The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

[JohnSmith2007 353]

As I said, only American makes this into a party political issue.

BTW, liberalism is essential for scientific thinking. Political ideology is not.

No it doesn't. Most of the anti GW stories I see are from the UK.

I have a little article for you. It describes the wholesale ice loss in the arctic. Lets look at it:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

Ifft’s report appeared in NOAA’s Monthly Weather Review of November 1922. Whatever caused the “favorable conditions” in 1922, it is certain man-made greenhouse gases had nothing to do with it, and the rest of the world went on with the political and cultural revolutions of the 1920s without noticing any catastrophic climate change.

Yeah, arctic ice is melting. Tell me another fairy tale.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

oh brother....

Yeah, oh brother.

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

...from the guy who supports NASA, but thinks they are either lying or too stupid to accurately measure the earth's temperature.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

...from the guy who supports NASA, but thinks they are either lying or too stupid to accurately measure the earth's temperature.

This from the guy that trusts the government and thinks NASA is in it for the "common good" rather than continued funding. They are a government agency the same as any other. They run on funding and will do what ever they need to do, including getting "creative" with the numbers to continue to get that funding.

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

This from the guy that trusts the government and thinks NASA is in it for the "common good" rather than continued funding. They are a government agency the same as any other. They run on funding and will do what ever they need to do, including getting "creative" with the numbers to continue to get that funding.

That is the most asinine explanation of NASA's measurement of the earth's temperature. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.

[Boiler 45,923]

Weather is not climate.

Only in the US is there a denier movement that is this obsessive. Elsewhere people are trying to find solutions to the problems caused by releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is the inevitable result of the use of fossil fuels. Americans hate polar bears and arctic ice and all because they believe this is party political and a Gore initiate. Crazy.

BTW you do know there is flooding in Australia that covers an area the size of Germany and France put together? I am sure they find the jokes hilarious.

Add the UK to that list.

And you might want to look where Germany is putting its money into power generation (clue its usually black sometime brown)

The funny thing about Australia was that they spent a lot of assets to cope with the drought they were told was coming.

[tmma 467]

Weather is not climate.

Besides, weather is not climate.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

the good news is that no matter which of us is right...funding for GW is dead. No money, no GW. Fixxed.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

That is the most asinine explanation of NASA's measurement of the earth's temperature. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself.

Come on man, you can't be that gullible. NASA runs at the whim of congress. If you doubt they wouldn't bend data to satisfy the people writing the checks I got a bridge for sale.

Edited January 4, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

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

Come on man, you can't be that gullible. NASA runs at the whim of congress. If you doubt they wouldn't bend data to satisfy the people writing the checks I got a bridge for sale.

Sure buddy. Keep smokin that bacon.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In reality, it is all one giant plan to get chicks.

[tmma 467]

the good news is that no matter which of us is right...funding for GW is dead. No money, no GW. Fixxed.

people knowing the difference between weather and climate makes me so happy...

As far as GW goes.....The truth is......NO ONE knows for sure. NO ONE. Yes, there are bodies of scientists globally that have a consensus one way and a body of scientists that are equally convinced the other way and which ever way you spin it-both sets...both ARE to some extent influenced politics and funding source.

Me-I was collecting data and inputing it to produce models and BEST GUESS algorithms to create a representation of the atmosphere in the future-but the models are based on atmospheric content now and subject to many variables in the future..... in reality too many variables to bet the farm on.

IMO-Knowing that the Earth's climate has been historically cyclical the question ( to me) is what is the impact on that natural cycle of MAN MADE ' greenhouse gas' addition to the atmosphere...especially considering that the majority of greenhouse gases are naturally emitted.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

people knowing the difference between weather and climate makes me so happy...

As far as GW goes.....The truth is......NO ONE knows for sure. NO ONE. Yes, there are bodies of scientists globally that have a consensus one way and a body of scientists that are equally convinced the other way and which ever way you spin it-both sets...both ARE to some extent influenced politics and funding source.

Me-I was collecting data and inputing it to produce models and BEST GUESS algorithms to create a representation of the atmosphere in the future-but the models are based on atmospheric content now and subject to many variables in the future..... in reality too many variables to bet the farm on.

IMO-Knowing that the Earth's climate has been historically cyclical the question ( to me) is what is the impact on that natural cycle of MAN MADE ' greenhouse gas' addition to the atmosphere...especially considering that the majority of greenhouse gases are naturally emitted.

Close enough

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

people knowing the difference between weather and climate makes me so happy...

As far as GW goes.....The truth is......NO ONE knows for sure. NO ONE. Yes, there are bodies of scientists globally that have a consensus one way and a body of scientists that are equally convinced the other way and which ever way you spin it-both sets...both ARE to some extent influenced politics and funding source.

Me-I was collecting data and inputing it to produce models and BEST GUESS algorithms to create a representation of the atmosphere in the future-but the models are based on atmospheric content now and subject to many variables in the future..... in reality too many variables to bet the farm on.

IMO-Knowing that the Earth's climate has been historically cyclical the question ( to me) is what is the impact on that natural cycle of MAN MADE ' greenhouse gas' addition to the atmosphere...especially considering that the majority of greenhouse gases are naturally emitted.

Bullsh!t. There are no equal sides to the issue. It's an issue of science vs. those who deny the science behind GW. Saying that no one knows for sure on GW is like saying we don't know for sure how the theory of Gravity actually works. By stating obvious scientific uncertainties you imply that scientists can't predict possible outcomes with any degree of accuracy which is preposterous. Global Warming is real, is really happening right now and fossil fuel emissions are a significant contributor in the earth's temperature rising at an alarming rate. To suggest that such a claim cannot be satisfactorily made by climate scientists is unscientific and illogical.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Bullsh!t. There are no equal sides to the issue. It's an issue of science vs. those who deny the science behind GW. Saying that no one knows for sure on GW is like saying we don't know for sure how the theory of Gravity actually works. By stating obvious scientific uncertainties you imply that scientists can't predict possible outcomes with any degree of accuracy which is preposterous. Global Warming is real, is really happening right now and fossil fuel emissions are a significant contributor in the earth's temperature rising at an alarming rate. To suggest that such a claim cannot be satisfactorily made by climate scientists is unscientific and illogical.

If there is no money, GW is not real. Watch and see.