sooner or later.
MA
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
12th February 2013 at 4:09 pm
Eddie says:
My comment above must be a record for me for thumbs down. That’s okay…all of you will no doubt die an excruciating death, gasping for one last breath of fetid methane laden air, as the oceans rise and mutant shrimp nibble your balls off.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
3
12th February 2013 at 4:50 pm
SSS says:
“We will start losing cities from storm surge (think Katerina) and coastlines (think Sandy) and what do we do? Spend money we don’t have to rebuild things in the same place.”
—-Murky aka Muck About
Once again, Muck “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking” About spews forth blather. If you build a city 18 feet BELOW sea level and expect a levee system to withstand a Category 4 (Category 5 before landfall) hurricane storm surge, then you’re just fucking stupid. If you build 12-bedroom beach houses on East Coast sand bars (think the Outer Banks of North Carolina, most of Long Island, and the Jersey shore) and expect them not to be flattened by 90 mph nor’easters, then you’re just fucking stupid.
But here’s the rub, mate. Since the END of the Ice Age 10-12,000 years ago, the oceans have risen about 425 feet, or about an average of 3 1/2 feet per century if you use the 12,000 year time frame. Do you know how much the oceans have risen in the past century? 8 stinking inches, or one-fifth the average over 120 centuries. And the globe is getting warmer, the oceans could rise up to 30 feet by 2100, and Murky’s beloved Florida will disappear under the waves?
Give me a fucking break.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
3
12th February 2013 at 5:04 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
About 8,000 years ago, the Persian gulf was actually a paradise. Then the Indian Ocean flooded in, driving all the humans living there to higher ground.
The reason every major religion has a “world flooded” story is because humans have always built their homes in flood zones and then been forced to relocate when nature followed its course.
@MA-”We need to figure out what to do to live with what’s coming down the pipe and remember that Ma Nature doesn’t give a rats’ ass about thee or I and we’ve been living through a very pleasant 100 years of so that will come a cropper sooner or later.”
We’ve lived through a pretty pleasant past several hundred years. Their will be a reckoning, and more than likely its those along those coasts that will bear the brunt of it.
Unless of course Yellowstone goes SuperVolcano on us. Then the USA as we know it will cease to exist. Hell, such an occurrence could very well set off San Andreas or other Pacific Rim angriness.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 5:23 pm
Phack says:
Wow,
First of all, I have to say that SSS has some anger issues. Forget Global Warming conspiracies, a stroke is gonna get you first, buddy.
Those hotbed of conspirators, the Union of Concerned Scientists, has this to say about GW (or human induced climate change).
Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
There is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the Earth is warming—and it’s now clear that human activity has a significant part in it. UCS continues to support and communicate vital research on climate change, including the human “fingerprints” of its cause, the impending consequences, and the urgent need for realistic solutions.
In the articles listed below explore the latest climate science, the evidence of global warming, and the expert scientific consensus that human activity is the major cause of—and therefore solution to—this urgent global crisis.
BASICS OF GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE
National Climate Impacts Assessment 2013 Webinar Series
Does Snow and Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change?
Certainty vs. Uncertainty: Understanding Scientific Terms About Climate Change
Understanding the Urgency of Climate Change
Global Thermometer Still Climbing
The Causes of Global Warming: A Global Warming FAQ
Latest Climate Science (2009) Underscores Urgency
The Importance of Sound Science in Public Policy
Findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Mitigation
Highlights from the First Section of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Hurricanes and Climate Change
Global Warming Human Fingerprints
What We Do Know About Climate Change
Science of Global Warming
SSS is beyond hope, but reality based people may want to read it.
And what changes do these horrible socialists want to impose on the rest of us?
Placing limits on the amount of carbon that polluters are allowed to emit.
Investing in clean and efficient energy technologies, industries, and approaches;
Expanding the use of renewable energy;
Increasing the efficiency of the cars we drive ;
Reducing tropical deforestation and wildfire risks; and
Taking other steps to transform our energy system to one that is cleaner and less dependent on oil, coal, and other fossil fuels.
Unless your name is Koch, it sounds pretty reasonable.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
12th February 2013 at 5:46 pm
SSS says:
“Wow, first of all, I have to say that SSS has some anger issues. Forget Global Warming conspiracies, a stroke is gonna get you first, buddy.”
—-Lacking Phacks
First of all, Phack Fuck, I like Muck About. He’s a good guy, and my attack on him is what’s known here on TBP as a “love tap.” I was just trying to stir up a hornet’s nest, and he knows it.
Second, your reliance on the bullshit put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists places you firmly in the circle of committed dumbasses. You may even have a leadership role.
UCS is nothing but a collection of liberal, pseudo-scientists who have consistently supported a statist, anti-business, government-led regulatory role for their unsupportable conclusions on global warming. UCS has even gone so far as to put out attack dog propaganda against dissenting scientists, like the list I provided in the article I posted. Scientists have always disagreed, but what other “scientific” organization can you name which goes out of its way to DISCREDIT THE CREDENTIALS of its critics?
“There is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community that the Earth is warming—and it’s now clear that human activity has a significant part in it.”
—-Phack Fuck posting bullshit from the UCS
Question: How much CO2 going into the atmosphere is created by human activity? Answer: 2%.
Third, regarding your list of “things to do” about global warming. Except for “reducing the wildfire risks,” the U.S. government is already doing every single thing on that list. In spades. The U.S. in 2012 produced the same amount of CO2 emissions as it did in 1992. How did that happen? By doing everything on that list you provided.
As for wildfires, which ARE getting worse, guess who’s the biggest culprit? Environmental groups, the U.S. Forest Service, the Deparment of Agriculture, and down along the Arizona southern border, illegal aliens carelessly using campfires. Why? Because they refuse to let private business partners into the national forests to thin the fucking forests of excess trees and undergrowth. It might result in logging roads. Oh, my. We can’t have that, can we? Some fucking obscure fern may get trampled by a tire on a logging truck. Result? Crown fires (do you know what a crown fire is, Phack Fuck?) that get out of control and burn an area the size of Rhode Island before you can say, “Mother, may I?”
I await your further wisdom, Phack.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 6:52 pm
SSS says:
“My comment above must be a record for me for thumbs down.”
—-Eddie
Eddie gets 9 thumbs down on a comment and starts to pout. What a rookie.
Get back to me when you get TWO “hidden comments” in a single thread, one of which was a total shutout (not a single thumbs up). And, listen to this, every single comment I made, a total of 10, achieved pink screen status. At that point, I’ll offer you a shoulder to cry on.
Your TBP Punching Bag,
SSS
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
12th February 2013 at 7:07 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
@Phuckwad – Its easier to believe the status quo than to pull your head out of your ass and look at the info for yourself.
Phuck seeks further advice from the media:
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 7:17 pm
Eddie says:
SSS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 7:25 pm
Novista says:
I thought the Global Warming term had been deprecated in preference for Climate Change. Heh. That makes it easier to explain anomalies.
Consensus used to work for them until that got blown out of the sky. Now it is Phackwit’s “There is no longer any doubt in the expert scientific community … ” i.e., our scientists are better that yours. Ours are pure and noble and yours are all paid by Exxon. Or something.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 9:38 pm
TPC says:
Fuck I wish I was paid by Exxon. Do you know how much they pay their chemists?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
12th February 2013 at 9:41 pm
Muck About's Red Ass says:
SSS – I am tired of being kicked around by young whippersnappers like you. I have forgot more than you know (seriously – at my age, memory loss and something else I forget are really problems). I post a perfectly reasonable comment about the stupidity of rebuilding a city where it has previously been washed away on more than one occassion, and you jump in and say I “do not know what am talking about.
Do you dispute my point? No. And I know for a fact the oceans have risen more than 8 inches in the last century. I was there, and I can tell you it has risen way more than that.
There is this rock that I used to stand on at the beach, when I was younger, and the waves would gently lap at my ankles and lightly moisten my mighty johnson, but when I stand on that same rock today, it is halfway up my thigh and almost 4/5 of my johnson is now underwater. Who are you going to believe – me, or some asshole scientist? 8 inches my ass. It has risen over 2 feet (not talking about my johnson there, but the same applies).
So, sonny, pull your head in before I have to go all 19th century on your ass.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
12th February 2013 at 10:24 pm
Bob says:
Thanks SSS. An excellent collection of logical, reasoned counterpoints to the GW hysteria. When scientists attempt to discredit other scientists rather than responding to their efforts and observations with further scientific inquirym they are practicing politics, not science.
At any given time in the Earth’s geologic history, it is either in a cycle of warming or cooling according to immense forces beyond our control. Can mankind inflict superficial scars on the planet? Yes. Can we deplete certain easily-reached resources. Yes. Can w pollute? Yes.
Can we chnage global cycles of climate change? No. As one poster discussed, the Yellowstone volcano could render the argument moot in short order.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
12th February 2013 at 10:31 pm
llpoh says:
Eddie does not like thumbs down or to be doppelganged.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
12th February 2013 at 10:31 pm
llpoh says:
Damn – wrong pic. Here is for Eddie:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
12th February 2013 at 10:32 pm
Eddie says:
Admin:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
12th February 2013 at 10:34 pm
Eddie says:
llpoh
Blow me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
2
12th February 2013 at 10:46 pm
Makati1 says:
Hmm… Climate change… Glacial ice…
When the Ice Age ended, it raised the oceans around the world. THAT is where the water went. The current warming is also erasing the glaciers of the world that are left and raising the oceans even more. Perhaps it will take the Greenland ice cap disappearing and reappearing as 20 feet of water in NYC to change your mind? Be patient. It may happen in your life time, but you will see the oceans rise to the occasion. IF Antarctica were to melt, there would be no coastal cities left and many states and countries would disappear under the oceans.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:06 pm
llpoh says:
Eddie – that’s the spirit! You may get out of that skirt and graduate to pants one day, and who knows, you may even grow some hair on your chest.
Thumbs down, and the willingness to accumulate them in vast quantities, is the mark of a TBP warrior. SSS is one of them, even if he does tend to overdo the thumbs down just a tad. Better that than a thumb whore.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
12th February 2013 at 11:19 pm
SSS says:
“When the Ice Age ended, it raised the oceans around the world. THAT is where the water went.”
—-Makati 1
Wrong, moosebreath. The main factor for the oceans rising both during and after the Ice Age, up to the present, was/is the thermal expansion of ocean water as it warms up. The Earth got warmer, the oceans got warmer, the water expanded, started to rise, and kept rising. Get it?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:15 am
SSS says:
“Perhaps it will take the Greenland ice cap disappearing and reappearing as 20 feet of water in NYC to change your (SSS) mind? Be patient. It may happen in your life time.”
—-Makati 1
You ignorant slut. The Greenland ice cap contains about 2 1/2 fucking MILLION CUBIC MILES of ice.
Here, let me put that in numerics just so you won’t mistake what I’m saying. 2,500,000.
Now, the WARMERS, mind you, like to say that the Greenland ice cap is melting at the rate of 92 cubic miles of ice per year and show pictures and films of huge chunks of ice calving off the glaciers and splashing into the ocean. Very spectacular and very scary to the ignorant.
Do the fucking math, Makati. At 92 cubic miles per year, it would take the Greenland ice cap 27 thousand years to disappear. Here, let me put that in numerics just so you won’t mistake what I’m saying. 27,000.
Jesus, and you warn me that it may happen in my lifetime. Get a grip on reality, man.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:32 am
SSS says:
“IF Antarctica were to melt, there would be no coastal cities left and many states and countries would disappear under the oceans.”
—-Makati 1
Antactica is getting colder and the ice cap is expanding. How does it feel to be totally dismembered and disemboweled on every fucking word you said?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:38 am
AKAnon says:
Sorry, late to the party. Thanks for posting this, SSS-good stuff. FWIW:
Numerous university types I know and interact with, largely hardcore GW fanatics (literal terminology) have been forced to rephrase their grant proposals “although the temperature in Alaska has remained constant or declined in the last 10 years, the trend is warming…” The PDO shifted back to the cold cycle a few years back. Just as it shifted to warm in 1976, when the much heralded extreme warming in the Arctic began (note that it was a step function, not a trend. If you don’t know what the PDO is and give a flying fuck about science, google Pacific Decadonal Oscillation). Shit, maybe it will warm back up in another 30 years. Overall/big picture, of course it is warming-has been since the last ice age (same as each of the preceding inter-glacial periods), and will continue until the earth enters the next ice age.
I attended a “crysophere impacts” conference a couple years ago-again, mostly GW fan egghead types. At the wrap-up, each attendee was asked what challenges we thought should be addressed. I suggested greater transparency from the scientific community, noting that the IPCC e-mail cover-up was a blow to its credibility. Steve said it best “They are the scientists behind manmade global warming — who represent a sharp u-turn back to the Dark Ages where dissenters were likely to find their heads in a bucket.” (Steven Hapberg; multi-disciplinary scientist)”. I was berated for questioning the wisdom of the “esteemed” IPCC, when all I had done was pointed out the (duh) obvious conclusion that their emails instructing each other to delete the data that didn’t fit their theory called their credibility into question. Yep, that’s the scientific method I learned about in school. Back when we were entering another ice age.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:17 am
SSS says:
AKAnon
Thanks. Temperature stations used for computer climate models in places like Alaska and about 6 million square miles of Russia, both of which have trended colder, have rapidly disappeared or diminished in numbers. I just can’t figure this out. I know it will come to me some day.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:35 am
majormocambo says:
Question: How much CO2 going into the atmosphere is created by human activity? Answer: 2%.
You can’t take numbers at their face value.
When there is more CO2 released outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels, there is a surplus. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
By the way, 29 divided by 750 is 4%.
In any case, you wear a big head, which is why your hershey highway is so big.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
12th February 2013 at 1:54 am
AKAnon says:
Major-Is the climate generally warming? Yes, as noted above, it is, and will continue warming, in general, until it doesn’t. Then it will, in general cool, until it doesn’t. And so on. Is anthropomorphic CO2 a factor? Maybe. I can’t rule it out as a contributing factor, since the asswipe “authorities” on the subject have tainted and deleted so much of the data. Is anthropomorphic CO2 the primary factor? I am skeptical, but see above. It seems too convenient to me. Someone smart once observed that if God didn’t exist, man would have to create him. Anthropomorphic global warming (excuse me, climate change, when the data doesn’t support GW) fits the bill.
I know an authority on Arctic permafrost (actually several), who has data in Alaska indicating that the carbon that is and will (inevitably) be released from melting permafrost, in the form of methane (powerful GHG) or CO2 (depending on conditions during thaw, is or will exceed all the GHG produced by mankind on the planet. On an annual basis. The conclusion (mine, not his) is that any effort made to reduce GHG in one nation, or even world wide, is like trying to warm Lake Erie by pissing in it. Perhaps helpful, but not very meaningful.
“Significant amounts of carbon are now sequestered in perennially frozen soils (permafrost) and within the active layer, which thaw every summer but completely re-freeze during the following winter, where the organic matter decomposition is slow. That is why the majority of northern ecosystems are apparently carbon sinks at present time. Climate warming and drying caused by this warming permafrost degradation will change this situation. A thicker, warmer and dryer active layer will be much friendlier for microbial activities during the summer. Significantly later freeze-up of this layer in winter and warmer winter temperatures (that means much more unfrozen water in it) will considerably enhance the microbial activities during the winter. So, the arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems could turn into a source of CO2 (especially on an annual basis) very soon. Further permafrost degradation and formation of taliks will amplify these changes because a layer that will not freeze during the entire winter (talik) will appear above the permafrost, where microbial activities will not cease during the winter. In the area of “wet thermokarst” formation, new and significant sources of CH4 will be developing.” http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
12th February 2013 at 2:38 am
majormocambo says:
oh, and there are 680 thousand cubic miles of ice in Greenland …
Still going to take a long time to melt, but get your facts right if your going to try to sound like some authority on the issue. Here’s a book you might want to read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
12th February 2013 at 2:51 am
AKAnon says:
Anthropogenic. Getting late, even out west.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 2:55 am
Eddie says:
Just for llpoh
You should know by now that whatever I am, it isn’t a thumb whore. It was just interesting to me that I apparently managed to piss off both climate change deniers and tree huggers alike by stating what I believe…i.e. that climate change is a problem, but that mitigation is politically impossible… In other words most people would prefer to believe (a) no problem exists, or (b) that by mandating lower carbon emissions, somehow we can fix the problem.
The characteristic both groups share is that they WANT to be optimistic…and the truth is that we are fucking doomed six ways from Sunday.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 8:26 am
Christopher Harrison says:
Is the question whether or not the earth’s climate is changing, or if those changes are attributable to human activities? If it’s the former, then I’m not even willing to engage because I write you off as a fool who ignores considerable evidence around you. If it’s the latter, I’m not too willing to engage because this has become a pure litmus test issue that serves no useful purpose other than to divide people into ideological camps.
Personally, I believe that it is at least PARTIALLY attributable to our pouring massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 200 years — but that’s really neither here nor there, for the reason I stated above. That’s why I tend to spend very little time on it.
The truth is that we already have proven methods to at least mitigate this issue: PLANTING TREES. Trees act not only as giant carbon sinks, taking up CO2 and using the carbon to create biomass — they are also giant water pumps that pull water from several meters beneath the earth’s surface and then transpire the vapor through their leaves. It has been proven several times over that by planting trees and re-establishing forests, we can actually influence weather patterns and increase rainfall. Not to mention the way that trees help to cool surface temperature by providing shade.
Of course, adopting this kind of strategy on the scale needed requires a massive re-think of many of our closely-held beliefs. One is our promotion of annual agriculture over perennials, in spite of the greater yields we can get through perennials (not to mention soil building instead of soil mining). Another is our addiction to “economic growth” that commonly treats forests as places to be felled as quickly as possible to either turn the living trees into dead money (timber) or to clear them out of the way for more “meaningful” economic activity.
Permaculture shows us how we can do these kinds of things. The main question is whether we will be willing or able to throw off our massive cultural baggage and take the leap to embrace a more sustainable and resilient way of living in the world.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
12th February 2013 at 8:57 am
SSS says:
“Is the question whether or not the earth’s climate is changing, or if those changes are attributable to human activities? If it’s the former, then I’m not even willing to engage because I write you off as a fool who ignores considerable evidence around you.”
—-Christopher Harrison
Who in the world could argue against “climate change”? Certainly not me. These Warmer worshippers changed the subject from (anthropogenic) global warming to climate change when they saw they were not gaining political traction with their Warmer label. Maybe they’re not so stupid after all. It is working better in the political, media, and educational arenas I have to admit.
The highly qualified scientists who are skeptical of global warming are being shut down and shut out. The media just ignores them, and government grants to their climate research have all but disappeared, while the grants to supporters of Warming Theory has exploded. And any critical thinking about Global Warming in the public education system is virtually non-existent.
That’s my beef. The debate on this issue is so one-sided it’s sickening. And that’s why I posted this article here on TBP. I suppose I should have posted an article on “The Shrinking Size of Bikinis,” but this is much more fun, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
12th February 2013 at 12:05 pm
napari says:
I thought by now everyone realized that “climate change” was just being used by obama to funnel money to his campaign contributors to the tune of billions!
You know…reward your friends and….
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:10 pm
Llpoh says:
Eddie – just a bit of fun! SSS started it. BTW – it is a fine art to piss off everyone with one comment. When you can irritate the left, right, and middle with a single comment, you are starting to get the hang of things.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
12th February 2013 at 3:09 pm
napari says:
follow up….the POTUS has committed 6 billion dollars in the name of green energy to foriegn countries. I know how TBP people just luv to give away money we dont have to foriegn countries sooooooo just remember that the left wing pays close attention to what their supporters want and if its green energy their base wants they are willing to obey! If some or a lot or ALL of that 6 billion goes to democratic campaign contributors dont be surprised the betrayal is ultimately on the left wing nuts who are trying to save the planet!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 3:22 pm
SSS says:
“oh, and there are 680 thousand cubic miles of ice in Greenland … Still going to take a long time to melt, but get your facts right if your going to try to sound like some authority on the issue.”
—-majomocambo @ SSS
I did have my facts (almost) straight, but I was writing from pure recall and mixed up cubic miles with cubic kilometers. It should have been 2,500,000 cubic kilometers of ice in the Greenland ice cap divided by 92 cubic kilometers of ice lost annually. Still comes out to over 27,000 years for all the ice to disappear.
Oh, and if your figure of 680,000 cubic miles of ice is correct (figures vary widely on the ice cap depending which source you read), then that equates to over 2,800,000 cubic kilometers. That comes out to over 30,000 years for the ice to disappear. Thanks for adding another 3,000 years to my very conservative number.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
12th February 2013 at 4:07 pm
majormocambo says:
Your lucky your not in my class, I’d have to fail you. You first quoted 92 cubic miles of ice melt per year. Then you said 92 cubic kilometers. Whatever, its confusing watching your math. For the record, the consensus is that there are approx 680000 cubic miles of ice. The assumed linear ice melt of 92 miles per year yields 7391 years. Better start preparing. The assumption of linear melt is a huge one. It is more than likely exponential. Your going to have to get through the math for dummies before I try to explain what exponential means, and the consequences of it. In any case, Greenland doesn’t matter. The Arctic does. What happens there will have a profound effect on everything human. Cheers and stay out of the sun, its affecting your mathematical capabilities.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
12th February 2013 at 6:32 pm
SSS says:
“Your lucky your not in my class, I’d have to fail you. ……… Your going to have to get through the math for dummies.”
—-majormocambo
And YOU’RE going to have to get through English for dummies, dickhead. Do you know what the contraction “you’re” means? It means “you are,” and you fucked it up twice by using “your” (see above quote). Do you know what the possessive pronoun “your” means? It means belonging to you. What a fucking maroon.
And I didn’t fuck up the math. I used cubic miles instead of cubic kilometers in my original statement. It STILL comes out to 27,000 years to melt the Greenland ice cap. What is it about the math that you don’t understand? Do you want me to walk you through this like a child in kindergarten? Jesus, you’re (YOU ARE) dense.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
12th February 2013 at 7:03 pm
Administrator says:
I love TBP debates. They’re always so civil.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
12th February 2013 at 7:15 pm
llpoh says:
Given SSS’s recent comment “With that, my arguments went up in smoke, so I manned up and said something rarely seen on this site”, I think the following is the only appropriate solution for Major and SSS:
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
12th February 2013 at 7:23 pm
SSS says:
Admin and llpoh
Stay out of this.
I’m just getting “warmed up” (heh) with warmer PRIVATEmocambo. Majormocambo, my ass. Ten bucks says this clueless lizard crawls under a rock and morphs into a cricket.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
12th February 2013 at 8:13 pm
majormocambo says:
I’ll make the math easy, I’ll round to some nice easy numbers. Maybe your abacus doesn’t have the precision needed. Lets take 680000 / 50. Cross one zero off both numbers, you get 68000 / 5. 5 goes into 6 1 time with the remainder of 1. 5 goes into 18 3 times with a remainder of 3. 5 goes into 30 6 times with a remainder of 0. So the answer is 13600. I did it in my head. Maybe one of the segments in one of the digits on your geriatric big number calculator isn’t working giving you an erroneous answer. My writing and English is terrible, your correct on that.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
12th February 2013 at 11:59 pm
AKAnon says:
The Major re-enters the fray. Got to give him credit for persistence, if not for common sense. So illuminate us all, why are you dividing 680,000 by 50? Does 50 have some significance to this thread, or was it just a nice, round number? Hey I’ve got one: 1,000, divided by 100, hmmm, carry the two, cross off one zero, and I get 10. Did that in my head and everything. What were we talking about again?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 12:36 am
SSS says:
majormacombo
WTF? Am I dealing with giant boulder? Here’s what I originally said ……. please try and read it word for word.
“The Greenland ice cap contains about 2 1/2 fucking MILLION CUBIC MILES of ice.
Here, let me put that in numerics just so you won’t mistake what I’m saying. 2,500,000.
Now, the WARMERS, mind you, like to say that the Greenland ice cap is melting at the rate of 92 cubic miles of ice per year and show pictures and films of huge chunks of ice calving off the glaciers and splashing into the ocean. Very spectacular and very scary to the ignorant.
Do the fucking math, Makati. At 92 cubic miles per year, it would take the Greenland ice cap 27 thousand years to disappear. Here, let me put that in numerics just so you won’t mistake what I’m saying. 27,000.”
NOW I ALREADY ADMITTED THAT I SHOULD HAVE SAID CUBIC KILOMETERS INSTEAD OF CUBIC MILES. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE MATH. I COULD HAVE SAID “CUBIC FARTS.” STILL THE SAME RESULT. 2,500,000 DIVIDED BY 92 IS 27,174 ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.
Goddamnit, man. Read for fucking comprehension.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:09 am
SSS says:
“My writing and English is terrible, your correct on that.”
—-majormocambo
After I take the time to point out the difference between “your” and “you’re,” Major Mumbo Jumbo comes back with that.
Jesus, this conversation is getting really frustrating. I’m searching desperately for the “Beam Me Up, Scotty” button.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:20 am
AKAnon says:
I don’t know from where majorm hails, but in my neck of the woods, I have a saying for folks like him: “It’s hard to find good help this far north”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
12th February 2013 at 1:45 am
majormocambo says:
So you are dividing cubic kilometers by cubic miles. I wish Scotty would beam you up. One less dumb ass on earth. The reference to the writing and English was done on purpose and you took it hook, line, and sinker. Your one dumb ass. Have another beer.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
12th February 2013 at 1:50 am
majormocambo says:
@AKAnon
Sorry, I was a bit vague. Some people say 50 cubic miles are melting per year, and other people quote numbers up to 92 cubic miles per year. One thing they all say is that there are 680 thousand cubic miles of total ice. So if you take 680000 / 50 you get 13,600. If you take 680000 / 92, you get 7,391. Both numbers are significantly less than SSS’s final number. Pretty simple grade school math. My next lesson will be the exponential function. For homework, please view the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
12th February 2013 at 2:10 am
SSS says:
Note to self:
“Do not argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
12th February 2013 at 9:50 am
majormocambo says:
Note to self:
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
12th February 2013 at 10:23 am
AGW – On People who Live in Glass Houses | The GOLDEN RULE says:
[...] Global Warming? Many Reputable Scientists Say No. (theburningplatform.com) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
12th February 2013 at 8:51 pm