New Study: “Humans Are Responsible” for Warming Even Antarctica

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Your right. What do a bunch of climate scientists know anyways?

[Pooky 3,792]

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Either that, or the wife left the window open again.

Your right. What do a bunch of climate scientists know anyways?

Gimme a break and include the last line of the quote - you know, the one I've highlighted in red.

Or is this another example of deliberate misquoting to bend what someone says to fit your own point of view?

Edited November 4, 2008 by Pooky

[akdiver 3]

Or is this another example of deliberate misquoting to bend what someone says to fit your own point of view?

I don't think there is anything sinister about it. I have noticed that a lot of VJ members have serious reading comprehension issues. It comes out when they interpret posts to mean something entirely other than what they ACTUALLY SAY, make all kinds of assumptions about motives for posting, and other such things.

Just relax Pooky, and understand that you're dealing with disabilities that people really can't help.

[NickD 203]

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Your right. What do a bunch of climate scientists know anyways?

Ironically nobody was talking about global warming until Gore came out with his Inconvenient Truth cartoon movie, now everybody is. Gore want to return to the low CO2 levels of the 60's when we had a zillion smokestacks here, but yet his cause for the high CO2 levels is the smokestacks.

At least the British have some common sense, read:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...gore-errors.pdf

[akdiver 3]

...and I bet he doesn't walk or ride a bike everywhere he goes either.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Stephen, Don't you mean 'white humans'? Lose the guilt.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Either that, or the wife left the window open again.

i always thought you was female.

[HAL 9000 96]

We need more war, famine, and disease. Less humans = less global warming.

Lets be efficient, too. Decrease the population of those that consume resources that cause GW more than others. Do the math.

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Either that, or the wife left the window open again.

Yeah, its November.

Yet ironically, its 56 degrees at 11:33 PM in Chicago.

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Your right. What do a bunch of climate scientists know anyways?

Ironically nobody was talking about global warming until Gore came out with his Inconvenient Truth cartoon movie, now everybody is. Gore want to return to the low CO2 levels of the 60's when we had a zillion smokestacks here, but yet his cause for the high CO2 levels is the smokestacks.

At least the British have some common sense, read:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...gore-errors.pdf

I've been reading about greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one, far longer than Al Gore became Vice President. And I am in science.

[NickD 203]

We need more war, famine, and disease. Less humans = less global warming.

Lets be efficient, too. Decrease the population of those that consume resources that cause GW more than others. Do the math.

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Either that, or the wife left the window open again.

Yeah, its November.

Yet ironically, its 56 degrees at 11:33 PM in Chicago.

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Your right. What do a bunch of climate scientists know anyways?

Ironically nobody was talking about global warming until Gore came out with his Inconvenient Truth cartoon movie, now everybody is. Gore want to return to the low CO2 levels of the 60's when we had a zillion smokestacks here, but yet his cause for the high CO2 levels is the smokestacks.

At least the British have some common sense, read:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...gore-errors.pdf

I've been reading about greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one, far longer than Al Gore became Vice President. And I am in science.

Well try reading this, and most important, try to dispute it:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[HAL 9000 96]

I've read similar information before. One, of several things they are neglecting to consider is actual variability in mean temperature measurements before mathematically filtering mean global temperature- you know its like stating that its 25 degrees C in North America on average and stating that as global temperature average itself.

I did also take note in the CO2-greenhouse gas information. I hope you do not base your belief on this kind of misconception... for one, the earth's troposphere is the first, earth-bound layer of the atmosphere. Most greenhouse gases concentrate at the upper troposphere and leech upwards. Measurements in sites like these are good because they show some scientific competency but they do not account for the rest of available data-- making them a bit incomplete.

So... water vapor... a greenhouse 'gas'?? Absolutely.

Small amounts of CO2 move at excitable energy levels. Any engineer that has worked with CO2 lasers can give you more exact quantification on that.

Furthermore- the article claims that global science ignores CO2 as an essential component of the worldwide food web. Nothing could be further from the truth as plant scientists can also tell you quite easily what are the CO2 requirements for each plant species as much as I can quantify the metabolic expenditure of say, a mouse mutant for a thermoregulatory hypothalamic gene that causes increased physical activity and increased CO2 output. But to be more on the point- excitable molecules resonate. The higher the concentration of any molecule in a solution (atmosphere), the higher the amount of energy released from resonating molecules that are in it. Hence, trying to lay CO2 off the hook is not only irresponsible, but given the inconsistent logic behind some of the arguments listed in this source, I can only imagine why they try to write such an article with so many questions yet ignore some very simple scientific reasoning.

At least they do not jump the gun to refute human-caused global warming. CO2 can and does increase energy output at below-saturation concentrations, contrary to what they use as a concluding point, and so do other greenhouse gases. They also fail to mention what occurs past saturation.

Finally they do not even consider biological buffer failure in plants or in other living species. Quite bluntly, while living organisms have a certain cellular detoxifying ability, there comes a certain point where accumulation becomes toxic. Arguing that because temperature fluctuations have occured in the past as a justification of sorts that global warming isn't all that bad fail to mention mass extinction events that have occured in this planet's history.

But also... check who Dr. Milloy is and what he stands for.

[Pooky 3,792]

But its freezing at the South Pole Therefore, Global Warming is false.

Who gives a ** whether it's freezing or not at the South Pole?

It's freezing here, therefore Global Warming is a bunch of tree-hugging hippy hooey!

Either that, or the wife left the window open again.

i always thought you was female.

Well, you learn something new every day.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Pooky

[Mononoke28 135]

I've read similar information before. One, of several things they are neglecting to consider is actual variability in mean temperature measurements before mathematically filtering mean global temperature- you know its like stating that its 25 degrees C in North America on average and stating that as global temperature average itself.

I did also take note in the CO2-greenhouse gas information. I hope you do not base your belief on this kind of misconception... for one, the earth's troposphere is the first, earth-bound layer of the atmosphere. Most greenhouse gases concentrate at the upper troposphere and leech upwards. Measurements in sites like these are good because they show some scientific competency but they do not account for the rest of available data-- making them a bit incomplete.

So... water vapor... a greenhouse 'gas'?? Absolutely.

Small amounts of CO2 move at excitable energy levels. Any engineer that has worked with CO2 lasers can give you more exact quantification on that.

Furthermore- the article claims that global science ignores CO2 as an essential component of the worldwide food web. Nothing could be further from the truth as plant scientists can also tell you quite easily what are the CO2 requirements for each plant species as much as I can quantify the metabolic expenditure of say, a mouse mutant for a thermoregulatory hypothalamic gene that causes increased physical activity and increased CO2 output. But to be more on the point- excitable molecules resonate. The higher the concentration of any molecule in a solution (atmosphere), the higher the amount of energy released from resonating molecules that are in it. Hence, trying to lay CO2 off the hook is not only irresponsible, but given the inconsistent logic behind some of the arguments listed in this source, I can only imagine why they try to write such an article with so many questions yet ignore some very simple scientific reasoning.

At least they do not jump the gun to refute human-caused global warming. CO2 can and does increase energy output at below-saturation concentrations, contrary to what they use as a concluding point, and so do other greenhouse gases. They also fail to mention what occurs past saturation.

Finally they do not even consider biological buffer failure in plants or in other living species. Quite bluntly, while living organisms have a certain cellular detoxifying ability, there comes a certain point where accumulation becomes toxic. Arguing that because temperature fluctuations have occured in the past as a justification of sorts that global warming isn't all that bad fail to mention mass extinction events that have occured in this planet's history.

But also... check who Dr. Milloy is and what he stands for.

Yeah! What he said.

Diana