[Five companies] that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups...When it comes to carbon dioxide, we're all a damned nuisance.
Calling the potential impact of the nuisance theory “staggering,” the companies’ petition said that virtually every entity and industry in the world can be found to be partly responsible for some emissions of carbon dioxide, so they are potentially liable to be sued in climate changed nuisance lawsuits.
६ डिसेंबर, २०१०
The Supreme Court takes a global warming case....
... with Justice Sonia Sotomayor recusing herself. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut involves the use of a common law theory of nuisance:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९८ टिप्पण्या:
298 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The death throes of the "Green gambit" to drag Western society down to Third World standards have not been pretty.
But they're a necessary evil. These frauds and zealots won't go away on their own. They need to be beaten in the courts just as they've beaten in the laboratory and the rational political arena.
We'll get right back to demonizing carbon-dioxide as a AGW criminal right after the next 30 years of mini-ice age in Europe. Oh, and that sun activity that seems to coincide with AGW timelines, including the 180's some AGW people have started doing given that activity data...never mind that...nothing to see here...keep moving...
Since we all exhale carbon dioxide no doubt we all will be added as defendants.
The time has come to disband the EPA. The agency has jumped the shark.
Too bad the power companies couldn't shut off their carbon dioxide producing power plants to those eight states and NYC for one day. Then perhaps the residents of those areas would wake up to the type of people they put in positions of power.
The only nuisance is the Criminal Conspiracy to make everyone on earth a serf wholly owned by CARBON KINGS. It is a nuisance because it is destroying our respect for all science used by a Government Agency. That big of a hoax required a conspiracy that is international in scope.Stopping it will require exposing it internationally...now who is good at winning wars against government media conspiracies?
Where's the "Wise Latina" tag?
And "people" wonder why the economy isn't recovering as it has in the past.
Hey Dandy Don kicked the bucket.
Why no post?
Trooper...I read that Meredith died. He was an amazing football player. I watched him find a way to score evertime his SMU team got the ball back against a superior Georgia Tech at Grant Field in Atlanta. No one could believe their eyes...who was this guy? The party is over for a great man.
"Hey Dandy Don kicked the bucket."
Bummer.
Calling the potential impact of the nuisance theory “staggering,”
That is the whole point.
We have a sitting President who is on record stating he wants the coal industry to go bankrupt.
Raising utility rates is not going to decrease CO2, people will just pay more. You have to actually cut off the electricity and make people freeze to death or die of heat stroke to really make a differnce.
Oh and I hope the greens sue the HELL out of every company and person, because we are all guilty of AGW.
Legal theft is really the best way to take other people's money.
Neat and clean, enforced by the state, and chock full of do-gooderism.
As if Robin Hood himself were the Sheriff of Nottingham. Stand and deliver!
Althouse:
When it comes to carbon dioxide, we're all a damned nuisance.
Idiotic statement.
Some of us have cut our personal carbon pollution drastically. We support policies for broader cuts.
Others attack the very notion of global warming, and many dunderheads, the existence of the greenhouse effect itself.
We're running out of time to act but our policy is dictated by an unholy marriage of the powerfully wealthy and the ignorant.
We're fucked.
AlphaLiberal said...
Some of us have cut our personal carbon pollution drastically.
Go ahead, tell everyone what you've done. I'll bet you use more electricity than I do.
Others attack the very notion of global warming, and many dunderheads, the existence of the greenhouse effect itself.
You, nor anyone reading, can provide any evidence that the actions of manknid are making the planet “heat up”
Not only that, but you, nor anyone reading, can provide any evidence the globe is “warming”
We're running out of time to act
Laugh out loud funny.
You people have been saying that since 1985.
OT- it's astounding how many of these govt enviro groups are led by lawyers. I guess real, informed scientists are not qualified to head up groups like the EPA, Calif Water Board,etc
Who's the biggest environmental polluter? Mother nature!
We should tax the shit out of that bitch.
Conservatives:
How many of you deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect, itself, and the role of CO2 in that greenhouse effect?
Experience has shown that many conservatives think the greenhouse effect is false. We've seen that here many times.
That's a deeply ignorant position. If you reject the existence of the greenhouse effect you have no business holding an opinion on global warming.
Conservatives are blinded by their hatred of liberals, Democrats and environmentalists. You reject reason and science in favor of hatred.
You are beyond hope.
Everyone should sing "Turn out the lights, the party's over" in honor of Dandy Don
We support policies for broader cuts.
Yeah, like this:
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods
He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.
Note that part about "halting economic growth"
You support that, bozo.
You are beyond hope.
You, nor anyone reading, can provide any evidence that the actions of mankind are making the planet “heat up”
Not only that, but you, nor anyone reading, can provide any evidence the globe is “warming”
Conservatives are blinded by their hatred of liberals, Democrats and environmentalists. You reject reason and science in favor of hatred.
lol
Jay, I know you probably get all the "science" you can hadle from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.
They are paid talkers. not scientists.
If you want to actually open up that narrow mind to some facts and science, you can start to learn of some of the overwhelming evidence of global warming here.
We're running out of time to act
Huh. Gee, I wonder if things like this:
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming.
But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.
The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper – it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic.
Are why you're pushing this hysteria meme.
Alternatively, you are not that bright and easily misled.
Let's also review the bizarre and idiotic conservative position on global warming.
According to conservatives there is a global conspiracy to fool the entire world into thinking global warming is a problem.
This alleged worldwide conspiracy includes the royal Society of Britain, NASA, all the major US agencies, George W Bush, most governments of the world, most scientists of the world, many leading corporations, insurance companies, especially (who are now paying out increasing claims).
Man this is one big ass worldwide conspiracy?
Please enlighten us!!
When do they hold meetings for this conspiracy?
Why do big corporations get on board?
What if you are wrong? What if you are wrong?
If you want to actually open up that narrow mind to some facts and science, you can start to learn of some of the overwhelming evidence of global warming here.
Um, you do understand that they have manipulated the data, right?
You do understand that there was a big snafu with this:
Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.
“Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same.”
You understand that they did a nice little dance where NOAA said to look at University of East Anglia's data, and then the University of East Anglia's data couldn't be substantiated, right?
According to conservatives there is a global conspiracy to fool the entire world into thinking global warming is a problem.
I'm not sure I would use the word "conspiracy" so much as I would use the term "fraud"
You do understand that AGW is a constituency with government funding in the billions, right?
Flashback:
The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC’s latest report in 2007.
Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.
The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang’s 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.
The IPCC’s 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.
The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang’s work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. “Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?” he asked Jones. He continued: “Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?”
There is no evidence the globe is warming.
It's 19º outside. SHOW ME THE WARMING!
Jay:
Um, you do understand that they have manipulated the data, right?
No. I know that the right wing has invented that attack line as part of their attacks on climate scientists which include criminal theft of emails.
And lots of repeated and false charges.
Jay, can we at least agree that the do you also reject the greenhouse effect and role of CO2?
Simple question. If you have the slightest clue what you are talking about, the answer is very simple.
Alpha...I always saw you as a hard arguing person with a liberal point of view. But if you are still taken in by Global Warming today, then you are in need of help. There has never been any temperature variations tied to CO2. Whoever say there that is a silly fool. A small trace gas that feeds plants can double every year for 100 years and nothing will happen not caused by the sun. Real science is settled on that. Hoax science demonizing CO2 is gone forever. Income re-distribution has a better argument than outright exposed frauds.
AllenS:
It's 19º outside. SHOW ME THE WARMING!
Global warming does not mean that the earth will no longer tilt on a seasonal basis, that snow will no longer fall or the depth of winter.
By your comment you betray your deep ignorance on the subject.
What if you are wrong? What if you are wrong?
Even the guy caught red handed admitted this:
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
No. I know that the right wing has invented that attack line as part of their attacks on climate scientists which include criminal theft of emails.
Um, then why did NASA have to revise their temperature data?
Um, why then can't the East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data be found?
Traditionalguy, same question:
Do you also reject the existence of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in same?
I predict you will, also, duck and run away from this threshold question.
There is no evidence the globe is warming.
Hardly
Jay, the greenhouse effect. Do you also reject that? And the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect?
No. I know that the right wing has invented that attack line
For you, AGW is simply religion.
There are facts, and then there is what you believe. What you believe, is not in line with the facts.
So, you have on the side of the there has been no falsification of data, you have:
1. The figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
2. Deleted emails
3. NASA admitting East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was better.
4. New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.
5. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was manipulated (Professor Jones admitted withholding data about global temperatures).
Do you also reject the existence of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in same?
Yes, the greenhouse effect exists and the effect if man-made CO2 in same is probably around .5%-1%.
Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2.
Really hardly.
(Wish they'd update that one).
I get the impression that AlphaLiberal must be very young. Speaking as someone who isn't very young (53), I remember when some of the very same people who are pushing AGW now were predicting an imminent ice age back in the 1970s. It's not at all funny how they recommended the same kinds of actions back then to combat the coming ice age as they do to combat AGW. In other words, they're full of shit to those of us who are paying attention.
The MSM has been swinging back and forth on climate predictions for a long time. <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-inertia-what-we-can-learn-from-120-years-of-climate-catastrophe-reporting/>Here's an article</a> that examines the MSM climate predictions for the last 120 years. They were all over the map.
The Earth's climate is always changing, sometime getting warmer and other times getting cooler. Geologic evidence show this has been going of for millions of years, predating not only the existence of SUVs but of human beings. These variations will continue long after human beings become extinct.
That is an excellent link from MadisonMan showing the annual and expanding retreat of arctic ice especially in terms of thickness.
Again, you slippery conservatives, see if you have the brains to address a simple question instead of regurgitating fossil fuel industry talking points:
A) Do you also reject the existence of the greenhouse effect?
B) Do you reject the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect?
We have Traiditonalguy's answer.
Jay, can we at least agree that the do you also reject the greenhouse effect and role of CO2?
Yes.
Ignorant? I know that it's cold in the winter, and warmer in the summer. It's always been like that. Some winters are warmer, some are colder. Same thing with summer. Sometimes we have a late fall, and other years there is an early spring.
Here's some interesting data from Cedar Lake, WI. Not too far from my house. It's the dates when the lake is ice free.
1955 4/10
1976 4/6
1997 4/21
1956 4/22
1977 4/10
1998 4/5
1957 4/21
1978 4/18
1999 4/3
1958 4/13
1979 4/24
2000 3/22
1959 4/8
1980 4/18
2001 4/20
1960 4/15
1981 4/26
2002 4/16
1961 4/8
1982 4/20
2003 4/12
1962 4/21
1983 4/14
2004 4/5
1963 4/6
1984 4/13
2005 4/8
1964 4/11
1985 4/12
2006 4/7
1965 4/29
1986 4/7
2007 4/3
1966 4/5
1987 3/24
2008 4/23
1967 4/9
1988 3/14
1968 3/30
1989 4/17
1969 4/17
1990 4/3
1970 4/21
1991 4/8
1971 4/17
1992 4/10
1972 4/26
1993 4/19
1973 4/2
1994 4/13
1974 4/19
1995 4/14
1975 4/28
1996 4/25
Notice a pattern?
remember when some of the very same people who are pushing AGW now were predicting an imminent ice age back in the 1970s.
Right after hurricane Katrina they were saying that global warming causes hurricanes.
They are idiots.
"We're running out of time to act"
If you actually look at the AGW modeling, we are already too late. One of my biggest beefs with the proposed remedy (CO2 reductions) is the complete impracticality of achieving any meaniingful difference (again if you take the AGWers case at face value).
Alpha : Dude, you are a lap behind on this global warming stuff. Were you in Cancun, by the way, at the big shindig where Japan and others said fuck off to the Kyoto protocols? Everybody has had enough.
MadMan - Surely you're aware that Antarctic sea ice is farther above normal right now than Arctic sea ice is below normal.
And Arctic sea ice extent depends primarily on prevailing winds and ocean current pushing ice down to lower latitudes where it melts. It's still well below freezing up there.
I remember when some of the very same people who are pushing AGW now were predicting an imminent ice age back in the 1970s.
Bull-fucking-shit. Lies.
That was a theory from SOME scientists. The theory was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
There is no, and never was any, movement to deal with global cooling.
The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is no established fact.
Afraid to take a position on greenhouse effect? Why, it wasn't covered in the propaganda?
p.s. We're roughly the same age. Difference is that I am far better informed. You are repeating talking points.
Here is what these guys did:
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
The information that these "scientists" were supplying to the UN was fake.
AL: Remind us in your own words about the greenhouse effect.
You know progressivism has reached its sell-by date and begun to decay on the shelf when, having run out of actual problems to fix, it must invent them.
So it creates dragons to slay and unicorns to save, in order to feed that insatiable maw of the state.
Difference is that I am far better informed.
Laugh out loud funny.
AL,
There's no bigger of an idiot than you.
LIES!
LIES!
LIES!
The theory was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
Actually, it wasn't.
And you can't substantiate this assertion with any facts.
Allen, I do not know where you got your data or if it is accurate.
I do know that Madison's annual "Kites on Ice" festival has been canceled because the lake has not frown sufficiently for years.
How, pray, does a lake frown? And what is the sufficient level of frowning that must occur before one can fly a kite nearby?
Jay:
The theory was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
Actually, it wasn't.
And you can't substantiate this assertion with any facts.
The theory in question there is global cooling. It's bizarre to say, as you do here, that global cooling continues to be actively discussed and advocated.
I give you a search on "global cooling" in Google scholar. Your argument is bullshit.
Notice a pattern?
yea, you stopped at 1996!
AL, if global warming was fact,,,wouldn't there be statistically noticeable warming at some point? Or are you arguing that we should be in a mini-Ice Age and warming is keeping us out of it?
Your theory has the problem of reality not playing along with it. The Greenhouse Effect would have corresponding warming, logically.
That was a theory from SOME scientists. The theory was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
Name 2 scientists who "tested" the global cooling theory.
Just 2.
AL, I do not know where you get your data or if it is accurate. Nor do I know if you've ever said anything honestly. On any subject, on any day, at any time. You are an absolute mistery man/woman. You've got nothing, nothing to indicate that you possess any knowedge of having done anything in your life to indicate how you have gained knowledge. So, I'll just call you a fucking liar.
Yes, we must act now. Global warming is putting millions of Brits at risk of freezing to death.
But we're supposed to stop using fossil fuels so that it gets even colder!
I am beginning to see that my error a few years back, calling it 'Anthropomorphic Global Warming' was in fact right all along.
The theory in question there is global cooling. It's bizarre to say, as you do here, that global cooling continues to be actively discussed and advocated.
Hey strawman, I didn't say that.
What I'm saying is that it was never tested by the scientific process
Ever.
Prove me wrong, genius.
Please.
garage,
Look again. I copied from a list that had four columns. When I pasted it, it came out as one column. Check again.
Jay, why do you not answer a very simple question for anyone holding an informed opinion on global warming:
Do you reject the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2?
You keep running away from this simple question.
Because if yo do you are basically a flat earther. It's akin to rejecting the theory of gravity.
LIAR!
Just out of curiosity, how do the AGW proponents here view an academic or scientist that previously was on record for claiming CO2 emissions had more to do with climate change than sun activity...but has now admitted he was wrong and that it (the sun) is in fact the greater impact?
If that were to happen, what would AL and his ilk say about said scientist?
Allen
Got it, duh.
But Tom Friedman himself said the earth is flat.
Alpha:
Sorry, but you are way off base. Global cooling was the big theory in the 1970s and it's main proponents were the same people who are pushing warming today, among them James Hanson and John Holdren.
I am not going to engage in a debate with a scientific illiterate who is driven by irrational fears and ignorance.
Do you reject the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2?
You keep running away from this simple question.
Really?
Jay said...
Jay, can we at least agree that the do you also reject the greenhouse effect and role of CO2?
Yes.
12/6/10 1:08 PM
The only remaining question is if you can read...
I also remember the early 1970s fear of global cooling. It was the main reason that I bought this particular farm. It had 9 acres of woods. Wood that I could use to heat the house.
This is what these people were doing:
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
And guess what? Professor Jones didn't have data from the "best stations" as it was made up.
NASA, NOAA, and East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit do not have accurate temperature data.
Global sea ice extent is increasing.
Catastrophic global cooling is right around the corner.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I love that Cedar Lake time series. I love it even more when it is properly ordered :) :
1955 4/10
1956 4/22
1957 4/21
1958 4/13
1959 4/8
1960 4/15
1961 4/8
1962 4/21
1963 4/6
1964 4/11
1965 4/29
1966 4/5
1967 4/9
1968 3/30
1969 4/17
1970 4/21
1971 4/17
1972 4/26
1973 4/2
1974 4/19
1975 4/28
1976 4/6
1977 4/10
1978 4/18
1979 4/24
1980 4/18
1981 4/26
1982 4/20
1983 4/14
1984 4/13
1985 4/12
1986 4/7
1987 3/24
1988 3/14
1989 4/17
1990 4/3
1991 4/8
1992 4/10
1993 4/19
1994 4/13
1995 4/14
1996 4/25
1997 4/21
1998 4/5
1999 4/3
2000 3/22
2001 4/20
2002 4/16
2003 4/12
2004 4/5
2005 4/8
2006 4/7
2007 4/3
2008 4/23
Things I observe. If you break it into 10-year blocks, the number of late openings, defined as 4/20 or later, is decreasing. 3 in 1955-1964, 3 in 1965-1974, 4 in 1975-1984, 0 in 1985-1994, 3 in 1995-2004, and 1 since 2005. So 10 in the first 30 years, 4 in the 2nd incomplete 30 years. Early openings, similar trends. Define early opening as 4/5 or earlier: 0 (1955-1964), 3 ('65-'74), 0 ('75-'84), 3 ('85-94), 4 ('95-'04). So yes I do see a pattern of more earlier openings and fewer later ones.
I'm amazed that you had a late open in 1983. There was almost no lake ice here in Madison that year. (This points to horizontal varibility and the hazard of using one point).
You keep running away from this simple question.
NO, actually I don't.
But again, please name 2 scientists who tested global cooling by the scientific process.
Thanks
AL says "According to conservatives there is a global conspiracy to fool the entire world into thinking global warming is a problem." He further blathers on about the meetings, etc.
I don't call this a conspiracy, nor even fraud (generally, specific research can be fraudulent). It's an overreaction. The financial incentives are so strong there are plenty of people willing to overreact "to be safe". Others are opportunists using this issue to pursue their unrelated goals.
Did we learn nothing from Y2K? Just because a large number of people blather on about something doesn't make it factual. Always remember, if the evidence were anywhere near as definitive as AL claims they wouldn't have to make up evidence to support their position.
Actually when you apply an ARIMA model to the data series it shows it to be stationary.
Again,
New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.
There is no evidence the globe is warming.
Maguro wrote:
Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2.
And if that's the case, less tax the oceans!
Jay:
Prove me wrong, genius.
You don't really need any help. But just for kicks I will respond:
Here is a paper published on global cooling from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) by Thomas Peterson, William Connolley, and John Fleck.
Conclusions
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
Again, you are just regurgitating fossil fuel industry talking points. you're playing petty political games with a very important topic.
ScottM:
Just out of curiosity, how do the AGW proponents here view an academic or scientist that previously was on record for claiming CO2 emissions had more to do with climate change than sun activity...but has now admitted he was wrong and that it (the sun) is in fact the greater impact?
You have provided no name, no link, no nothing by which to evaluate the statement.
But it wouldn't matter, would it? You arrive at your position on global warming based on partisanship, not science. therefore, you are not susceptible to reason.
"Too bad the power companies couldn't shut off their carbon dioxide producing power plants ..."
I wonder how much they can rise power charges to create defence fund for nuisance law suits.
AL:
Tell us what your scientific credentials are. Just wondering.
Read me the story about Globie, the Warming Monster again, Alpha. I like the part where his jaws go snicker snack.
Plus, didn't Obama's election make the oceans's stop rising already?
"But it wouldn't matter, would it? You arrive at your position on global warming based on partisanship, not science. therefore, you are not susceptible to reason."
I wonder why someone with the closed mind of AL would make such an assertion? Could it be this nutjob thinks he's the reasonable one? How is it possible the nastiest libs around nevertheless manage to maintain such fiction? To themselves of course.
Okay, I have given you cons plenty of times to show that you have the first clue what the fuck you are talking about.
You have failed miserably.
The "greenhouse effect" is not in dispute at all. Only the most ignorant global warming denier will claim otherwise.
The "greenhouse effect" makes life itself possible on this planet. Otherwise, we'd be a bit more like Mars. It's also why Venus is so warm.
CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect. Add more CO2, which we do by millions of tons per year, and warming increases rapidly, especially in comparison to the historical record.
Human kind is now a force of nature. We are also hobbled by greed and by the deep and abiding ignorance demonstrated here by Ann Althouse and her minions.
Yes, it's now too late to avoid global warming. It's here. The best we can hope is to limit the damage.
I honestly do see this as the equivalent of denying the rise of fascism. Except far worse.
Anyway, this crowd is hopeless.
Probably not a coincidence that there are now quite a few books and documentaries based on the premise that mankind is a disease for the planet, and that the planet's best chance of healing would be if mankind disappeared entirely.
Gaia has some pretty tough lawyers now. Better start packing.
AL says "The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is no established fact"
Gaffe: When someone slips up and accidentally tell the truth.
Not only that, Pogo, the earth has begun to heal.
Very good, work, MadMan. You know what else takes out the ice? Wind, or lack thereof.
You have provided no name, no link, no nothing by which to evaluate the statement.
That's because it's a hypothetical question. I almost typed "purely hypothetical", but I laughingly thought you would be bright enough to figure that out given what I wrote. Regardless, consider it as hypothetical and please answer the question.
FIXED:
The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is noW established fact.
Fixed.
Enjoy your meetings at the Flat Earth Society!
Conclusions
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
Um, that's great.
But you said: "The theory [global cooling] was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
"
You understand that posting a snippet saying there wasn't consensus on global cooling is not the same as global cooling tested by the scientific process, right?
You understand these basic facts, correct?
CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect.
If by "chief" you mean "less than 5%", you've got it right. And "manmade" CO2 only accounts for about 20% of that 5%.
CO2 does not control the temerature of the earth and never has.
ScottM, no thanks. I only have a few more decades in this life and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!
I think that the Flat Earth Society has been avoiding me. They never call. They never write. No emails.
First,
I have given you cons plenty of times to show that you have the first clue what the fuck you are talking about.
Then,
it's now too late to avoid global warming.
Fact:
for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Your comments are parody.
Maguro pasted something:
And "manmade" CO2 only accounts for about 20% of that 5%.
Do you mean by volume or by radiative forcing?
and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!
You don't know what the scientific method is yet you've made 20+ posts on a topic about science.
Can you name 2 scientists who tested global cooling by the scientific process?
Thanks
The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is noW established fact.
Yes, because putting fake temperature data into computer models is now "scientific process" with "exhaustive" testing equaling "established fact"!
And profits!
Green jobs!
Wow, are you a blathering idiot.
Jay, you still do not have the balls to take a position on the greenhouse effect?
"I love that Cedar Lake time series. I love it even more when it is properly ordered :) :"
Gee, The Hockey Team doesn't think you need to get the series' in the right order.
"...global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!"
Hey, I know what it is!
The greenhouse effect is the first scientific phenomena to be discovered and documented entirely by Liberal Arts majors and Hollywood starlets.
You keep citing the greenhouse effect in your discussion of global warming...yet keep ignoring that there isn't evidence of warming occurring. See, at a certain point, a theory where everything EXCEPT ACTUAL EVIDENCE backs it up is not all that useful.
Are you unable to make an argument?
The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is noW established fact.
Wishful thinking.
AL's vision is the rapture for atheists. There always has to be something threatening our very existence.
This weeks revival was held in the same tent that last week hosted a group who believes when a tree dies outside Jerusalem the antichrist will be born. Due to diminishing attendance next month the two revivals will be combined. Congregants will be instructed that when the tree dies on the road to Jerusalem we will discover massive new surface oil deposits.
ScottM, no thanks. I only have a few more decades in this life and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!
Okay. I'll bite. In 2007, climatologist Mike Lockwood wrote what was considered, at the time, to be a watershed article about his team's study which concluded a "quiet" sun had no effect on global warming, removing it from blame as temps continued to rise even while the sun's activity declined. I remember AGW-types holding this up like the golden fleece at the time.
He has since changed his mind and has released another article which details a study just concluded which refutes the previous.
Now...I've given you the name. Find your own links. Please describe the a very concrete example of a climatologist that has changed his mind on the prime mover of global temps and, in fact, is predicting a cooling as we appear to be in something similar to a Maunder Minimum.
The same scientific process has been approved exhaustively to global warming and the theory has survived and is noW established fact.
Yeah, it has been "approved exhaustively" to global warming enthusiasts alright.
In 1990 Al Gore, fresh off his kick to regulate rock lyrics, started talking about this nonsense.
That was over 20 years ago.
Not only is there no real data to support the theory, but none of the predictions have held true.
Yet dopes like this liberal believe it.
damikesec:
You keep citing the greenhouse effect in your discussion of global warming...yet keep ignoring that there isn't evidence of warming occurring.
A) If people don't understand what the greenhouse effect even is then there is no way they have an informed position on global warming.
B) There is ample evidence, mountains of physical evidence supporting the FACT that human-caused global warming is occurring. i.e. if you don't know what that is or if it is real, your opinion carriers ZERO weight.
Thing is, you guys have arrived at your positions by tribal means - your leaders told you what to think and you have dutifully obeyed.
Even thought you don't know what the fuck you are talking about!! (See A)
Really, you are deeply irresponsible.
AlphaLiberal said...
ScottM, no thanks. I only have a few more decades in this life and don't want to waste them on the imaginings of global warming deniers who don't even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect is!
You're an intellectual coward.
the FACT that human-caused global warming is occurring.
That's funny.
There is no evidence, data, or fact that humans are causing the globe to warm.
None.
you guys have arrived at your positions by tribal means - your leaders told you what to think and you have dutifully obeyed.
I can't think of a clearer case of projection.
Please describe the a very concrete example of a climatologist that has changed his mind on the prime mover of global temps and, in fact, is predicting a cooling as we appear to be in something similar to a Maunder Minimum.
Never answer the phone halfway through writing a sentence without proofing it before submitting.
To restate, please describe what you do with this guy who was come to conclusions that at one time backed up what you say, but has since decided the science is on the side of the opposite of what you say.
There...sans phonal intteruptus.
AL,
The only measurable global warming that is occurring, is happening between your ears.
Alpha,
If you want to understand the greenhouse effect, read this.
Or feel free to prattle on without knowing what you're talking about, if that's what you prefer.
The "greenhouse effect" is not in dispute at all. Only the most ignorant global warming denier will claim otherwise.
Keep dreaming.
The "greenhouse effect" makes life itself possible on this planet. Otherwise, we'd be a bit more like Mars. It's also why Venus is so warm.
True
CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect. Add more CO2, which we do by millions of tons per year, and warming increases rapidly, especially in comparison to the historical record.
Yes to the first, no to the last. This hypothesis was based on modeling, and they assumed an increasing sensitivity to CO2. Empirical data over the last couple of years seem to have shown just the opposite.
And, note, that the "historical record" is not the least settled. The CRU data is unreproducable, and at least 3 of the other 4 main databases (including the two satellite databases) were calibrated using the CRU data.
There are a couple of problems with the so-called historical record. First, the original source data has been highly massaged - likely for good reasons. But the basis for the massaging is missing, and what was done with the initial source data cannot be adequately explained.
Secondly, there are serious concerns with the selection of data points and how missing data were handled. The Russians seem to take the position that their data has been massively misused. The basic problem there is that the coverage of sites worldwide is very sporadic, over both area and time. It is even worse in the oceans, at least until very recently.
The list goes on, but until the climate scientists can adequately answer these questions, and others, I don't think that we can rationally take AL's position that there is no room for debate and that AGW is proven fact.
AL, so, the lack of warming isn't an issue for you and your concerns about global WARMING. Good to know. I notice that the "mountaIns " of evidence you cite don't tend to contain actual raw temperature data. Funny, huh?
Hearing you complain that people came to conclusions in a tribal manner given that you support a position bolstered by falsified data.
Even Mann said there has been no statistically relevant warming for 15 yrs.
Since you guys like data, this is the ice melting date data from the Nenana, Alaska Ice Melt Betting Archives since 1917:
Nenana year Date
1 1917 430
2 1918 511
3 1919 503
4 1920 511
5 1921 511
6 1922 512
7 1923 509
8 1924 511
9 1925 507
10 1926 426
11 1927 513
12 1928 506
13 1929 505
14 1930 508
15 1931 510
16 1932 501
17 1933 508
18 1934 430
19 1935 515
20 1936 430
21 1937 512
22 1938 506
23 1939 429
24 1940 420
25 1941 503
26 1942 430
27 1943 428
28 1944 504
29 1945 516
30 1946 505
31 1947 503
32 1948 513
33 1949 514
34 1950 506
35 1951 430
36 1952 512
37 1953 429
38 1954 506
39 1955 509
40 1956 501
41 1957 505
42 1958 429
43 1959 508
44 1960 502
45 1961 505
46 1962 512
47 1963 505
48 1964 520
49 1965 507
50 1966 508
51 1967 504
52 1968 508
53 1969 428
54 1970 504
55 1971 508
56 1972 510
57 1973 504
58 1974 506
59 1975 510
60 1976 502
61 1977 506
62 1978 430
63 1979 430
64 1980 429
65 1981 430
66 1982 510
67 1983 429
68 1984 509
69 1985 511
70 1986 508
71 1987 505
72 1988 427
73 1989 501
74 1990 424
75 1991 501
76 1992 514
77 1993 423
78 1994 429
79 1995 426
80 1996 505
81 1997 430
82 1998 420
83 1999 429
84 2000 501
85 2001 508
86 2002 507
87 2003 429
88 2004 424
89 2005 428
90 2006 502
91 2007 427
92 2008 506
93 2009 501
You know where the "greenhouse effect" actually matters? In a fucking greenhouse.
From the core of the earth, to the super-heated thermosphere, to the edges of our solar system, there are elemental forces working over geologic time scales that determine the climate on Earth. Wiping your ass with one square of toilet paper, pedaling an Ed Begley-mobile or shutting down the oil industry all have the same net effect. Fucking zilch.
Maguro linked to a blog regarding the growing Antarctic ice sheet. On that same page is a quote from Richard Feynman that AlphaLib and his ilk ought to keep in mind:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts
CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect.
I was much too quick on my previous post. I would respectfully disagree, as others have here, as to how major CO2 is as a greenhouse gas. I think it overambitious to call it a "chief" greenhouse gas on Earth, but it may be so on planets much substantially higher concentrations. But, also keep in mind that Venus is much closer to the Sun, and that it is not clear yet how seismically inactive it is, etc.
But, we still come back to the sensitivity of our climatic temperature to increases in CO2 level. The proponents have claimed an increasing sensitivity. But the skeptics claim a decreasing sensitivity. The latest empirical data seems to support the later. Also, the CO2 concentration has been significantly higher in the (ancient) past, and the planet survived quite handily. It didn't burn up. Of course, Manhattan probably wasn't flooded then, but that was because it likely didn't exist yet.
Lincolntf demonstrates IGNORANCE!
You know where the "greenhouse effect" actually matters? In a fucking greenhouse.
Now they deny the greenhouse effect itself!!!
Ha ha! Fools!
daMikesec:
"so, the lack of warming isn't an issue for you"
No, it's a false claim. It is NOT true. It is the opposite of true.
See, that's why it's not an issue for me.
But, hey, why don't you run off and copy and paste MORE talking points in lieu of thinking?
Coldists reveal their mystical, shall I say, religious zeal in The War Against Thermometers. [aka TWAT].
AL Lynch: Interesting. The first decade average of 493 and the last decade average of 473 tells us what? Probably that normal fluctuations occur in the rate of ice melt. But if you pose this to a believer they tell you that Global Warming is not about climate. It is like the line in North Dallas Forty when the beleaguered lineman claims that every time he calls football a game management tells him it is a business and every time he calls it a business management tells him it is a game.
I can base my claim on the lack of evidence of warming on actual temperature readings.
You have...?
Please, wow me with models that are notoriously awful.
That Nenana Ice melt data is very cool also. Note the slow increase in days in April. And the increasing rarity of a day after 5/10.
River ice is a trickier climate parameter, however, than a lake. Breakup can be related to river flow not just temperature.
No, it's a false claim. It is NOT true. It is the opposite of true.
Please provide any temperature data showing a warming trend over the last 11 years then.
thanks in advance.
Alpha...You seem convinced that CO2 traps heat radiated towards outer space. That is not a scientific fact. The narrow wave length where that can be seen is no more than a drop in the ocean. Many tests have proven that.You should be happy...mankind is not close to another genocide after all. Instead you seem pissed off that genocide prevention blackmail has been exposed as a trick by greedy hustlers.Is the free money really that big a deal to you?
AL: "But, hey, why don't you run off and copy and paste MORE talking points in lieu of thinking?"
If facts are talking points what about the facts that have been posted here on bodies of ice over decades? Or do you simply ignore what you call "inconvenient truths?
"
Coldists reveal their mystical, shall I say, religious zeal in The War Against Thermometers. [aka TWAT].
You'll appreciate this, Garage.
On our morning show (back when there still was a TWA airline) we did a parody commercial in which TWA teamed up with Lipton to offer TWA Tea on every flight.
The stewardess describing the range of available flavors and the passenger's wife saying she was a "little curious" about the taste were highlights. I'll link some time if I can be bothered to find a server for all that old audio :)
Michael, you need to change those values to julian days if you're going to average them. 501 = 5/01, julian day 120 -- unless it's a Leap Year.
No, it's a false claim. It is NOT true. It is the opposite of true.
See, that's why it's not an issue for me.
You do understand you can't prove this silly assertion, right?
Bruce Hayden, you are wrong on CO2. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's GHG number 2 and the major human-increased GHG, behind water vapor.
Oh, BTW, water vapor increases with global warming because a warmer atmosphere, and oceans, mean more water in the air.
But I am done beating my head against the wall. Really, you guys are not honest debaters in the slightest. You just mimic those great scientists Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and you reject anything that disagrees with them.
You cannot even use reason. You reject the most basic science.
It's like having an argument with a herd of sheep.
All the hot air of SCOTUS contributes to global warming.
This sheep wants an AL answer to the Lockwood question.
BAAAAAAA
Really, you guys are not honest debaters in the slightest.
Can you name 2 scientists who tested global cooling by the scientific process?
Thanks
AL - why do you keep banging your head against the wall for years here? It's obvious we're all just a bunch of stoopid, flat-earthers.
Mad Man:
I figured you'd enjoy real data like this. Apparently they have a big gambling pool every year and the winner must be closest to the date a wooden structure falls thru the ice.
Michael:
I looked at that data last year and I had to agree it showed a trend that the ice is melting earlier on average than in prior decades.
Yes that is right Mad Man, you can't add up the numbers becaue they are dates. And to be precise, you'd have to adjust for leap years but it is raw data which is what I like. Though I admit I was disappointed the data supports Al Gore's crazy beliefs.
"Now they deny the greenhouse effect itself!!! "
I deny that the temperature of the Earth can be controlled by devolving Western Civilization, taxing Americans into penury, and/or building trains to nowhere, asshole.
That's the garbage you call "climate science", right? Reusable shopping bags and mercury light-bulbs will control the future weather? Go do another rain-dance to the Gore Goddess Gaia and then come back and talk to me some more about science.
here is a chart on temperatures over the recent decades.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/decadal-global-temps-1880s-2000s.gif
Of course, it's from NOAA so the conservatives will want to reject their data in favor of the rantings of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
Nevermind the lives in the balance. Hey, man, it's not like they're zygotes or fetuses!
Lincolntf, you pretty clearly rejected the greenhouse effect.
And I thank you for that because it draws attention to the ignorance and recklessness you bring to this issue, asshole.
The Earth is warming. Except when it isn't.
Time: 1974: Science: Another Ice Age?
Newsweek: 1975: The Cooling World
Time: 1994: The Ice Age Cometh?
But I come here mainly to learn if there is any hope at all of reasoning with the modern conservative.
There is no hope for us flat-earthers AL, so you might as well just pack up and leave.
Damn keyboard!
Alex:
It's obvious we're all just a bunch of stoopid, flat-earthers.
Pretty much, yes. When you take scientific advice from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and reject same from NASA and NOAA, yeah, you're pretty stupid.
But I come here mainly to learn if there is any hope at all of reasoning with the modern conservative. I've been doing that my entire adult life and you guys have gotten much more rigid and close minded.
At the same time the billionaires have dumped many 100s of millions more into climate disinformation.
So, "dupes" is how I actually regard you on the subject of global warming, in all honesty.
Hey Alpha, I'll take exactly zero natural sciences education from you. Zip, zero, nada.
You do understand that shouting "greenhouse" or "closed system" or "feedback loop" doesn't exempt you from actually establishing cause and effect, right?
Do you really think the general populace is shit-witted enough to not notice when your "scientific findings" match up 100% with your political/social ambitions from the last half century? Drop the science pose and get to openly calling for the full-on collectivist society you really want. The jig is up.
Alex:
There is no hope for us flat-earthers AL, so you might as well just pack up and leave.
I know that. It is the innocent people who will suffer as a result that I am concerned with. Future generations, especially.
The ocean could cover NYC and you guys would still blather on whatever tripe you're fed from your leaders.
baaaaaa?
I know that. It is the innocent people who will suffer as a result that I am concerned with. Future generations, especially.
Surely you should spend time on youth-blogs, rather then Althouse? We're all old and set in our ways here. You really have made ZERO progress in all the years, so why waste another minute on us STOOPID flat-earthers?
AL: When you brought up the point about NYC being underwater I went out and started my car to let it warm up before I hop in. In maybe an hour.
Fantastic news!!
But then I read the old articles about what scientists believed about Gaia back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Were those scientists not real scientists? Or were they in the employ of the heating companies?
Lincolntf:
Do you really think the general populace is shit-witted e
No, no, no.
I think conservatives are too tribal in their thinking to consider real sources of science on scientific topics.
A majority of the general public accepts that global warming is real.
Instead you take your science instruction from the Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.
Which is pretty fucking DUMB if you think about it (not that you do, obviously).
I don't know how I can make that any easier for you to understand.
But by all means, defend Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh as scientific experts.
Since I've established that AL is wasting his time here trying to change any minds on ANY subject, I can only conclude he enjoys the back and forth insults and name-calling. Whatever gets his rocks off, I guess.
LpahLibtard: Bruce Hayden, you are wrong on CO2. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Funny how you froth and rant at conservatives over greenhouse gases and then, when someone like Bruce takes the time to explain where you are wrong, you have a meltdown.
I am done beating my head against the wall. Really, you guys are not honest debaters in the slightest.
Based on your history here, why would anyone engage you with honest debate? You deserve to be mocked. But don't stop, I enjoy watching you beat your head against a wall.
an entire winter of record-shattering cold, let alone a single week, might be a meaningless blip in the overall scheme of long-term climate trends.
From the 1994 article. The Time writer made the unfortunate -- but common -- mistake of conflating weather events with climate, even though the sentence above gets it exactly right. A weather event can be a meaningless blip -- unless there are many many of them, then they acquire meaning.
I also recall the mid-70s work on impending climate cooling. I think it arose mostly because Earth Orbital cycles suggested that perhaps the Earth was/is heading towards a cooler period, and suddenly there were some really cold cold winters (in the US) so scientists (naturally) tried to connect the two observations. That there weren't a lot of followup articles on the subject suggests to me that it was a hypothesis that was tested and found wanting.
(the 1994 article that LarryJ linked to, at 2:44 , that is.)
CO2 levels in the past
The left is now and the right is 500 million years ago. All that carbon in the form of coal we dig up had to come from somewhere.
AlphaLibtard: I've been doing that my entire adult life and you guys have gotten much more rigid and close minded.
Maybe its you. Instead of us.
Yes, most definitely.
Michael, that was a joke.
And we have already addressed the red herring of "global cooling."
I could have sworn I posted this before in response to Jay but am not finding it:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Debunking global cooling. It was never a serious scientific issue. It was never the focus of a movement.
Don't know where the previous post went...
"But I come here mainly to learn if there is any hope at all of reasoning with the modern conservative. I've been doing that my entire adult life and you guys have gotten much more rigid and close minded."
I love when the dogmatic fool lectures on "reasoning". The smug "I've been doing that my entire adult life" is icing on the cake. What does it take to convince oneself that inventing a new level of assholedom is a sacrifice on behalf of humanity?
It is the innocent people who will suffer as a result that I am concerned with. Future generations, especially.
Aw, isn't that cute.
You're so "caring" and you just want to help.
Based on your history here, why would anyone engage you with honest debate?
I had set a policy for myself to not do that exact thing. I upended that today to specifically see what he would think about a noted climatologist going from "the sun isn't the most important" to "the sun is the most important" (paraphrasing obviously). He has completely avoided the challenge and continued to insult people, making sweeping generalizations as he is habitually wont to do.
Policy reinstated.
Madison Man: You might be right about the tested hypothesis in the70s. But in the current debate I believe the hypothesis has been conflated into a religious principle thus giving scientists ample time to back into the proof.
The lack of skepticism of people like AL is alarming. If the solution to global warming was lower taxes and greater wealth for the rich I think the interest would wane. But since the solution can only mean the redistribution of wealth and higher taxes the liberals have a cause they can love.
I could have sworn I posted this before in response to Jay but am not finding it:
Idiot:
YOU ASSERTED THAT GLOBAL COOLING WAS "tested the scientific process"
NAME THE SCIENTISTS WHO TESTED IT
Please.
AGW theory is derived entirely from computer models, and many of those models are decades old.
There is not now or has there ever been a model of the atmosphere that can reliably predict weather over a period of more than a week (and usually considerably less) let alone the global climate. A prime example is the weather we're experiencing right now. Just a week ago the long-term forecast for December called for below normal temperatures along the Pacific coast and above normal temperature for the Southeast. This was based on La Niña influences on offshore surface water temperatures. Now the reality, La Niña is still there, as strong as ever, but the weather pattern is shaping up to be the exact opposite of what was predicted.
There are two hallmarks of a good theory which AGW (hell, GW period anthropogenic or not) theory so far lacks:
1) Predictive Power -- AGW has failed to demonstratively predict anything. The occasional warm summers and cold winters that have been the dominant pattern lately are well within normal decadal fluctuation. One might as well use tarot cards than AGW theory to predict the climate.
2) Falsifiability -- So far AGW believers (and that's what they are) won't admit that any observation mitigates against AGW theory. By their reasoning hot, cold, wet, dry, windy calm, everthing is evidence for their claim. This is nonsense, of course, a theory that explains everything explains nothing.
Essentially AGW believers want us to gamble everything on a signal that is fainter than the noise.
wv: chiliess (used in a sentence) This is the chiliess December 6th I can remember.
AlphaLibtard: Debunking global warming. It was never a serious scientific issue. It was never the focus of a movement.
/fixed for Alpha to use 10 years from now when he jumps on the global cooling religion.
"Instead you take your science instruction from the Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh."
This is about the 50th time AL has said this in the same thread. I can't think of any assertion less reasonable or accurate. The fact that he apparently sincerely believes this is just funny.
Debunking global cooling. It was never a serious scientific issue. It was never the focus of a movement.
You understand that posting a snippet saying there wasn't consensus on global cooling is not the same as global cooling tested by the scientific process, right?
AL: Oh, BTW, water vapor increases with global warming because a warmer atmosphere, and oceans, mean more water in the air.
Which is also related to cloud formation. If you have ever flown in an aeroplane you can easily see that clouds reflect a lot of light out into space. Not so cut and dry as one might think at first.
Hey Alpha, will you at least admit that all your AGW data has been corrupted?
You want to be treated like an adult, fine. Address that then.
I get my science from radio hosts? Are you a fucking idiot?
Only dipshit Leftards look to celebrities and washed up politicians for "credibility" when it comes to science.
I'd like to think that next year some time Congress will be able to emulate the UK Judiciary and begin expunging the anti-science Leftist agenda from the national curriculum by taking "An Inconvenient Truth" out of science classes. Then I'll believe the country is on the right path for good.
leftist goof assertion:
The theory [global cooling] was tested by the scientific process and abandoned.
5th request:
Name 2 scientists who "tested" the global cooling theory by the "scientific process"
Thanks.
Instead you take your science instruction from the Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh.
The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt...
Here's an alarming article on the impending ice age:
Time Magazine, 1972
Little AlphaLiberal was probably scared to death of killer glaciers back then.
Fen says...
Hey Alpha, will you at least admit that all your AGW data has been corrupted?
They will never do that. They can't.
But, on the side of the there has been no falsification of data, you have:
1. The figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
2. Deleted emails
3. NASA suggesting East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was better.
4. New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.
5. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s data was manipulated (Professor Jones admitted withholding data about global temperatures).
The major heat is with the rhetoric.
From the left:
We're all going to die if we don't do something NOW!!!!!
from the right:
its a tree-hugging liberal conspiracy/ fantasy
Would it not be easier to say that:
1) there is growing scientific consensus of an increase in global average temperature
2) CO2 could be a cause but the data is conflictual and our ability to test the hypothesis via an experimental design is limited
3) In the absence of clear, settled science dramatic policy change that will cause incredible economic upheaval is dangerous at best
And as for the lawsuit:
All animals (with the exception of some bacteria) are GUILTY. Even the dead are guilty of releasing CO2.
Oooh, this is scary:
If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
Science Magazine, 1971
Frightening!
Maguro,
I liked that link. The guy said:
But if man continues his "interference with climate through deforestation, urban development and pollution," says Emiliani in typical scientific jargon, "we may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses."
Climate change!!!
Alpha Liberal wrote:
The ocean could cover NYC and you guys would still blather on whatever tripe you're fed from your leaders.
You do realize that the Day After Tomorrow was just fiction right?
I see that AL has not answered the question about his scientific credentials.
A sure sign that he has none.
Dandy Don never believed in Global warming. Ever since the Ice Bowl he couldn't give a shit.
One of testicles froze off.
I see that AL has not answered the question about his scientific credentials.
A sure sign that he has none.
Hell, 25,000 short years ago parts of the Bronx were completely covered by glaciers. Without natural global warming there would be NO New York City. Can't have your Big Apple and eat it too.
AlphaLibtard: The ocean could cover NYC and -
that would be lovely.
Does anyone have the quote from the EuroCrat admitting its all about restribution. I can't locate it atm.
Here's AT's article on the IPCC confession.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/ipcc_expert_admits_un_goal_is.html
AL breathlessly asked:
"Man this is one big ass worldwide conspiracy?
Please enlighten us!!
When do they hold meetings for this conspiracy?"
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”
(Damn, sorry I missed this thread)
RICO them all.
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."
c3 wrote:
1) there is growing scientific consensus of an increase in global average temperature
2) CO2 could be a cause but the data is conflictual and our ability to test the hypothesis via an experimental design is limited
3) In the absence of clear, settled science dramatic policy change that will cause incredible economic upheaval is dangerous at best
Point 1 -- Probably NOT true.
Point 2 -- Increases in atmosphere CO2 seem to be more a result of warming than a cause. Al Gore's famous PowerPoint slide shows warm peaks leading CO2 peaks, a truth he conveniently overlooks. The future cannot cause the past.
Point 3 -- Certainly true and it HAS already.
garage mahal projected: "Coldists reveal their mystical, shall I say, religious zeal in The War Against Thermometers. [aka TWAT]."
Yeah sure, why not?
(Bet you never bothered the critical thinking part of actually checking the termometers; blindingly adhering the shit you read)
I would be interested in knowing what the ideal "steady state" temperature of the earth is. Alpha? any insights on that?
From a the perspective of a longer time horizon we have been in a long term warming trend since the end of the last ice age--where it goes from there I dont know. Nor, do I suspect anyone else knows.
An alarming report from Newsweek:
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
Scientific consensus!
Newsweek, 1975
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा