Global Warming huh...On pace to be coldest July EVER

[literatim]

YouTube - Chicken Little "The Globe Is Warming!"

 

[BenIsForRon]

You have a lot to learn. But don't feel bad. I was once taken in by the global warming scam too. In fact the founder of the weather channel has called the whole "greenhouse effect" theory the greatest scam in human history.

Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.

And did you bother finding out who funded the Rutgers climatologist? And did he explain to you why the ice caps on Mars were melting? That solar powered Mars rover must have caused it I suppose.

I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours are. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

 

[jmdrake]

Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.

No. Just dumb enough to mistake correlation for causation. Just dumb enough to totally ignore the mini ice age we went through in the 1970s. Just dumb enough to ignore the fact that these same alarmists were blaming the drop in temperatures in the 1970s on "greenhouse gases".

I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours are. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

At one point Mars was warming 4 times faster than earth.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1148/global-warming-rapidly-heating-mars

The ice sheets on earth are expanding now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.C44A..03C

But your side blames that on global warming.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

 

[paulitics]

I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours is. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

Most of them are nice, normal, intelligent people. It doesn't change the fact that perhaps he has a bias, because job security or $$ come into play.

You can't dismiss studies outside the UN and federal govt funded IPCC for the reason of political bias, and then at the same time give these guys a free pass.

There are plenty of scientists who do not get paid for their opinion, and are brilliant in their own way. You may want to give these people more credit.

 

[StayTrue]

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

Article from Drudge this morning

The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.

Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”



Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

 

[StayTrue]

And there is an article on Drudge with John Kerry talking about how Global Warming will be a national security threat and our military will need to be involved.

Not posting it on here but just wanted to bring that up so the other side of the arguement doesn't scream foul

 

[mczerone]

Well, the concern isn't just for our generation, of course. I think there are more pressing issues, that if we deal with them, they will positively affect the climate anyway. Getting off coal and oil has many benefits besides reducing emissions, like creating sustainable economies, less destruction of ecosystems for mining, decentralized electricity grids, etc.

I believe in sustainability, in leaving a better world than I found, and in preserving the wonders of nature, but you lost me at the part I bolded.

Who is WE? Am I going to be forced to support a sub-par governmental plan that nominally is to protect the environment but is really selling mineral rights to politically favored companies below costs? And how is this "we" supposed to deal with any pressing issues? through that magical process of mob rule of democracy, the welfare-socialism of Congressional action or through the totalitarian-fascism of the executive branch?

How about I try my best to find a solution, and you do the same. Through the division of labor, the pressures of competition, and the human desire to satisfy his subjective values we will find solutions to the practical problems of life.

Government can't replicate this method, just as it can't be trusted to definitively answer in all of it's citizen's minds whether climate change is even a real threat.

 

[BenIsForRon]

No. Just dumb enough to mistake correlation for causation. Just dumb enough to totally ignore the mini ice age we went through in the 1970s. Just dumb enough to ignore the fact that these same alarmists were blaming the drop in temperatures in the 1970s on "greenhouse gases".



At one point Mars was warming 4 times faster than earth.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1148/global-warming-rapidly-heating-mars

The ice sheets on earth are expanding now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.C44A..03C

But your side blames that on global warming.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

You didn't even read the first article, it blames dust storms on mars for the heating. Nothing to do with changes in the sun or earth.

The second article is about pleistocene era, not today, kind of like way before humans even knew how to grow food.

Third article is on some random website in 2002, I don't think that qualifies it as a majority opinion.

 

[BenIsForRon]

@staytrue: I was mainly talking about the PNAC side of funding. I know a lot of global warming research is funded by shady sources, but there is also some very honest non-profits that have been working on this thing since the 80's. I'm looking at the big picture, and making an educated guess on which side is right. Not who Drudge tells me is right.

@mczerone: I'm talking about we as in the human race. I have no idea how we're going to solve it, if we do. I hope it is mostly educated consumers in a free market driving the change, but I'm not against things like taxing carbon (DIFFERENT from cap and trade).

 

[mczerone]

@mczerone: I'm talking about we as in the human race. I have no idea how we're going to solve it, if we do. I hope it is mostly educated consumers in a free market driving the change, but I'm not against things like taxing carbon (DIFFERENT from cap and trade).

"We," the human race, are nothing but 6 billion individuals. Only individuals can act or hold opinions. If something is done to alter the environment on purpose by some individuals, you cannot say that "we did it" - pastoral farmers the world over had nothing to do with the massive burning of fossil fuels and thus cannot be a part of the "we" that caused any climate change to begin with.

By collectivizing, you are absolving the guilt of those individuals who actual do destroy environments without taking responsibility.

Further, who is going to be doing the taxing in your plan?

The free market solution is for you to boycott fossil fuels and ostracize those who use them, if you believe that is the problem - and if you then wish to say "pay me $100 for each ton of carbon you've polluted before I'll deal with you", you may - and that is the furthest extent of a "carbon tax" that could ever really exist.

 

[Danke]

The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.

At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios.
In other words, it was the result of political interference.

Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.

Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.

Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!

The late Roger Revelle, Professor Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “father” of the modern greenhouse theory
Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, first Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service
Chauncey Starr, Professor Emeritus, University of California, key figure in modern risk analysis

for…. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (1991) at http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/cosmos.html


Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT

for…. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html


Brian Tucker, former Chief of Atmospheric Research for CSIRO (Australian Government)

for.... A Rational Consideration of Global Warming (1996) at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm


The late William Nierenberg, former Director of Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

for.... Science and Engineering Policy and Who Cares? (1997) at
http://people.delphi.com/saemet/mesc297.htm


Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS

for.... Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (1997-2000) at
http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html


Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willy Soon and Zachary W. Robinson

for..... Environmental Effects of Increased Environmental Carbon Dioxide (1998)
at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


George Taylor, then President of the American Association of State Climatologists

for.... Comments on "New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising" (2000) at
http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/nascomm.html


Paul Reiter, Chief Entomologist at the United States Dengue Research Laboratory

for.... Biting Back (2000) at
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225716


William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

for.... Get off Warming Bandwagon (2000) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm

 

[Krugerrand]

The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

Danke, drink your Kool Aid!

 

[BenIsForRon]

Hey Danke, do you have anything after 2002? That was before the most recent IPCC.

"We," the human race, are nothing but 6 billion individuals. Only individuals can act or hold opinions. If something is done to alter the environment on purpose by some individuals, you cannot say that "we did it" - pastoral farmers the world over had nothing to do with the massive burning of fossil fuels and thus cannot be a part of the "we" that caused any climate change to begin with.

By collectivizing, you are absolving the guilt of those individuals who actual do destroy environments without taking responsibility.

Further, who is going to be doing the taxing in your plan?

The free market solution is for you to boycott fossil fuels and ostracize those who use them, if you believe that is the problem - and if you then wish to say "pay me $100 for each ton of carbon you've polluted before I'll deal with you", you may - and that is the furthest extent of a "carbon tax" that could ever really exist.

We're all in this together, in that our actions have lasting effects on other people's lives. You can't put all the guilt on coal companies, when is in fact the American consumer that has been buying their product. That's why we need to take collective action, especially at the community level, to ease our movement away from the heavy use of electricity. I'm not saying a bureaucrat in DC should be pointing a gun at our heads commanding our every move.

As far as taxing, I don't know how it would be implemented, but I really like the idea of killing the income tax and using a carbon tax to fund current government operations (which decreases consumption and the size of government at the same time!).

 

[Catatonic]

Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.

Considering that carbon is something like 2% of the atmosphere, and humans contribute less than 1% of the total carbon in the atmosphere, did you ever consider that perhaps rising carbon levels are an effect of rising temperatures rather than vice versa? Considering the largest contributer to carbon is ocean evaporation, at something like 98-99% of total atmospheric carbon?

Correlation =/= causation and if you think we are ignoring the correlations here, you're the dumb one.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Yeah, I know correlation is not causation, but I was referring to the major coincidence that the earth really started warming after most of the world started burning the shit out of coal and oil. Of course, that's not the only thing I'm basing my belief on.

 

[SouthGeorgia61]

we haven't hit 80 degrees once this july if im not mistaken, and that is our average high

 

[smithtg]

It's pretty hot here, IMO.

Although, there have been record cold temperatures all around the world this year.

natalie arent you in houston?

I seem to remember that, but maybe im wrong - anyway, I am too and its been freaking hot here this summer. The rain lately has been all the better

Lets just keep the hurricanes away this year

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

even so emissions are bad for our environment, creates holes in the ozone etc, i don't like cancer

 

[Brian Defferding]

It's okay to be a capitalist and say there is global warming. In fact, I would say that the best way to curb global warming and promote a clean environment is through capitalism, not brunt government regulation.

 

[Conservative Christian]

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


.