It may have been cold in your neck of the woods, but the notion that it was cold planet-wide, or that sunspot activity was leading us into global cooling is not supported by the evidence, according to the latest from the National Climate Data Center. In fact, this winter still ranks in the top-ten of warm.


Quote:

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the ninth warmest on record for February and the eighth warmest for boreal winter (December-February) and the January-February year-to-date period. Warmest above-average temperatures during December 2008 - February 2009 were present across Mexico, eastern and northern Europe, western Russia, southern Asia, and most of the continental U.S. Cooler-than-average temperatures occurred across Alaska's panhandle, southern Canada, the northern U.S., and southern and eastern Russia. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Arguments from both sides of this tiresome issue. I guess I have a tendency to trust the ones who have no intention of sticking their hand in my pocket. If somebody wants my money, they'll usually say anything and have already sold their soul to the devil.


Quote:

Global Warming Is Running Out of Hot Air by Phyllis Schlafly 03/24/2009 START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE The coldest winter in a decade in many places, with snow in unlikely cities such as New Orleans, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming. And a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming. Nevertheless, according to Al Gore and the mainstream media, "the debate is over" proving that global warming exists, that humans are causing it and that "science is settled." But 680 of the world's leading scientists, economists and policy analysts, who met March 8-10 in New York City for the second Heartland International Conference, beg to differ. The title of the conference expressed their doubts: "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?" These authorities assert that scientists worldwide do not agree that global warming is human induced (in scientific lingo, anthropogenic). They do not even agree that the Earth is still warming. Many scientists and other observers have come to realize that global warming is no longer a question of science but is all about politics and money. Their slogan, cap-and-trade, was best explained by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, as "a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch." President Obama is being pressured by James McCarthy, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to rush his carbon tax through Congress before the American people discover the lie in Obama's promise that "95 percent of working families" will not see their taxes rise by "a single dime." In fact, his own budget shows that taxes will rise for 100 percent of Americans for the sake of global warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change plans to use a treaty to reduce America's use of energy and therefore our standard of living, while forcing us to subsidize energy production in other countries and close our eyes to the omission of China and India from any obligation. There has been virtually no overall global warming since 2001. Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, reminded the conference that temperatures "have been plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie." Eagle Forum's observer at the Heartland Conference, Pat Carlson of Dallas, reported that its most interesting speaker was Czech Republic President and rotating President of the European Union Vaclav Klaus, who has taken a bold position against the prevailing propaganda about global warming. He described talking to global warming advocates as similar to trying to make "well prepared arguments" using "relevant data" to former East European Communist bureaucrats: "It all fell into emptiness ... they did not listen ... they did not argue back ... they considered you uninformed ... a complainer." Klaus has written a book called "Blue Planet in Green Shackles -- What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" He had previously carried his politically incorrect views to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he reminded the countries promoting the global warming agenda that they "had not fulfilled even the relatively modest Kyoto Protocol obligations." As a resident of St. Louis, which boasts a world-class zoo noted especially for its bears housed in their natural habitats, I've been concerned because of the many television spots warning that global warming may make polar bears extinct. I can now stop worrying; the Senate's expert on global warming, James Inhofe, R-Okla., has discovered that polar bears are actually more plentiful than they were 40 years ago. This was confirmed at the Heartland Conference by Ph.D. polar bear biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor. He said polar bears are definitely not disappearing; their numbers are holding steady at about 24,000. At the Heartland Conference, the science of global warming was actually discussed and debated. That was very different from the United Nations conferences Carlson previously attended, where global warming caused by humans was accepted as fact without debate. The advocates of a U.N. treaty to force the United States to reduce our use of energy are extraordinarily shy about debating the science of the issue. We've yet to hear any of them explain or apologize for their hysterical support of the false assumption of the 1960s that millions of people would starve to death in the 1980s because of overpopulation, or of the 1970s theory that global cooling would kill our agriculture. Christopher Horner's new book, called "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed," gives many, many examples of how they not only refuse to debate, but are malicious against anyone who dares to contradict their view.

I know what you mean. The people that argued that smoking doesn't cause cancer warned us that should the other side prevail, people would lose their freedom to smoke inside of offices, airplanes and restaurants, and they were right. Of course, they weren't right about the police state that would ensue, along with economic chaos as people stopped going out to eat and the travel/restaurant-industrial complex collapsed.

More importantly, isn't the truth of a proposition independent of the consequences of accepting it as true?  Are you telling us that you lean towards skepticism, simply because global warming would be an inconvenient or expensive truth?  When the car starts making a strange noise, do we respond by turning up the radio instead of taking it a mechanic for a look-see?  

Phyllis Schlafly isn't a scientist - she is an ideologue, and it is her job to try to bend reality to her pre-conceived notions.  We had some hard freezes in Florida this year (killed a few of my citrus trees), but that is nothing new - it happens every so often. And when it was 24 degrees here, the TV showed that places like Salt Lake City and Denver were up around 65 degrees (could have been that durn liberal media)... the total amount of cold was not greater, but the winds pushed it around in a somewhat unusual way. Hard to understand averages over large areas, or trends that involve decades, but as Phylis knows, it is easy to sow doubt when the Southeast US gets a bit of snow.

But she does reference the 700 or so scientists that have come to the conclusion that it's bunk.

Now you post a response and you'll win by sheer volume, cuz I despise arguing about this subject. I merely posted what I did to show that there are two points of view.

Brew wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 5:16pm:

But she does reference the 700 or so scientists that have come to the conclusion that it's bunk.

700 people, including scientists, economists, policy makers, and 'opinion leaders.' Why anyone would listen to an economist or policy maker to determine if global warming was actually happening is beyond me. How many of those 700 are scientists, and of the scientists, how many are climatologists?  

Also, one thing confuses me. For years, the opponents of global warming said that there was no warming. Then they said that there is warming, but it is natural and beyond the control of humans. Then a few months ago, they started warning of catastrophic cooling. All of this based on very little in the way of evidence. How does the research for each position stack up??

Didn't take long to discover that it isn't a scientific meeting, but rather a media event disguised as a science event:


Quote:

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:    * Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:          "The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."      So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)    * At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.    * At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)    * Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

AIDS is God's response to people acting gay. Women consent to sex when they marry, so husbands can never rape their wives. This I know, cause Phylis Schlafly told me so.

You win.

I'm done.

And what do the climatologists have to say about the warming that took place on Mars?  

The extrapolated estimates of [CO2] in the past are averages over long time periods, not snapshots in time.  New research has shown that the increases in [CO2] in the past lag the increase in global average temperature.  

The thing I find most interesting is that ANY life on this planet is able to adapt to changes.  If it were not we would not be here.  Life will expand into new habitats that become unsuitable for others.  

The whole bit of global warming, climate change et. al. has become a vehicle for wealth redistribution through fear mongering.  Things were much different 14,000 years ago and life some how managed to muddle through the change in climate.

I am all for utilizing alternate energy sources, conservation through efficiency, efficient and cost effective recycling but I think it is stupid to rebuild a city on a river delta plain and expect people to ride bicycles every where and cook on dung fires.  I don't see Al Gore living in a Wicciup and cooking over a dung fire to cook the soybeans he grew.  What I see is knee-jerk reactionism to an unfounded theory.  The debate is far from over.  What is being proposed by some will cause more hardship and suffering very quickly for many instead of solving problems.  It is thoughtless reactionism.

I am looking forward to having palm trees in my yard and ocean front property.  

I believe our ancestors came from Mars.

Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

And what do the climatologists have to say about the warming that took place on Mars?

James Lovelock has said quite a bit about it - he is the foremost exo-climatologist in the world, and he thinks humans will cook the planet - not to anywhere near the boiling point, merely enough to trigger a famine that will kill about 5 billion people.


Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

The extrapolated estimates of [CO2] in the past are averages over long time periods, not snapshots in time.  New research has shown that the increases in [CO2] in the past lag the increase in global average temperature.

Yes, and no. Once the planet starts its initial heating (which in the past was likely due to external factors like the sun), ice melts and soil is exposed to oxidation, which leads to an even greater rise in CO2. Higher temperatures increase microbial activity, which raises CO2.  Massive volcanic activity could also release lots of CO2 along with dust ... and the planet would cool initially and then heat up later when the dust clears to let more light into a CO2 rich atmosphere.

Your observation does not negate the fact that carbon dioxide increases the retention of heat in the atmosphere, and that this basic fact of physics is not being disputed.    


Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

The thing I find most interesting is that ANY life on this planet is able to adapt to changes.  If it were not we would not be here.  Life will expand into new habitats that become unsuitable for others.

Yes, but I am not worried about 'life' surviving. I am more interested in civilization. How much of that change can 6 billion people gracefully deal with, given the fact that our agriculture and fisheries are dependent on having something approximately like what we have today??



Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

The whole bit of global warming, climate change et. al. has become a vehicle for wealth redistribution through fear mongering.

Really?  I find that rather incredible!! How much wealth are we talking about?  Where is all the wealth going to? Concern over global warming has yet to result in significant economic changes as far as I can see, with the possible exception of Denmark (and they are becoming less dependent on other countries for energy, so it seems they are keeping more of their wealth, not transferring it to others.  The only treaty on global warming (Kyoto) wasn't ratified by the US, and isn't being seriously enforced anywhere.  



Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

but I think it is stupid to rebuild a city on a river delta plain and expect people to ride bicycles every where and cook on dung fires.  I don't see Al Gore living in a Wicciup and cooking over a dung fire to cook the soybeans he grew.

I don't think most people concerned with climate change want everyone to ??rebuild cities on flood plains?? or ??cook on dung fires?? or ??live in wicciups??.  We don't have to ... a transition away from fossil fuels need not be massively painful.

For example, the average person commutes less than 50 miles a day, our power plant turbines spin night and day, with most of that energy at night being wasted.  Using existing technology for battery powered electric cars, we could utilize that wasted energy to meet 75% of the nation's commuting needs, cut the demand for imported oil and reduce smog, using our current grid running at normal capacity.  Over time, we can bring on more wind, solar, and nuclear, and phase out coal or other dirtier fuels.  


Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

I am looking forward to having palm trees in my yard and ocean front property.

What's your current elevation?

Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

And what do the climatologists have to say about the warming that took place on Mars?

Some older news:


Quote:

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too 17:00 16 May 2007 by Michael Le Page See all climate myths in our special feature. There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Quote:

5 October 2005 Global warming on Mars? Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. ... Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth... START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Quote:

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News April 4, 2007 Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found. New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays. ... "The darkened surfaces warm up, heating up the air just above the surface. This encourages formation of dust devils, which sweep up dust and [further] darken the surface," Fenton explained. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

 



Paul98 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

Life will expand into new habitats that become unsuitable for others.

Should a melting of Greenland's ice in 75 years alter the Gulf Stream's northern reaches more southernly, England would face crucial agricultural misfortune.  I don't think they will all want to move.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

WE PROTEST ON GLOBAL WARMING.ITS DANGEROUS FOR ALL OF US

Svenn

Quote:

Global Warming Is Running Out of Hot Air by Phyllis Schlafly

LOL....You kill me. Now here is a perfect example of how the internet allows people to delve deeper and deeper into "information" with which they agree and ignore or slam other ideas as liberal conspiracies....for example...or worse. Newspapers at least forced one to note that there are smart people around that have differing points of view.

It's impossible to stop, I guess but it's going to be more and more a problem.

The far right has the noisiest Father Couglin types, it seems.

Oh. Global warming has almost nothing to do with your local weather forcasts.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 11:33am:

Oh. Global warming has almost nothing to do with your local weather forcasts.

Well I hope it global-warms up here this weekend.  The forecast is looking like shit right now.  
Last weekend was great.  It globally-warmed up almost perfectly, except for a bit of global-rain Sunday afternoon.  

Charlie wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 11:33am:

Quote: Global Warming Is Running Out of Hot Air by Phyllis Schlafly LOL....You kill me. Now here is a perfect example of how the internet allows people to delve deeper and deeper into "information" with which they agree and ignore or slam other ideas as liberal conspiracies....for example...or worse. Newspapers at least forced one to note that there are smart people around that have differing points of view. It's impossible to stop, I guess but it's going to be more and more a problem. The far right has the noisiest Father Couglin types, it seems. Oh. Global warming has almost nothing to do with your local weather forcasts. Charlie

There's no arguing with you on this, so I'll simply say you're entitled to your opinion.

As to newspapers, most editorial boards are so hopelessly out of touch with reality that people refuse to pay for their dead tree versions. Newspapers on the whole are on dinosaur media death watch. Watch them to start going under this year, and once the first one goes, many others will follow suit.

If they had realized a few years ago that people don't want to hear their ivory tower, egghead theories, they might still be turning a profit. But once those presses go quiet, they will be quieted forever.

Global Warming has become too much like every other "Big News" topic. It has become so politicized, Democrats MUST believe it Republicans MUST scorn it, I worry about how much truth we really get? Will the funding grants by the ruling party cause money hungry research institutes to embrace or refute one side or the other? There was a time when goverment scientists told me there was no danger in smoking.

Joe

Who stays out of politics mostly but does worry.... :-/

Brew wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 11:57am:

Newspapers on the whole are on dinosaur media death watch. Watch them to start going under this year, and once the first one goes, many others will follow suit.

It's already happening - Rocky Mountain News, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Ann Arbor News, Journal-Register chain, Christian Science Monitor (now online only).  

I think it is more about technology and economics than being out of touch with the readers.  Cable TV and the internet give us an all-you-can-eat information buffet that is open 24 hours a day, and a newspaper is like the meals on wheels delivery scheduled for tomorrow.  Why pay when so much is available online for free? Why limit ourselves to whatever physical limits are set by newsprint costs?

If I want to sell that old bike in the garage, I'll put a free classified on Craigs list. My mailbox is usually stuffed with all kinds of ads and coupons.  I don't need a newspaper per se - I need to consume and occasionally publish information.  

If I want to sell that old bike in the garage, I'll put a free classified on Craigs list. My mailbox is usually stuffed with all kinds of ads and coupons.  I don't need a newspaper per se - I need to consume and occasionally publish information

I'd have to agree THAT'S what's killing the papers. I remember when the classified ads were 60-70% of the newspaper. Now it's like 3 pages. Everyone uses Craigs list now.

Joe

The planet died out and could not sustain human life anymore, so they transplanted us.


For real.

Melissa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:08pm:

The planet died out and could not sustain human life anymore, so they transplanted us. For real.

Uh-huh.  Who are 'they' ?   You been talking to the Urantians, Unairans or Scientologists lately, Mel?  

monty wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

Melissa wrote on Mar 25th, 2009 at 3:08pm: The planet died out and could not sustain human life anymore, so they transplanted us. For real. Uh-huh.  Who are 'they' ?   You been talking to the Urantians, Unairans or Scientologists lately, Mel?

I dunno, which one sends you a free gift with registration?

Melissa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:08pm:

The planet died out and could not sustain human life anymore, so they transplanted us. For real.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Lobster wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:54pm:

Melissa wrote on Mar 25th, 2009 at 3:08pm: The planet died out and could not sustain human life anymore, so they transplanted us. For real. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Ummm...the Amazon Women???? Just askin.... ::)

Joe

Guiseppi wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:58pm:

Ummm...the Amazon Women???? Just askin.... ::) Joe

I dunno.  Here is a better shot of them.  Note the often overlooked benefit of global warming... fewer garments.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The picture didn't make it through....but I DO like the way the man thinks! ;D

Joe

ETA there it came up! ;)

Prehistorically I was a hottie. 8-)

Melissa wrote on Mar 25^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

I dunno, which one sends you a free gift with registration?

They all offer liberation from your self-imposed limitations and eternal salivation.  But only the Urantians give away free toasters with a new account.

Quote:

As to newspapers, most editorial boards are so hopelessly out of touch with reality that people refuse to pay for their dead tree versions. Newspapers on the whole are on dinosaur media death watch. Watch them to start going under this year, and once the first one goes, many others will follow suit.

This is why I read two or more newspapers. It can be a lot healthier for some to read about serial killings there as well. They can act as shock absorbers even with more depth than cable.

I can't recall but one Republican Congressman proposes letting papers become non-profit organizations such as PBS.....that stalwart media liberal conspriacy pillar. At least taxes wouldn't be part of the expenses.

Charlie