Cap & Trade

[MtnBiker]

So in the future, how will congress cap the amount of carbon that is allow for volcanoes to spew into the atmosphere?

And how will congress be able to tax volcanoes when they do spew carbon into the atmosphere? If not congress at least the EPA.

[darin]

They'll simply "Be forced" to raise taxes to send billions to the Big Businesses in their pocket.

[Kathianne]

So in the future, how will congress cap the amount of carbon that is allow for volcanoes to spew into the atmosphere?

And how will congress be able to tax volcanoes when they do spew carbon into the atmosphere? If not congress at least the EPA.

An ayatollah in Iran says the earthquakes are because of slutty women, (is Martin an Iranian ayatollah?). Since it's just a jump to figure the earthquakes cause the volcano to erupt, I figure we should blame Palin or Bush, just so we don't get confused. Everything is their fault, no? So they should pay for 'clean up.' ;)

[cat slave]

Anyone heard from Big Al on this one? Lets see how he proves that its part
of global warming!

Guess all the ice melting from the glaciers are putting the earth out of balance,
causing tectonic plates to grind and bringing lava to the surface. Oops, dont
want to give him any ideas since all his have vaporized...lol!!!

What an insufferable putz! Its amazing that he was actually able to invent
the internet! :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

Anyone heard from Big Al on this one? Lets see how he proves that its part
of global warming!

Guess all the ice melting from the glaciers are putting the earth out of balance,
causing tectonic plates to grind and bringing lava to the surface. Oops, dont
want to give him any ideas since all his have vaporized...lol!!!

What an insufferable putz! Its amazing that he was actually able to invent
the internet! :laugh2:


Cat Slave your guess is not to far off, the warmers actually do believe that "global warming" can cause volcanic eruptions;


OSLO (Reuters) - A thaw of Iceland's ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

"Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades," said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-cap-thaw-iceland-volcanoes

The UN better hurry up and impose taxes on industrial countries to stop volcanoes from erupting.

[Insein]

Its actually funny. I read a story recently that this volcano will not have that great an impact on the environment despite the amounts of CO2 its spewing directly into the atmosphere. This from the same people that say we cause global warming.

[KarlMarx]

I have it.... seize Iceland, make it an American territory then tax the volcanoes

[SpidermanTUba]

So in the future, how will congress cap the amount of carbon that is allow for volcanoes to spew into the atmosphere?

And how will congress be able to tax volcanoes when they do spew carbon into the atmosphere? If not congress at least the EPA.

They won't. Volcanoes emit very little CO2 compared to what humans release by combustion of fossil fuel. So don't worry about.

[HogTrash]

They won't. Volcanoes emit very little CO2 compared to what humans release by combustion of fossil fuel. So don't worry about.Does this mean you are a loyal follower of the benevolent Al Gore :thanks: and his campaign to save the world from human-caused global warming?

[darin]

They won't. Volcanoes emit very little CO2 compared to what humans release by combustion of fossil fuel. So don't worry about.

Most-importantly...CO2 is awesome for the planet.

[SpidermanTUba]

Does this mean you are a loyal follower of the benevolent Al Gore :thanks: and his campaign to save the world from human-caused global warming?

Do you assume that merely because I have stated a fact?

[revelarts]

They won't. Volcanoes emit very little CO2 compared to what humans release by combustion of fossil fuel. So don't worry about.


Volcano emitting 150-300,000 tonnes of CO2 daily: experts

Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday."
...
...Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.

A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/volcano-emitting-150300000-tonnes-of-co2-daily-experts-1948708.html

But overall Volcanos are not that much of a CO2 producer. the REAL "bad Guys" are the Oceans with release more of the CO2. Tax King Neptune that's the ticket. Oceans Also Absord Co2 and most of the CO2 humans produce. So King Neptune should get some major carbon credits there.

[SpidermanTUba]

Volcano emitting 150-300,000 tonnes of CO2 daily: experts

Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday."
...
...Extrapolated over a year, the emissions would place the volcano 47th to 75th in the world table of emitters on a country-by-country basis, according to a database at the World Resources Institute (WRI), which tracks environment and sustainable development.

A 47th ranking would place it above Austria, Belarus, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, according to this list, which relates to 2005.

Why did you stop quoting the article there? Why not include the next three paragraphs?



Experts stressed that the volcano contributed just a tiny amount - less than a third of one percentage point - of global emissions of greenhouse gases.

Total emissions by six heat-trapping gases in 2005 were more than 36 thousand million tonnes (36 gigatonnes) as measured in CO2, according to the WRI index.

"It's not of any significance compared to the anthropogenic [manmade] budget," said Kjetil Toerseth, director of regional and global pollution at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research.




Oceans Also Absord Co2 and most of the CO2 humans produce.

By your tone I suspect you foolishly believe the ocean can absorb an infinite amount of CO2.

[revelarts]

Why did you stop quoting the article there? Why not include the next three paragraphs?

I was responding to the comment that seemed to be saying that the amount of CO2 was insignificant in general.
That seems to be in STARK contrast to the idea that my personal "carbon foot print" is Destroying life as we know it.
"if you don't ride your bike to work tomorrow were ALL GONNA DIE.
huh ? ..Volcanoes bleaching tonnes of CO2, Ash, Sulfur, and other deadly chemicals into the air, Mmmeh no problem."



By your tone I suspect you foolishly believe the ocean can absorb an infinite amount of CO2.

infinite, I doubt any finite body has any infinite capacity, but It's probably got more that we need.
If we needed to worry about CO2 at all.
Which we don't

[SpidermanTUba]

I was responding to the comment that seemed to be saying that the amount of CO2 was insignificant in general.


I didn't say it was insignificant "in general" - I said it was insignificant compared to manmade emissions, and the article YOU linked backs up that very assertion, and now for the SECOND TIME, I will verbatim quote it doing this:



"It's not of any significance compared to the anthropogenic [manmade] budget," said Kjetil Toerseth, director of regional and global pollution at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research.

So try again.



infinite, I doubt any finite body has any infinite capacity, but It's probably got more that we need.

Oh, WELL then, I guess if you've got a fucking GUT FEELING, that trumps any actual science.

[cat slave]

Most-importantly...CO2 is awesome for the planet.

Exactly. The trees can use all the co2 we can possibly churn out.
Reduced co2=distressed plant life. Duh!!!!

[cat slave]

Since we breathe it out we will be taxed for it....runners will pay a tax for
polluting the planet with a harmful emission. No more running, working out,
playing football or baseball, no nothing...gotta save the planet! What a joke.

[SpidermanTUba]

runners will pay a tax for
polluting the planet with a harmful emission.


Uhh, no they won't. Not under any actual proposed law. That is what we are arguing over here, right, actual proposed legislation?

[HogTrash]

Do you assume that merely because I have stated a fact?So, do you believe Al Gore's hypothesis that human activity over the last 100 years is the catalyst for this global warming event, despite the overwhelming evidence against it?

[SpidermanTUba]

So, do you believe Al Gore's hypothesis that human activity over the last 100 years is the catalyst for this global warming event, despite the overwhelming evidence against it?

That's not Al Gore's hypothesis, and there is very little evidence against it that exists outside of your mind and the right wing blogosphere.

[HogTrash]

That's not Al Gore's hypothesis, and there is very little evidence against it that exists outside of your mind and the right wing blogosphere.I'm sure what you really mean is that there is very little evidence to dispute Human Caused Global Warming that is released by the government or reported by the mainstream media.

Not to mention that I had been taught by the 5th grade that global climate change has occured millions of times since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago...Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

In case you haven't been paying attention, this fraud has been exposed...Apparently there's still a few of you gullible die hards left around...Do you pay any attention to what's happening in the world?

Consider this...If Al Gore actually believed his own story, do you think his carbon footprint would be so GIGANTIC?...For christ sake, he flies himself all over world in a private jet, along with his cohorts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.Use your head!...Do any of these people sound like they are actually in fear of Global Warming???

:lol:

[hortysir]

I'm sure what you really mean is that there is very little evidence to dispute Human Caused Global Warming that is released by the government or reported by the mainstream media.

Not to mention that I had been taught by the 5th grade that global climate change has occured millions of times since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago...Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

In case you haven't been paying attention, this fraud has been exposed...Apparently there's still a few of you gullible die hards left around...Do you pay any attention to what's happening in the world?

Consider this...If Al Gore actually believed his own story, do you think his carbon footprint would be so GIGANTIC?...For christ sake, he flies himself all over world in a private jet, along with his cohorts.
Use your head!...Do any of these people sound like they are actually in fear of Global Warming???

:lol:

And how did the earth warm pre-human influence?
:beer:

[Monkeybone]

And how did the earth warm pre-human influence?
:beer:

our elliptical orbit? see the temp varies depending on our distance... and since we aren't orbiting a perfect circle... temp fluxes. ta-daaa!

[SpidermanTUba]

I'm sure what you really mean is that there is very little evidence to dispute Human Caused Global Warming that is released by the government or reported by the mainstream media.


No, I mean there is little evidence to dispute it in the scientific literature. By all means, point it out to me if its there.


Not to mention that I had been taught by the 5th grade that global climate change has occured millions of times since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago...



Wow, really? NO FUCKING WAY WAY! This must be something that tens of thousands of climate scientists completely overlooked! You should RUSH RIGHT AWAY and PUBLISH this AMAZING DISCOVERY!



In case you haven't been paying attention, this fraud has been exposed...
There's an awful lot of folks that think that if they just keep repeating the above statement, it will be true. I'm sorry you're one of them.




Consider this...If Al Gore actually believed his own story, do you think his carbon footprint would be so GIGANTIC?...
Is that your scientific disproof of AGW? Whether or not Al Gore believes "his own story" ? Do you even realize how retarded you are?

[SpidermanTUba]

And how did the earth warm pre-human influence?
:beer:

Lots of different reasons. Usually due to Milankovitch cycle variations.

[SpidermanTUba]

our elliptical orbit? see the temp varies depending on our distance... and since we aren't orbiting a perfect circle... temp fluxes. ta-daaa!

Also due to variations in the sun itself.

[hortysir]

Lots of different reasons. Usually due to Milankovitch cycle variations.
Ain't that the guy with his own show on HBO?
:lol:

[Insein]

Also due to variations in the sun itself.

So with the vast amount of knowledge we don't have on the subject of why the earth is warming, wouldn't it be prudent to learn more about it instead of declaring the debate over as most alarmists do? I'm not debating the scientific aspect of it. I personally believe the sun has alot more to do with the planet's temp than anything our insignificant species could do in 1000 lifetimes. I'm debating the politics of it. Politicians and alarmists have taken this argument and geared our government policies towards taxing the public for a phantom problem with no solution. Throwing money at a boogeyman is not going to find out why global warming occurs let alone stop it. Attempting to stop the Earth from warming or cooling has the same success rate as us stopping the Earth's rotation. All we can do is understand why it is happening from a scientific aspect and adapt to the changes accordingly like we've done throughout our brief history on this rock.

[SpidermanTUba]

So with the vast amount of knowledge we don't have on the subject of why the earth is warming

We have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject, you are ill informed.



, wouldn't it be prudent to learn more about it instead of declaring the debate over as most alarmists do?
What is it you think climate scientists have been doing for the past 30 years?


I'm not debating the scientific aspect of it. I personally believe the sun has alot more to do with the planet's temp than anything our insignificant species could do in 1000 lifetimes.

OK, well unfortunately for you, its sort of irrelevant what you personally believe. While you've been going around simply believing whatever you like because it sounds good, others have been engaged in painstaking scientific research to answer the question of why the Earth is warming. And no, the sun cannot account for the recent warming. You can read all about it here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmos.washington.edu%2F2009Q1 %2F111%2FReadings%2FLockwood2007_Recent_oppositely _directed_trends.pdf&rct=j&q=Lockwood+solar++2007&ei=wlbXS53YLY-W8AT6krSbBw&usg=AFQjCNF9D4bFRuuzlMB-bDlmF5QClJusLw







Throwing money at a boogeyman is not going to find out why global warming occurs let alone stop it.

We already know why its warming. But I guess that would be a scientific thing, and that's not something you're really concerned with.

[Insein]

We have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject, you are ill informed.

We have vast amounts of data. Possibilities and theories that range from unusual solar activity to the carbination in soda cans causing warming. There is a difference between vasts amounts of conflicting data and actual knowledge.



OK, well unfortunately for you, its sort of irrelevant what you personally believe. While you've been going around simply believing whatever you like because it sounds good, others have been engaged in painstaking scientific research to answer the question of why the Earth is warming. And no, the sun cannot account for the recent warming. You can read all about it here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmos.washington.edu%2F2009Q1 %2F111%2FReadings%2FLockwood2007_Recent_oppositely _directed_trends.pdf&rct=j&q=Lockwood+solar++2007&ei=wlbXS53YLY-W8AT6krSbBw&usg=AFQjCNF9D4bFRuuzlMB-bDlmF5QClJusLw

Personal belief has alot to do with it. Based on which scientist you speak with, his/her personal opinions on the data can span a wide range of theories.



We already know why its warming. But I guess that would be a scientific thing, and that's not something you're really concerned with.

Why then is it warming?

[SpidermanTUba]

We have vast amounts of data. Possibilities and theories that range from unusual solar activity to the carbination in soda cans causing warming. There is a difference between vasts amounts of conflicting data and actual knowledge.

Now you're just completely talking out your ass. You've already admitted to not even being interested in the scientific aspect of it, yet you talk as if you are the world's foremost expert on the issue. Its frankly, hilarious.



Based on which scientist you speak with, his/her personal opinions on the data can span a wide range of theories.

I don't have to speak with any of them, they publish there findings and I can read them. The vast majority of the disagree with your "personal belief" and unlike you, they have actual scientific evidence to back it.



Why then is it warming?

Human produced greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

[Insein]

Now you're just completely talking out your ass. You've already admitted to not even being interested in the scientific aspect of it, yet you talk as if you are the world's foremost expert on the issue. Its frankly, hilarious.

Glad I'm here to ammuse you.




I don't have to speak with any of them, they publish there findings and I can read them. The vast majority of the disagree with your "personal belief" and unlike you, they have actual scientific evidence to back it.

As do the ones with opinions similar to mine.



Human produced greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

I'm glad you know for certain that that is the cause. Nothing in science is certain. You should know that being so scientificly sound and all.

Solar activity findings and evidence that Earth was warming before industrialization.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf

Unusual Solar Activity over the last century
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html

[SpidermanTUba]

As do the ones with opinions similar to mine.

Such as?


I'm glad you know for certain that that is the cause. Nothing in science is certain. You should know that being so scientificly sound and all.


Its as certain as gravity.


Unusual Solar Activity over the last century
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html

Seriously, do you even bother to read your own links?


Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades

[Monkeybone]

Also due to variations in the sun itself.
right there... double whammy. we didn't make global warming... where's my award?

[SpidermanTUba]

right there... double whammy. we didn't make global warming... where's my award?
I believe you misunderstood. You asked how warming trends of the past were caused. The warming trend of the past 30 years is almost exclusively due to man, and much of the warming trend in the decades prior to that, also due to man.

[red states rule]

Uhh, no they won't. Not under any actual proposed law. That is what we are arguing over here, right, actual proposed legislation?

Cap and Trade is a mega tax bill that will cost millions of jobs, increase the cost of energy across the board, and Dems did have a $1 increase of the Federal gas tax in the bill

Yea, just more of Obama's hope and change to pick our pockets, drive the economy further south, and put more people on the unemployment line

[red states rule]

I believe you misunderstood. You asked how warming trends of the past were caused. The warming trend of the past 30 years is almost exclusively due to man, and much of the warming trend in the decades prior to that, also due to man.

Yea, we had alot of that warming trend in Jan and Feb with record snow fall here on the East Coast

[SpidermanTUba]

Cap and Trade is a mage tax bill

It isn't a tax. A tax is something a business would pay to the government, not something it pays to another business.

[Monkeybone]

I believe you misunderstood. You asked how warming trends of the past were caused. The warming trend of the past 30 years is almost exclusively due to man, and much of the warming trend in the decades prior to that, also due to man.
nah. i was just saying that.

Have we caused it? I don't think so. Have we helped it along? Yah I think so. I don't think that it is as bad as they say, but that doesn't mean we can't be prevenative.

We can do without a Bill that the President himself said would raise the prices and such.

[red states rule]

It isn't a tax. A tax is something a business would pay to the government, not something it pays to another business.

Companies do not pay taxes. They pass the increased cost onto us the consumers, or they cut overhead. I.E. reduce their staff

I want to see Dems, and their supporters, spin an increase in the gas tax to the voters

[SpidermanTUba]

Yea, we had alot of that warming trend in Jan and Feb with record snow fall here on the East Coast

Wow, how surprising, it gets cold in the winter. You may also be surprised to find out that global "warming" actually refers to a change in temperature, not precipitation levels. But I'm sure the most unsettling thing you will discover is that "global" includes a lot more than the East Coast.

[SpidermanTUba]

Have we caused it? I don't think so. Have we helped it along? Yah I think so. I don't think that it is as bad as they say, but that doesn't mean we can't be prevenative.
Is that your expert opinion or are you just guessing based on what sounds right?

[SpidermanTUba]

Companies do not pay taxes. They pass the increased cost onto us the consumers, or they cut overhead. I.E. reduce their staff


I still would like to know how a business buying something from another business qualifies as a "tax" when a "tax" is something that is paid to government.

[red states rule]

Wow, how surprising, it gets cold in the winter. You may also be surprised to find out that global "warming" actually refers to a change in temperature, not precipitation levels. But I'm sure the most unsettling thing you will discover is that "global" includes a lot more than the East Coast.

Hey, Dems were saying years ago that NO snow in DC was a result of global warming

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcS7EQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

[Monkeybone]

both. Just like the sciencetist.

[HogTrash]

No, I mean there is little evidence to dispute it in the scientific literature. By all means, point it out to me if its there.http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/

http://www.heartland.org/full/24413/Facts_Contradict_Alarmist_Global_Warming_Assertion s.html

http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/100708%20Spencer%20presentation.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MWP.jpg

http://www.uigi.com/Temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/Thunder-Pig/Thunder%20Pig%20480%20Series/Gtemps480.jpg

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

If you are seriously interested in the truth and the reason why many scientist have gone along with the HCGW scam, watch the video below in it's entirety.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-
But I believe you are secure in your ingnorance and seriously doubt you will watch it at all.



Wow, really? NO FUCKING WAY WAY! This must be something that tens of thousands of climate scientists completely overlooked! You should RUSH RIGHT AWAY and PUBLISH this AMAZING DISCOVERY!So this is how you respond to the fact that global climate change is a natural occurance that has been taking place ever since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago?...WOW!

The scientist never overlooked this, they were simply hoping we would.


There's an awful lot of folks that think that if they just keep repeating the above statement, it will be true. I'm sorry you're one of them.The "folks" repeating "the above statement" are the ones who sought out the evidence that was never reported and never meant for them to see.

Did you know that global warming has been occuring on Mars simultaneously with Earth?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Do you suppose that is from the thousands of coal burning power plants and the millions of SUVs that are spewing CO2 all over the red planet?

You need to stop blindly believing everything the government and their lapdog media is spoon-feeding you on a daily basis and go in search of the truth for yourself.


Is that your scientific disproof of AGW? Whether or not Al Gore believes "his own story" ?Nope, that's just good old fashion common sense, einstein.

"Common Sense" is that thing you sacrificed at the alter of liberalism.

Like most liberals, you do not seek the truth, only confirmation of what you already believe.


Do you even realize how retarded you are?"My education, formal, street and worldly, far exceeds anything you will ever aspire to".

[SpidermanTUba]

Hey, Dems were saying years ago that NO snow in DC was a result of global warming


Do you have any scientific research to discuss or are you merely concerned with what non-scientist politicians have to say about this issue?

[red states rule]

Do you have any scientific research to discuss or are you merely concerned with what non-scientist politicians have to say about this issue?

These are the same people who are telling us they will tax us back to the stone age to save the planet, and they can't get their stories straight

Once agaon, Al Gore's amazing internet makes it easy to show how stupid liberals are

[Monkeybone]

Do you have any scientific research to discuss or are you merely concerned with what non-scientist politicians have to say about this issue?
you mean the ones that are swallowing it up and making our policies? Those ones? Seems like we would want them to be knowing in what they are talking about instead of it coming from their asses.

[red states rule]

you mean the ones that are swallowing it up and making our policies? Those ones? Seems like we would want them to be knowing in what they are talking about instead of it coming from their asses.

and this from RFK Jr who was all over TV preaching the doom and gloom message of global warming

The snowstorms this past winter drove him underground






RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.

Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend's extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.

UPDATE: RFK Jr. responds: “Idiots on the right like Rush like to point to any cold-weather anomalies as proof that global warming doesn’t exist



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0mLNqImYH

[SpidermanTUba]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/


http://www.heartland.org/full/24413/Facts_Contradict_Alarmist_Global_Warming_Assertion s.html


Dude, those are blog posts. Do you know what scientific literature is?


http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/100708%20Spencer%20presentation.pdf

A talk not subjected to peer review and unpublished in any journal. I'm going to go ahead and hazard a guess that the answer to my last question is "no"




If you are seriously interested in the truth and the reason why many scientist have gone along with the HCGW scam, watch the video below in it's entirety.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-LOL!

OK, you don't intend to actually provide any peer reviewed scientific papers to back your claims, just youtube videos?



So this is how you respond to the fact that global climate change is a natural occurance that has been taking place ever since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago?...WOW!

How would you prefer I respond to it? Its truly an amazing discovery. How did you do that?


The scientist never overlooked this, they were simply hoping we would. Do you have evidence to this effect? A youtube video of someone saying it? Or maybe a link to a blog post at the heartland institute?



The "folks" repeating "the above statement" are the ones who sought out the evidence that was never reported and never meant for them to see.
What the fuck are you even talking about?



Did you know that global warming has been occuring on Mars simultaneously with Earth?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


How do we know its a global trend?


Do you suppose that is from the thousands of coal burning power plants and the millions of SUVs that are spewing CO2 all over the red planet?

I don't "suppose" anything, unlike you I don't just take guess at what sounds right and go with it if it suits me. I admit my ignorance and read further on the matter. And if you had done the same thing you'd know that Solar activity has been DECREASING in the past few years so that obviously can't be causing the Martian ice cap to melt.



You need to stop blindly believing everything the government and their lapdog media is spoon-feeding you on a daily basis and go in search of the truth for yourself.

The government? I had no idea google scholar was government run. If I put on my aluminum hat will that block the microwave brain programming waves?

[red states rule]

and so much for the Ice Caps melting. I guess the enviro wackos will say "well its cold up there"




An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing


A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

[SpidermanTUba]

and so much for the Ice Caps melting. I guess the enviro wackos will say "well its cold up there"

If you'd bother to check their references, you'd see their link that they claim goes to "A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center" actually goes to another online newspaper.

[red states rule]

If you'd bother to check their references, you'd see their link that they claim goes to "A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center" actually goes to another online newspaper.

Yea, even Al Gore has a hard time with facts, Here is another link to the same story

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

[HogTrash]

Dude, those are blog posts. Do you know what scientific literature is?


A talk not subjected to peer review and unpublished in any journal. I'm going to go ahead and hazard a guess that the answer to my last question is "no"


LOL!

OK, you don't intend to actually provide any peer reviewed scientific papers to back your claims, just youtube videos?




How would you prefer I respond to it? Its truly an amazing discovery. How did you do that?

Do you have evidence to this effect? A youtube video of someone saying it? Or maybe a link to a blog post at the heartland institute?


What the fuck are you even talking about?



How do we know its a global trend?


I don't "suppose" anything, unlike you I don't just take guess at what sounds right and go with it if it suits me. I admit my ignorance and read further on the matter. And if you had done the same thing you'd know that Solar activity has been DECREASING in the past few years so that obviously can't be causing the Martian ice cap to melt.


The government? I had no idea google scholar was government run. If I put on my aluminum hat will that block the microwave brain programming waves?The truth of the matter is, dissenting peer reviews are not published...That's the wonderful thing about controling the flow of information.

Do you remember this story concerning Mr. Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

[SpidermanTUba]

The truth of the matter is, dissenting peer reviews are not published...That's the wonderful thing about controling the flow of information.

Do you remember this story concerning Mr. Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency?

LOL! Carlin's PhD is in economics! I don't know what you're whining about but climate science is not his expertise. He works as an operations research analyst, not a scientist. Is this your great proof that there is a worldwide conspiracy to silence the opposition? Because some ECONOMIST can't get his opinions published?

[HogTrash]

LOL! Carlin's PhD is in economics! I don't know what you're whining about but climate science is not his expertise. He works as an operations research analyst, not a scientist. Is this your great proof that there is a worldwide conspiracy to silence the opposition? Because some ECONOMIST can't get his opinions published?As a senior analyst for the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency, Mr Carlin's job was to anylize the data and make a report of his findings, which he did.

The whole point is, Mr Carlin's report did not adhere to the Obama Administrations party line so his report was rejected...If there on the up and up, why didn't they allow his report for consideration instead of burying it.

Wasn't his honesty and expertise on this matter what he was being payed for?...The simple truth is, only reports that strictly conform to the narrative will be considered or published...Anything that does not is rejected.

[SpidermanTUba]

The truth of the matter is, dissenting peer reviews are not published...That's the wonderful thing about controling the flow of information.

Do you remember this story concerning Mr. Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency?

I'm pretty sure his job isn't to cut and paste stuff from anti-AGW websites. You don't have to work 35 years to learn how to do that.

In this video, environmental advocate Peter Sinclair pretty much crushes the claims made by Carlin and his supporters, and conclusively demonstrates how Carlin lifted parts of his report directly from anti-AGW websites, including misleading graphs created with cherry-picked data from short time scales to show a distorted picture of global warming. Even more damning, Carlin’s premise that the Earth is cooling is directly contradictory to the conclusions of the scientists whose data he cherry-picked.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34402_Video-_About_That_Suppressed_EPA_Report

[HogTrash]

I'm pretty sure his job isn't to cut and paste stuff from anti-AGW websites. You don't have to work 35 years to learn how to do that.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34402_Video-_About_That_Suppressed_EPA_ReportWhat was that you said awhile ago about "blogs"? :laugh2:

[SpidermanTUba]

What was that you said awhile ago about "blogs"? :laugh2:

Whether or not Carlin lifted his report is a matter of fact, you don't need to do any scientific research to do that. Just read his report and read the websites he plagiarized it from. Why do you insist I care what a plagiarist has to say about anything?



Its all irrelevant anyway. Carlin is not a climate researcher. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I have no idea why you'd bring him up as an example of a dissenting scientist not being heard - he isn't a scientist - bad example. Surely if there is such a grand conspiracy to silence the opposition, you'd be able to produce examples of actual climate experts being denied publication?

[HogTrash]

Whether or not Carlin lifted his report is a matter of fact, you don't need to do any scientific research to do that. Just read his report and read the websites he plagiarized it from. Why do you insist I care what a plagiarist has to say about anything?



Its all irrelevant anyway. Carlin is not a climate researcher. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I have no idea why you'd bring him up as an example of a dissenting scientist not being heard - he isn't a scientist - bad example. Surely if there is such a grand conspiracy to silence the opposition, you'd be able to produce examples of actual climate experts being denied publication?His report did concern the economy according to the findings of the climatologist reports, whose conclusions were so tainted and full of holes that even an economist could see it.

Hell, even a fifth grader could see it...The bias and cherry picked information was so obvious that I'm surprised even the liberals were stupid enough to buy into this rediculous fiasco.

I never bought into this scam and am in awe that anyone could believe this absurdity the government has been trying to push on us to usurp ever more power and control over our lives.

You sir, are one of the many loyal raptured sheep that blindly follows your master's every command...You will do or believe whatever you are told without question...You're not qualified to vote.

[SpidermanTUba]

His report did....

Dude - its a PLAGIARIZED report - and you know this now - I'm not even going to justify your post by reading the rest of it.

Do you seriously have nothing to back up your scientific claims but plagiarized reports from economists? Pathetic.

[HogTrash]

Dude - its a PLAGIARIZED report - and you know this now - I'm not even going to justify your post by reading the rest of it.

Do you seriously have nothing to back up your scientific claims but plagiarized reports from economists? Pathetic.Dude??? :laugh2: Dude??? :lmao: Dear God, I'm arguing with a liberal idiot teeny-bopper! :bye1:

[SpidermanTUba]

Dude??? :laugh2: Dude??? :lmao: Dear God, I'm arguing with a liberal idiot teeny-bopper! :bye1:

?


Do you seriously have nothing to back up your scientific claims but plagiarized reports from economists?

I take it the answer is "I got nothing, but I can make fun of the way you talk!"

So why are you still here?

[HogTrash]

?



I take it the answer is "I got nothing, but I can make fun of the way you talk!"

So why are you still here?Making a quick scan of this thread, I counted 11 links that I provided to your one 'Little Green Football' blog...Who is that has nothing?

You are 100% totally relying on blind faith in a corrupt government that controls the scientific research it uses by means of Government Grants and a loyal media allie who controls the flow of information, to convince the worlds masses of a global warming scam for the purpose of usurping power and control of our lives through taxes and treaties of the worlds energy resources.

SUCKER

[SpidermanTUba]

Making a quick scan of this thread, I counted 11 links that I provided to your one 'Little Green Football' blog...Who is that has nothing?

I had no idea we were in a competition for number of links.


You are 100% totally relying on blind faith in a corrupt government that controls the scientific research it uses by means of Government Grants and a loyal media allie who controls the flow of information, to convince the worlds masses of a global warming scam for the purpose of usurping power and control of our lives through taxes and treaties of the worlds energy resources.



That's nice. Whenever you have any actual evidence of this grand conspiracy other than the EPA's refusal to publish a plagiarized report written by an economist - let me know.

[SpidermanTUba]

Making a quick scan of this thread, I counted 11 links that I provided to your one 'Little Green Football' blog...Who is that has nothing?

You actually missed the link I provided in this post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=423461&postcount=29

Though I can understand why you would, because its an actual scientific paper written by people with PhD's in science - not economics - and I know you like to get your science from economists.




http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/Levitus01.pdf
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_allen_051000.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/kleintanketal_ijc2005.pdf
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Rosenzweig_Attribution_Nature_2008.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.77.6835&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/haarsma_sahel_grl.pdf
https://www.gfdl.gov/bibliography/related_files/jls9801.pdf
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/Smith_Betancourt2006.pdf
http://bomi.ou.edu/luo/pdf/nature.pdf
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS2410-001_FA08/handouts/Barnett05.pdf
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/main/Science/posters2005/2005ds.pdf
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/203/Readings/SlipperySlope%2017Jun04v21.pdf
http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/Ruddiman-Holocene_Carbon_Cycle_Anthropocene-ClimChange03.pdf
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/IceCoreRecords2.pdf
http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2003/Geophysical_Research_Letters/2003GL017324.pdf
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf


There. I have more links than you. I win.

[HogTrash]

You actually missed the link I provided in this post:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=423461&postcount=29

Though I can understand why you would, because its an actual scientific paper written by people with PhD's in science - not economics - and I know you like to get your science from economists.




http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/Levitus01.pdf
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_allen_051000.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/kleintanketal_ijc2005.pdf
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Rosenzweig_Attribution_Nature_2008.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.77.6835&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/haarsma_sahel_grl.pdf
https://www.gfdl.gov/bibliography/related_files/jls9801.pdf
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/Smith_Betancourt2006.pdf
http://bomi.ou.edu/luo/pdf/nature.pdf
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS2410-001_FA08/handouts/Barnett05.pdf
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/main/Science/posters2005/2005ds.pdf
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/203/Readings/SlipperySlope%2017Jun04v21.pdf
http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/Ruddiman-Holocene_Carbon_Cycle_Anthropocene-ClimChange03.pdf
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/IceCoreRecords2.pdf
http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2003/Geophysical_Research_Letters/2003GL017324.pdf
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf


There. I have more links than you. I win.Junk Science derived from Government Grants...The only kind of "peer review" the government allows.

Hmmm?...I wonder why the government doesn't allow dissenting "peer reviews"?

Hmmm?...I wonder why government refuses to have a public debate with dissenting scientist concerning GW?

Hmmm?...I wonder exactly what it is the Human Caused Global Warming community is afraid of? :dunno:


I had no idea we were in a competition for number of links.I was simply responding to your claim that "I got nothing" you idiot. :laugh2:

[SpidermanTUba]

Junk Science derived from Government Grants...The only kind of "peer review" the government allows.



Hmmm?...I wonder why the government doesn't allow dissenting "peer reviews"?


Only a few of those links go to government published journals, most are to papers published in privately owned and operated journals, such as "Science", the "International Journal of Climatology", "Nature", I could go on, but I won't, because I know you aren't actually interested in anything factually evident.

Apparently all you intend to do is repeat over and over that the government is intentionally producing false science on AGW - without providing any evidence to this effect. You have already accomplished this, you've done a great job of making claims without evidence. However, I do not believe you simply because you say it is so, I'd like to see actual evidence, you don't wish to provide it. So this conversation would appear to be over.

[HogTrash]

Only a few of those links go to government published journals, most are to papers published in privately owned and operated journals, such as "Science", the "International Journal of Climatology", "Nature", I could go on, but I won't, because I know you aren't actually interested in anything factually evident.

Apparently all you intend to do is repeat over and over that the government is intentionally producing false science on AGW - without providing any evidence to this effect. You have already accomplished this, you've done a great job of making claims without evidence. However, I do not believe you simply because you say it is so, I'd like to see actual evidence, you don't wish to provide it. So this conversation would appear to be over.Think about what you just said here.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with it, I'm not going to take the time to explain it.

You and the rest of the liberals are world class idiots and the most gullible suckers to ever walk the planet.

Bye-Bye "dude". :bye1:

[SpidermanTUba]

Think about what you just said here.

If you can't figure out what's wrong with it, I'm not going to take the time to explain it.

You and the rest of the liberals are world class idiots and the most gullible suckers to ever walk the planet.

Bye-Bye "dude". :bye1:

Still no evidence? OK. Bye bye.

[gpp111]

Alan Carlin has the credentials to analyze the economic benefits of global warming policy.

Alan Carlin (born 1937), is an American economist specializing in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control. [1] Carlin has worked as a Senior Operations Research Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1974. Previously, he was Director of the Implementation Research Division of the EPA from 1971 to 1974. He worked as an economist at the Rand Corporation from 1963 to 1971. [2] Prior to working at Rand, Carlin earned a Ph.D in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a B.S. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology.

Here is Alan Carlin's report, which caused such a stir. It is well written and very understandable. The information contained in the report is easily verifiable as accurate.

Carlin basically says that the EPA endangerment finding is not supportable by the evidence.

Here are some interesting facts that are easily verified.

1. polar bear populations are the largest today ever recorded.

2. Global hurricane intensity is at 50 year lows

3. total polar sea ice volumes are today about the same as 30 years ago

4. Antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008

5. Arctic sea ice today is at about at the average of the last 30 years

6. Global temperatures, as measured by satellites, have been cooling since
2002

7. Sea temperatures, as measured by over 3,000 ARGO buoys, shows a slight cooling since 2002

8. CO2, can not cause temperatures to rise more than about 1 deg. C no matter how much there is, even if levels double or triple. For CO2 to cause temperatures to rise about 1 deg. C, they must cause positive feedbacks. These feedbacks have not been observed.

9. The warmest year in the USA was 1934 according to NASA GISS

10. the warmest decade in the USA was the 1930s according to NASA GISS

11. North American had the most snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

12. The northern hemisphere had the second largest snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

13. Russia had the coldest winter ever recorded in 2009-2010

14. There has been no measurable global warming since 1995

And there is a lot more, but I wont bore you unless you need more, and believe me there is a lot more.

[gpp111]

I am new to this forum and need five posts before allowed to add links. so let me get my five in and then there will be links to excellent sources

[SpidermanTUba]

alan carlin has the credentials to analyze the economic benefits of global warming policy.

his plagiarized his report

[cat slave]

Dude??? :laugh2: Dude??? :lmao: Dear God, I'm arguing with a liberal idiot teeny-bopper! :bye1:


He probably lives in his parents basement!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[cat slave]

Alan Carlin has the credentials to analyze the economic benefits of global warming policy.

Alan Carlin (born 1937), is an American economist specializing in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control. [1] Carlin has worked as a Senior Operations Research Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1974. Previously, he was Director of the Implementation Research Division of the EPA from 1971 to 1974. He worked as an economist at the Rand Corporation from 1963 to 1971. [2] Prior to working at Rand, Carlin earned a Ph.D in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a B.S. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology.

Here is Alan Carlin's report, which caused such a stir. It is well written and very understandable. The information contained in the report is easily verifiable as accurate.

Carlin basically says that the EPA endangerment finding is not supportable by the evidence.

Here are some interesting facts that are easily verified.

1. polar bear populations are the largest today ever recorded.

2. Global hurricane intensity is at 50 year lows

3. total polar sea ice volumes are today about the same as 30 years ago

4. Antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008

5. Arctic sea ice today is at about at the average of the last 30 years

6. Global temperatures, as measured by satellites, have been cooling since
2002

7. Sea temperatures, as measured by over 3,000 ARGO buoys, shows a slight cooling since 2002

8. CO2, can not cause temperatures to rise more than about 1 deg. C no matter how much there is, even if levels double or triple. For CO2 to cause temperatures to rise about 1 deg. C, they must cause positive feedbacks. These feedbacks have not been observed.

9. The warmest year in the USA was 1934 according to NASA GISS

10. the warmest decade in the USA was the 1930s according to NASA GISS

11. North American had the most snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

12. The northern hemisphere had the second largest snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

13. Russia had the coldest winter ever recorded in 2009-2010

14. There has been no measurable global warming since 1995

And there is a lot more, but I wont bore you unless you need more, and believe me there is a lot more.

Good post!

Welcome newbie:)

[SpidermanTUba]

9. The warmest year in the USA was 1934 according to NASA GISS

10. the warmest decade in the USA was the 1930s according to NASA GISS

11. North American had the most snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

12. The northern hemisphere had the second largest snow cover ever recorded in Feb 2010

13. Russia had the coldest winter ever recorded in 2009-2010

If Carlin is a global warming expert, please explain why he doesn't know what the term "global" means?

[Nukeman]

If Carlin is a global warming expert, please explain why he doesn't know what the term "global" means?
Gee I guess none of those places is anywhere on the "globe" are they????????

[SpidermanTUba]

Gee I guess none of those places is anywhere on the "globe" are they????????

The temperature at none of those places is equivalent to global averages, so I fail to see the relevance.

[gpp111]

Here is Alan Carlin's report.

It is easy to understand why he feels the EPA endangerment finding is unwarranted and that there is no evidence that man made CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

As for there being a consensus of scientists about global warming, this is a myth. Here is a list of over 700 internationally known scientists who have come out against the theory of man made global warming, and particularly why. This list was compiled by the U.S. Senate.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

[gpp111]

Peer review is often used by warmers as a way of trying to eliminate skeptics from publishing articles that are contrary to the theory of man made global warming.

Here are 450 peer reviewed papers that refute the theory of man made global warming due to CO2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/

[gpp111]

Warmers often use a tactic that when one gives climate information about a particular area, they say this is just a small part of earth, and that it does not reflect what is happening "globally".

So when I give climate information for the winter of 2009-2010, that U.S. temperatures were below normal, that Europe, Russia, and Asia, have below normal temperatures, they just say that this is a local condition.

Well, it is not. To have record cold in such large areas is directly contradictory to the man made global warming theory. Yes, there can be local conditions that reflect a small area and are not consistent with the 'bigger picture', but these vast areas, to be colder than normal, for months on end, that satellites are showing a cooling of the 'global atmosphere', that Argo shows the oceans are cooler, that Antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008, that the Arctic ice is today the largest in nine years, all this shows that there is something seriously wrong with the man made global warming theory.

But, some can not be convinced no matter what. They are the masters of disinformation, these warmers are.http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/divisionaltrank200912_201002.gif

[gpp111]

Here is a look at temperatures in the December 2009 to February 2010 period. looks a bit colder than normal wouldnt you say.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/northhemlstanom.jpg

[gabosaurus]

I love how a joke post about a volcano becomes another debate about global warming.

[SpidermanTUba]

Here is Alan Carlin's report.

Sorry I don't read reports that were plagiarized from other sources.



As for there being a consensus of scientists about global warming, this is a myth. Here is a list of over 700 internationally known scientists who have come out against the theory of man made global warming, and particularly why. This list was compiled by the U.S. Senate.

That list has actually been debunked on numerous occasions over the years, and it has to be debunked repeatedly because idiots like you are always bringing it up. You should check your sources. 80% of the list doesn't even have a single publication on climate, and only 10% do actual climate research.

[SpidermanTUba]

Peer review is often used by warmers as a way of trying to eliminate skeptics from publishing articles that are contrary to the theory of man made global warming.



Please show evidence of this



Here are 450 peer reviewed papers that refute the theory of man made global warming due to CO2

You just said that peer review stops these papers from being published. Which is it?




The first article on the list is from Energy & Environment. This is a journal whose editor follows a political agenda in the selection of articles to publish.


"I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?"
http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf

It may be the right of the editor to pass off politics as science, but don't expect anyone to find your journal credible.

[SpidermanTUba]

So when I give climate information for the winter of 2009-2010, that U.S. temperatures were below normal, that Europe, Russia, and Asia, have below normal temperatures, they just say that this is a local condition.

It may surprise you to find out there is an entire half of Earth called the "Southern Hemisphere" that you apparently are unaware of.


To have record cold in such large areas is directly contradictory to the man made global warming theory.

AGW doesn't actually predict that there should be no more record colds. I'm beginning to think you actually don't know what you're talking about.

[SpidermanTUba]

Here is a look at temperatures in the December 2009 to February 2010 period. looks a bit colder than normal wouldnt you say.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/northhemlstanom.jpg

Wow, my theory was correct, you really are unaware of the existence of the Southern Hemisphere.

[gpp111]

You warmers give typical weak answers.

You can bluff some people but not those who took the time to do some research.

The only accurate way to measure global temperatures is from satellites. The only way to exclude land use changes that impact local temperatures, is by measuring atmospheric temperatures thousands of feet above the earth's surface.

Temperatures do not change between night and day at these elevations.

The UAH, University of Alabama at Huntsville, is one of only several authorized international global agencies charged with the responsibility to measure global temperatures.

Note that global temperatures, and yes, this includes the southern hemispherre, have been cooling since 2002.

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uah-rss-full1.jpg

[gpp111]

Note, warmers, that all the global agencies responsible for measuring atmospheric temperatures show cooling since 2002, even though CO2 levels continue to increase. This includes NASA GISS

Satellite data from the atmosphere are only available from 1979, but are the most accurate way to measure global temperatures.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Since_2002.jpg

[gpp111]

The oceans are cooling.
Temperatures are near record lows in many parts of the globe, in both the north and south
Atmospheric temperatures are cooling
Record snowfall in many areas
Antarctica has the most ice in 2008 ever recorded
The Arctic has more ice today than the past 9 years.
The Arctic ice today is thicker than 1980
The atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise

Wow, where is all the warming? In the heads of the warmers. It is very much alive there.

You know what is all causing this. The Sun. The Sun had the lowest level of magnetic activity ever recorded in December 2009.

2008 and 2009 were two of five years with the lowest sunspots since 1849.

Low levels of solar actitivty, as measured with sunspots and magnetic activity, have strong connection with global temperatures, there is a 400 year record of this and with no deviation.

[gpp111]

Here is another chart of satellite data of atmospheric temperatures.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/VOOROTRENDS.jpg

and, there is a lot more data, lots lots more.

and you know, your head of the IPCC, you know the fellow,
Rajendra K. Pachauri, you know the one who won the Nobel Prize.

Guess were he got his education:

at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. No wonder I feel sometimes like I HAVE BEEN RAILROADED.

That's right, he is a railroad engineer. He has no formal training in climate physics. And he owns numerous companies that are profiting from climate change legislation. Talk about conflicts of interest!

[SpidermanTUba]

Note that global temperatures, and yes, this includes the southern hemispherre, have been cooling since 2002.


Do you understand the difference between what is statistically significant and what is not? There is NO statistically significant trend since 2002 - up or down - because that's not enough data to establish a trend.


I love how all you deniers pretend like you know what you're talking about, yet you don't even grasp basic math and science. You're all bunch of posing idiots who think their almighty feelings and opinions outweigh decades of painstaking scientific research. You should actually be ashamed at your sense of self importance.

[SpidermanTUba]

H
and, there is a lot more data, lots lots more.


Hard to believe, considering there is no data before 2002 as far as you are concerned!

[gpp111]

Oh, there you go again. You warmers should stop talking this way about yourselves.

Phil Jones, one of you warmers, you know the one, caught in climate gate. He said there "is no statisitical global warming since 1995".

I agree, it is a complete waste of time to show you warmers anything, you have already made up your minds. there could be ten feet of snow outside and you would say there is global warming.

If temperatures go up, it is becaue of global warming
If temperatures go down, it is because of global warming.

The ultimate climate hedge. Oh, maybe we should include this in the finance reforms.

[gpp111]

It did warm from 1979 to the late 1990s.

Global temperatures have been cooler since then on average.

It is a slow process. What natural forces caused the warming in the 80s and 90s has obviously reversed itself. the Sun, and it is now slowly cooling the planet.

[gpp111]

Read Carlin's report and you will get a good idea why this is happening.

[gpp111]

Here is the scoop on climategate. You warmers talk about decades of supposed scientific research....here are the leaders of your clan....

i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less than wholly objective and dispassionate?

ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

(iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of information Act requests?

(iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, was charged with investigating the accusations which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee...

Lord Lawson's response to these questions is damning:

We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are clearly 'yes'.

(In answer to question one) Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists' treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists' attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity.

So there you have it, your global warming scientists are very bad boys indeed.

[gpp111]

The Arctic sea ice extent today, is above normal, higher than the average of the last 30 years. Note how much more ice there is than in past years.

Where is the beef, I mean warming?http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/nansen_ssmi1_ice_area_042910.png