Coldest temps on record?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

Article published Dec 19, 2007
Year of global cooling


December 19, 2007

By David Deming - Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

...

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

[Hagbard Celine]

The fact that Earth gets colder when it slips into its winter orbit doesn't change the fact that we are going through global climate change. In other words, you can't point to the fact that winter is cold and then say it proves that the Earth isn't warming. Of course winter is cold. The Northern hemisphere is further away from the sun, it's primary source of heat radiation, during the winter.

[glockmail]

The fact that Earth gets colder when it slips into its winter orbit doesn't change the fact that we are going through global climate change. In other words, you can't point to the fact that winter is cold and then say it proves that the Earth isn't warming. Of course winter is cold. The Northern hemisphere is further away from the sun, it's primary source of heat radiation, during the winter. Duh- the article compares records from over 100 years, not just this year.

[Hagbard Celine]

Duh- the article compares records from over 100 years, not just this year.

My point stands. The winter is cold. DUH. You don't need 100 years worth of records to point that out. It's pretty damn hard to argue with the fact that glaciers all over the planet are either melting or have melted and that islands are beginning to be covered by sea water.

[glockmail]

[1]My point stands. The winter is cold. DUH. You don't need 100 years worth of records to point that out. [2]It's pretty damn hard to argue with the fact that glaciers all over the planet are either melting or have melted and that islands are beginning to be covered by sea water.

1. You do need at many years to compare the cold on a historical basis, which is the point of the article.
2. No one's arguing that. The argument is if it's caused by man. Looking at historical trends, as well as relative contributions of "greenhouse emissions" by man and nature, the scientific evidence shows that it is unlikely.

[Hagbard Celine]

1. You do need at many years to compare the cold on a historical basis, which is the point of the article.
2. No one's arguing that. The argument is if it's caused by man. Looking at historical trends, as well as relative contributions of "greenhouse emissions" by man and nature, the scientific evidence shows that it is unlikely.

What does it matter if it is caused by man? The point is that it's happening. What we need to be discussing is what to do about it, not bickering about who or what caused it. If it's us, we need to invest in green technology, recycle and reduce harmful emissions. If it's natural, we need to invest in green technology, recycle and reduce harmful emissions. Why argue a moot point?

[glockmail]

What does it matter if it is caused by man? The point is that it's happening. What we need to be discussing is what to do about it, not bickering about who or what caused it. If it's us, we need to invest in green technology, recycle and reduce harmful emissions. If it's natural, we need to invest in green technology, recycle and reduce harmful emissions. Why argue a moot point?


Again I've never argued the contrary. What I argue is the cost effectiveness of these so-called "green" technologies with that of others, such as nuclear, windmills in Ted Kennedy's backyard, efficient rail service, and use of natural gas deposits instead of allowing them to vent into the atmosphere. In comparision, the "green" technologies appear to be chosen based on political concerns, and can be shown to be less effective, even harmful.

[Hagbard Celine]

Again I've never argued the contrary. What I argue is the cost effectiveness of these so-called "green" technologies with that of others, such as nuclear, windmills in Ted Kennedy's backyard, efficient rail service, and use of natural gas deposits instead of allowing them to vent into the atmosphere. In comparision, the "green" technologies appear to be chosen based on political concerns, and can be shown to be less effective, even harmful.

I think we should all wear fart bags during the day to capture the methane produced by our asses. Then we could take it home at the end of the day, put it in a reservoir and power our blenders with it to make Fartaritas. :laugh:

[Immanuel]

Heresy! Heresy! The OP is nothing but heresy!

How dare you post anything that would even smell of contradicting the Great god Al Gore during his campaign to save the world? ;)

Gadget should be hog-tied and thrown out in the middle of the desert so he can see for himself just what Global Warming is all about until he begs for forgiveness from the Great god himself.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Personally, i think that we should do what we can to pollute less, just to reduce the asthma epidemic that is occuring, let alone other ill effects from it.

As far as global warming concerns, i think that we should be concentrating on how to make the best of it and to deal with it, because it could be too little too late to do something about slowing it down if it is manmade and if it is from a natural occurance then we should be planning on running out of fresh water and be building more Saline water conversion plants, clearing land in the far north to begin more farming, work on things to stop the huge infestation of bugs to come, move or build dikes for our coastal cities and stuff like that....

On my own, without legislation I am taking measures to be more environmentally friendly like changing my lightbulbs to the newer energy efficient ones, looking to heat with wood in an environmentally improved EPA certified wood stove, own a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon, using reclaimed rain water to water my veggie garden and flowers....buying antiques and used wood furniture and repurposing them for my own uses....just little things that actually can save me money by doing them....looking at and considering buying solar panels for my water and eventually electric, putting in solar garden lights vs electric...

I think the Gov needs to be looking at helping out with the things that are too big for me to do, like moving entire cities that will be under water someday, cuz personally, I don't think any measures that we try to do will reverse the inevitable, the ice caps melting, and losing our fresh water, thus food, world wide.

jd

[glockmail]

I heated my house with a catalytic wood stove back 20 years ago, as well as used compact florescents whenever I could. We're on our 2nd side load washer (uses 1/3 the water) and I've got 2' of insulation in my attic. I save energy whenever I can, as well as support alternative energies that make sense.

These wackos, however, don't really care about the environment. What they really want is power and control.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Personally, i think that we should do what we can to pollute less, just to reduce the asthma epidemic that is occuring, let alone other ill effects from it.

As far as global warming concerns, i think that we should be concentrating on how to make the best of it and to deal with it, because it could be too little too late to do something about slowing it down if it is manmade and if it is from a natural occurance then we should be planning on running out of fresh water and be building more Saline water conversion plants, clearing land in the far north to begin more farming, work on things to stop the huge infestation of bugs to come, move or build dikes for our coastal cities and stuff like that....

On my own, without legislation I am taking measures to be more environmentally friendly like changing my lightbulbs to the newer energy efficient ones, looking to heat with wood in an environmentally improved EPA certified wood stove, own a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon, using reclaimed rain water to water my veggie garden and flowers....buying antiques and used wood furniture and repurposing them for my own uses....just little things that actually can save me money by doing them....looking at and considering buying solar panels for my water and eventually electric, putting in solar garden lights vs electric...

I think the Gov needs to be looking at helping out with the things that are too big for me to do, like moving entire cities that will be under water someday, cuz personally, I don't think any measures that we try to do will reverse the inevitable, the ice caps melting, and losing our fresh water, thus food, world wide.

jd

I work in the lighting industry....I know that some of the highly touted energy conserving light bulbs that are being sold to consumers are highly toxic, and laden with Mercury! How many of you have actually disposed of fluorescent or even compact fluorescent light bulbs correctly?

There are enough compact fluorescent light bulbs in the US market right now, installed in homes, with the potential to contaminate 20 MILLION ACRES OF WATER!!!!!

DO NOT BUY COMPACT FLOURESCENT LIGHT BULBS!!!!!!!!(**if you do not intend on disposing of them correctly) The mercury content can be detrimental to the health of children, and the infirm!

On the other hand LED technology is getting much better and the dollars per lumen ratio is getting much better, and the output is getting to a point where it is actually usable.

As a professional in the lighting world, I still use traditional lighting technology, as it is stable, cost effective, and not bad on the environment. Fluorescent fixtures are the problem right now, in my opinion, as the mercury content is dangerous if the envelope is damaged.....

[JohnDoe]

I work in the lighting industry....I know that some of the highly touted energy conserving light bulbs that are being sold to consumers are highly toxic, and laden with Mercury! How many of you have actually disposed of fluorescent or even compact fluorescent light bulbs correctly?

There are enough compact fluorescent light bulbs in the US market right now, installed in homes, with the potential to contaminate 20 MILLION ACRES OF WATER!!!!!

DO NOT BUY COMPACT FLOURESCENT LIGHT BULBS!!!!!!!!(**if you do not intend on disposing of them correctly) The mercury content can be detrimental to the health of children, and the infirm!

On the other hand LED technology is getting much better and the dollars per lumen ratio is getting much better, and the output is getting to a point where it is actually usable.

As a professional in the lighting world, I still use traditional lighting technology, as it is stable, cost effective, and not bad on the environment. Fluorescent fixtures are the problem right now, in my opinion, as the mercury content is dangerous if the envelope is damaged.....

Excellent information to know Gadget!

My community dump has a special area to dump things toxic to the environment and was recently made aware of the mercury in computer monitors and television tubes and have had to dispose of them in this separate area.

jd

[Yurt]

The fact that Earth gets colder when it slips into its winter orbit doesn't change the fact that we are going through global climate change. In other words, you can't point to the fact that winter is cold and then say it proves that the Earth isn't warming. Of course winter is cold. The Northern hemisphere is further away from the sun, it's primary source of heat radiation, during the winter.

tell that to global alarmist who bring it up every summer. you know for a fact global alarming stories are about 20 to 1 in the summer.

[red states rule]

The fact that Earth gets colder when it slips into its winter orbit doesn't change the fact that we are going through global climate change. In other words, you can't point to the fact that winter is cold and then say it proves that the Earth isn't warming. Of course winter is cold. The Northern hemisphere is further away from the sun, it's primary source of heat radiation, during the winter.

Yet during the summer, on a hot day or during a heat wave, the liberal media rants about global warming

Or is it global cooling?

Or is it climate change?

[red states rule]

Personally, i think that we should do what we can to pollute less, just to reduce the asthma epidemic that is occuring, let alone other ill effects from it.

As far as global warming concerns, i think that we should be concentrating on how to make the best of it and to deal with it, because it could be too little too late to do something about slowing it down if it is manmade and if it is from a natural occurance then we should be planning on running out of fresh water and be building more Saline water conversion plants, clearing land in the far north to begin more farming, work on things to stop the huge infestation of bugs to come, move or build dikes for our coastal cities and stuff like that....

On my own, without legislation I am taking measures to be more environmentally friendly like changing my lightbulbs to the newer energy efficient ones, looking to heat with wood in an environmentally improved EPA certified wood stove, own a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon, using reclaimed rain water to water my veggie garden and flowers....buying antiques and used wood furniture and repurposing them for my own uses....just little things that actually can save me money by doing them....looking at and considering buying solar panels for my water and eventually electric, putting in solar garden lights vs electric...

I think the Gov needs to be looking at helping out with the things that are too big for me to do, like moving entire cities that will be under water someday, cuz personally, I don't think any measures that we try to do will reverse the inevitable, the ice caps melting, and losing our fresh water, thus food, world wide.

jd

Good for you JD. You are doing your part to save the planet from evil corporations and capitalists

Every Earth day I drive around all day with my cars muffler off

Does that count?

[red states rule]

The fact that Earth gets colder when it slips into its winter orbit doesn't change the fact that we are going through global climate change. In other words, you can't point to the fact that winter is cold and then say it proves that the Earth isn't warming. Of course winter is cold. The Northern hemisphere is further away from the sun, it's primary source of heat radiation, during the winter.

I wonder if CNN (the Offical Network for the DNC) will report this story?

Senate Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Manmade Global Warming


So, the debate is over, right? The science is settled?

Well, according to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works website, over 400 prominent scientists from all over the world have "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

It doesn't matter to them....it is called Global Warming, and those that profess that as gospel will demonize anyone with a counter argument, just as those who who sentenced Galileo for speaking the truth, only they will not be able to sentence us to death or imprisonment, literally, but will convict us in a court of "public opinion" of their peers who are drunk on the Gore Koolaid.

[MtnBiker]

I wonder if CNN (the Offical Network for the DNC) will report this story?

Senate Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Manmade Global Warming


So, the debate is over, right? The science is settled?

Well, according to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public works website, over 400 prominent scientists from all over the world have "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8


Big deal, all of those scientists where working for big oil companies.

[Hagbard Celine]

It doesn't matter to them....it is called Global Warming, and those that profess that as gospel will demonize anyone with a counter argument, just as those who who sentenced Galileo for speaking the truth, only they will not be able to sentence us to death or imprisonment, literally, but will convict us in a court of "public opinion" of their peers who are drunk on the Gore Koolaid.

Funny, I think Gore would accuse people like you of the same. :dunno:

[Kathianne]

Big deal, all of those scientists where working for big oil companies.

Yup, that's what Gore's spokesperson said! :laugh2: Well only 25-30 'may have':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...844993096/1001




...

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

[JohnDoe]

Good for you JD. You are doing your part to save the planet from evil corporations and capitalists

Every Earth day I drive around all day with my cars muffler off

Does that count?


hahahahaha!

:slap::slap::slap:

jd

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Funny, I think Gore would accuse people like you of the same. :dunno:

What is it , exactly that Gore would have a problem with....that I am asking questions, and skeptical of his money train and award winning hyped up movie, that professes his expertise in the way the climate works?

I honestly don't understand how he has become such an expert over the last several years, and he is the end all when it comes to science.

It is apparent that the debate is not over (as he is so quick to point out the contrary), by debating with infinitives that shuts the door to all logical investigation, and is quick to label anyone with a counter point, as someone who is paid by the energy industry or a Republican.....

He doesn't debate the merit of the arguement, just that they are not willing to accept HIS truth as gospel (I guess this is akin to blind faith, isn't it?)

Al Gore says it is wrong to have political people who have no scientific training altering the words of scientists. Apparently he does not recognize this is exactly what he has been doing for years, and even more so, that there are a long list of aver 400 who question his hypothesis.

I find the following review of his film quite poignant: http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html



Gore has won the global warming debate—the world is warming as a consequence of human activity, chiefly the loading up of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Yet he feels that he must exaggerate the dangers by propounding implausible scenarios in which sea levels rise 20 feet by 2100. He pretends that the science is settled with regard to the effect of global warming on hurricanes. And he pushes a scientifically tenuous connection between the spread of diseases and global warming. These are little inconvenient truths that cut against his belief that global warming constitutes a climate emergency. On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science (we'll leave the policy stuff to another time), but he undercuts his message by becoming the opposite of a global warming denier. He's a global warming exaggerator.

Even those who support his views, acknowldege he has exagerated claims to make his point even "more valid," rather than letting well enough alone, and having science debate the issues......

[Hagbard Celine]

What is it , exactly that Gore would have a problem with....that I am asking questions, and skeptical of his money train and award winning hyped up movie, that professes his expertise in the way the climate works?

I honestly don't understand how he has become such an expert over the last several years, and he is the end all when it comes to science.

It is apparent that the debate is not over (as he is so quick to point out the contrary), by debating with infinitives that shuts the door to all logical investigation, and is quick to label anyone with a counter point, as someone who is paid by the energy industry or a Republican.....

He doesn't debate the merit of the arguement, just that they are not willing to accept HIS truth as gospel (I guess this is akin to blind faith, isn't it?)

Al Gore says it is wrong to have political people who have no scientific training altering the words of scientists. Apparently he does not recognize this is exactly what he has been doing for years, and even more so, that there are a long list of aver 400 who question his hypothesis.

I find the following review of his film quite poignant: http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html




Even those who support his views, acknowldege he has exagerated claims to make his point even "more valid," rather than letting well enough alone, and having science debate the issues......

He's not the one doing the research. He IS, however the one person most responsible for spreading awareness about global warming and climate change so he has predictably become the poster boy for the issue. He wouldn't have a problem with you asking questions. What he and so many others have a problem with is purposely ignoring facts about the issue and then accusing him of something "criminal" or "underhanded." There's nothing wrong with planting trees and selling carbon credits. There's also nothing wrong with teaching people about climate change.

[Kathianne]

He's not the one doing the research. He IS, however the one person most responsible for spreading awareness about global warming and climate change so he has predictably become the poster boy for the issue. He wouldn't have a problem with you asking questions. What he and so many others have a problem with is purposely ignoring facts about the issue and then accusing him of something "criminal" or "underhanded." There's nothing wrong with planting trees and selling carbon credits. There's also nothing wrong with teaching people about climate change.

He also is the one heavily invested in the carbon off-sets, thus benefitting enormously by fear mongering. His education was not heavily tilted towards science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Early_life


In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row[10] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors, found a passion for government, and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government.[9] After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university's law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District in 1976.

but heh, he went on to inspire "Love Story" and invent the internet, so who knows?

[Hagbard Celine]

He also is the one heavily invested in the carbon off-sets, thus benefitting enormously by fear mongering. His education was not heavily tilted towards science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Early_life



but heh, he went on to inspire "Love Story" and invent the internet, so who knows?

You know what he means by that. He was on a committee that funded the research that led to the Internet. Why do ya'll give him such a hard time? He's a good guy, he's smart and he's doing good in the world. You love Bush even though he was a legacy student at Yale and made mediocre grades and all he's done is get our country irreversibly entangled in a war. What gives? I'm of the opinion that your priorities are out of whack.

[manu1959]

You know what he means by that. He was on a committee that funded the research that led to the Internet. Why do ya'll give him such a hard time? He's a good guy, he's smart and he's doing good in the world. You love Bush even though he was a legacy student at Yale and made mediocre grades and all he's done is get our country irreversibly entangled in a war. What gives? I'm of the opinion that your priorities are out of whack.

bush is an idiot and so is gore....

if you think bush went to war for the oil.....hope you can see that gore made a movie to get the carbon credits.....

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

He's not the one doing the research. He IS, however the one person most responsible for spreading awareness about global warming and climate change so he has predictably become the poster boy for the issue. He wouldn't have a problem with you asking questions. What he and so many others have a problem with is purposely ignoring facts about the issue and then accusing him of something "criminal" or "underhanded." There's nothing wrong with planting trees and selling carbon credits. There's also nothing wrong with teaching people about climate change.

Al Gore says it is wrong to have political people who have no scientific training altering the words of scientists. Apparently he does not recognize this is exactly what he has been doing for years, and even more so, that there are a long list of aver 400 who question his hypothesis.

So what you're telling me is, that it is OK for him to politicize and alter the words of scientists, so long as we agree with him?

[Yurt]

bush is an idiot and so is gore....

if you think bush went to war for the oil.....hope you can see that gore made a movie to get the carbon credits.....

al gore's homelife:

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/963.gif

[Hagbard Celine]

bush is an idiot and so is gore....

if you think bush went to war for the oil.....hope you can see that gore made a movie to get the carbon credits.....

Bush didn't go to war for oil. Nobody did. If they had the Iraqi oil infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling, it'd be thriving. Bush went to war to get back at the guy who tried to kill his Dad. Cheney sold Bush on going to war so that him and his friends could make a fortune with their Halliburton war machine.

I think Gore's cause is a righteous one. Nobody's dying to line his pockets and he's not holding a gun to the people's heads who are spending their good money on his carbon creds. Make fun of him all you want, but he's a good guy.

[MtnBiker]

So let me get this straight. Record cold temperatures are happen in the winter and record hot temperatures happen in the summer, hmmmm.

[red states rule]

Bush didn't go to war for oil. Nobody did. If they had the Iraqi oil infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling, it'd be thriving. Bush went to war to get back at the guy who tried to kill his Dad. Cheney sold Bush on going to war so that him and his friends could make a fortune with their Halliburton war machine.

I think Gore's cause is a righteous one. Nobody's dying to line his pockets and he's not holding a gun to the people's heads who are spending their good money on his carbon creds. Make fun of him all you want, but he's a good guy.

Yea, Al is so worried about global warming he flies around the world in a private jet telling others how reduce their energy consumption

His 4 homes use 20 times the energy the average American home uses

and Al only charges $100,000 for his 75 minute lecture

Yes, saving the planet is very comfortable and profitable for Al