What happened to Global Warming?
-
believer
You meant to say snow didn't you?irish_buffalo wrote: I've never seen so many heads in sand. -
Belly35
Truth, honesty and right always over comes the cheater, liar, corruption, greed and fraud...... at some point along the process.
So was true with what happen to Global Warming .............the fraud was uncovered, the greed was revealed, fraud was disclosed and the corruption identified and the Liberal, Left Wing and Al Gore is not to be seen nor heard from regarding it issue……
Global Warming dead, Cap and Trade dead and soon the Green Energy and Job will slowly no longer be ”talking points”.
I do think that some of the energy research in new power “fuel cells technology” for example is very good. wind and solar ?????? not sure without additional methods of storage.
I think if we look at energy as in section of our society usage (residential energy, industrial energy, consumer energy and research future energy) we could come up with a better working system for America using all of our resource better. The idea of just stop drilling for oil, tapping natural gas or usage of coal is just stupid. -
QuakerOatsA perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
.......But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.
All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC's 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.
Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.
In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC's most shameless stunt of all – the notorious "hockey stick" graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)
In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC's 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world's politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December's Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed.
What is staggering is the speed and the scale of the unravelling – assisted of course, just before Copenhagen, by "Climategate", the emails and computer codes leaked from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Their significance was the light they shone on the activities of a small group of British and US scientists at the heart of the IPCC, as they discussed ways of manipulating data to show the world warming faster than the evidence justified; fighting off legitimate requests for data from outside experts to hide their manipulations; and conspiring to silence their critics by excluding their work from scientific journals and the IPCC's 2007 report itself. (Again, a devastating analysis of this story has just been published by Stephen Mosher and Tom Fuller in Climategate: The CRUtape Letters).
Almost as revealing as the leaked documents themselves, however, was the recent interview given to the BBC by the CRU's suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, who has played a central role in the global warming scare for 20 years, not least as custodian of the most prestigious of the four global temperature records relied on by the IPCC. In his interview Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmest faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that before any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising.
The implications of all this for the warming scare, as it has been presented to us over the past two decades, can scarcely be overestimated. The reputation of the IPCC is in shreds. And this is to say nothing of the personal reputation of the man who was the mastermind of its 2007 report, its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
It was in this newspaper that we first revealed how Pachauri has earned millions of pounds for his Delhi-based research institute Teri, and further details are still emerging of how he has parlayed his position into a worldwide business empire, including 17 lucrative contracts from the EU alone. But we should not expect the truth to break in too suddenly on this mass of vested interests. Too many people have too much at stake to allow the faith in man-made global warming, which has sustained them so long and which is today making so many of them rich, to be abandoned. The so-called investigations into Climategate and Dr Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann seem like no more than empty establishment whitewashes. There is little reason to expect that the inquiry into the record of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri that is now being set up by the UN Environment Programme and the world's politicians will be very different.
Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions
of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. The new global "carbon trading" market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd "carbon-saving" energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.
With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager "renewables" developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white "global warming" continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein's monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.
Click here: A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html -
Writerbuckeye
Al (man pig) Gore had a piece in the NY Times recently where he attempted to debunk the attempts to discredit global warming by saying there were only two mistakes found.
As it turns out, there are actually 19 mistakes (so far)...so Gore can't even tell the truth when it comes to the number of lies we've been fed.
Here's a great summary from a columnist at the Orange County Register on the lies/errors/mistakes so far:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html -
QuakerOats
Great article ----- and a nice guide as to what to say to a global alarmist at your next cocktail party.Writerbuckeye wrote: Al (man pig) Gore had a piece in the NY Times recently where he attempted to debunk the attempts to discredit global warming by saying there were only two mistakes found.
As it turns out, there are actually 19 mistakes (so far)...so Gore can't even tell the truth when it comes to the number of lies we've been fed.
Here's a great summary from a columnist at the Orange County Register on the lies/errors/mistakes so far:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html
-
fan_from_texas
Just to clarify: if science could provide an explanation for why the medieval warming period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far, despite no coal-intensive operations, you'd start believing in global warming?Writerbuckeye wrote: Before we spend trillions of dollars on this, I'd like to know why the Medieval Warming Period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far? Certainly, man didn't create the problem back then.
So when science can explain to me why man is causing all this warming (warming that hasn't actually happened in about 15 years by the way) NOW but didn't cause it then...I guess I'll start to come around. -
believer
I can't speak for Writerbuckeye but I for one would still not believe in man-made global warning. I would, however, be inclined to believe that Al Gore's great-great-great-great grandfather was probably screaming at the peasants outside his warm and cozy castle window to extinguish their campfires for fear that the rising smoke might bring upon them the wrath of the Great Carbon Demon.fan_from_texas wrote:Just to clarify: if science could provide an explanation for why the medieval warming period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far, despite no coal-intensive operations, you'd start believing in global warming? -
fan_from_texas
Fair enough. Relying on medieval warming to rebut contemporary warming is a false analogy, as I demonstrated above. There are plenty of reasons to oppose climate change mandates, but that doesn't seem to me to be an intellectually solid one--it's a false syllogism that demonstrates specious logic.believer wrote:
I can't speak for Writerbuckeye but I for one would still not believe in man-made global warning.fan_from_texas wrote:Just to clarify: if science could provide an explanation for why the medieval warming period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far, despite no coal-intensive operations, you'd start believing in global warming? -
QuakerOatsIf you need another reason how about this one:
To prevent the continued development of the 'industry' of environmental attorneys and consultants who feed (leach) off the producers in this nation. -
Writerbuckeye
My point is a simple one: science cannot explain why we were as warm or warmer back then than now. So, why should we believe that man is the primary reason for warming the Earth -- as opposed to natural reasons like solar cycles?fan_from_texas wrote:
Fair enough. Relying on medieval warming to rebut contemporary warming is a false analogy, as I demonstrated above. There are plenty of reasons to oppose climate change mandates, but that doesn't seem to me to be an intellectually solid one--it's a false syllogism that demonstrates specious logic.believer wrote:
I can't speak for Writerbuckeye but I for one would still not believe in man-made global warning.fan_from_texas wrote:Just to clarify: if science could provide an explanation for why the medieval warming period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far, despite no coal-intensive operations, you'd start believing in global warming?
Before I see us committing trillions of dollars and changing an entire way of life, there has better be answers to these questions, and the science had better be bullet proof.
Right now, we aren't even close to that standard.
In fact, with the revelations of late where data has been doctored or deleted to fit a specific agenda, I will have a very hard time giving any credibility to scientists who are sounding this alarm.
They've dug themselves a huge hole, and I don't see them emerging from it anytime soon. -
QuakerOatsAnd now that the cat is out of the bag regarding the hoax ------
Some Democrats Urge White House To Rethink Climate Change Push.
The Wall Street Journal (3/2, Talley, subscription required), in an article titled, "White House Faces Tough Fight On Climate Push," reports that some sectors of organized labor and many Democratic officeholders, who previously supported the Administration's effort to address climate change, are urging the EPA not to follow through on its announced plans to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Journal notes that House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Collin Peterson and Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton back legislation that would strip the EPA of its power to dictate regulations. However, EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan maintains that "these are the same industry lobbyists who have been using these same, tired scare tactics year in and year out to block and delay efforts to clean up the air Americans breathe."
Why in God's name we (the people and our elected officials) give such power to bureaucrats in the first place is beyond me. -
general94
It never has made sense to me how coal miners in West Virginia or autoworkers in Michigan could support this crap. Talk about cutting your own throat. Could be like most union rank and file that this is just another issue that the big shot union thugs are lending their support to, and their members do not support it one bit.QuakerOats wrote: And now that the cat is out of the bag regarding the hoax ------
Some Democrats Urge White House To Rethink Climate Change Push.
The Wall Street Journal (3/2, Talley, subscription required), in an article titled, "White House Faces Tough Fight On Climate Push," reports that some sectors of organized labor and many Democratic officeholders, who previously supported the Administration's effort to address climate change, are urging the EPA not to follow through on its announced plans to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Journal notes that House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Collin Peterson and Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton back legislation that would strip the EPA of its power to dictate regulations. However, EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan maintains that "these are the same industry lobbyists who have been using these same, tired scare tactics year in and year out to block and delay efforts to clean up the air Americans breathe."
Why in God's name we (the people and our elected officials) give such power to bureaucrats in the first place is beyond me.
Anybody ever heard of the founder of The Weather Channel's view on this? (his name escapes me at the moment) He was qouted as saying that "Global Warming is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind." -
believer
My brother's father-in-law was employed once at Simco-Peabody Coal Co. when they had a big operation in Coshocton County. The man is a huge union guy and will vote only for Democrats.general94 wrote:It never has made sense to me how coal miners in West Virginia or autoworkers in Michigan could support this crap. Talk about cutting your own throat. Could be like most union rank and file that this is just another issue that the big shot union thugs are lending their support to, and their members do not support it one bit.
That coal operation once employed a lot of Coshoctonian's and paid very well. But over-regulation by the liberals in Congress eventually helped force that operation to shut down.
My brother and I got into a "conversation" with him at a family function a few years back. We asked him why in the world would he votes for Dems when they were behind the environmental laws that assisted in pushing his job off the cliff.
His angry reply was the standard, "The Dems are for the little guy" routine.
We were dumbfounded. -
believer
Good ol' Al Gore....We're finally climbing out of a very snowy and cold winter and the world's largest Man-made Climate Change Twit is at it again: Is Al Gore a Douche Bag?
-
FatHobbit
yesbeliever wrote:Is Al Gore a Douche Bag? -
ptown_trojans_1
Take it for what it is worth, but temps, why low in the U.S. rose worldwide this winter. Not saying it is true or false, just interesting.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/03/winter_was_cold_in_us_but_warm.html#more -
CenterBHSFan
believer wrote: My brother and I got into a "conversation" with him at a family function a few years back. We asked him why in the world would he votes for Dems when they were behind the environmental laws that assisted in pushing his job off the cliff.
His angry reply was the standard, "The Dems are for the little guy" routine.
We were dumbfounded.
I can relate. I've heard that phrase all my life. (grandparents mostly)
I think it's generational for the most part. For instance, I still consider myself a habitual democrat, even though sometimes I wonder why. If somebody makes a discouraging comment about a democrat(s) I don't act like somebody slapped my mother.
On topic:
I think global warming and cooling happens, without a shadow of a doubt. But, I also believe that it has happened several times before - since the formation of the planet. This is according to science.
I do not believe for one second that it happens because of the doings of people. Al Gore is a savant. -
FatHobbit
There was an interesting comment below that article. Here is a link to NASA's web site to make a climate map. NASA If you use the default settings and click make map, it creates a map with lots of red areas. If you run it again, but change the default smoothing radius to 250 km (instead of 1200 km) you get a significantly different map.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Take it for what it is worth, but temps, why low in the U.S. rose worldwide this winter. Not saying it is true or false, just interesting.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/03/winter_was_cold_in_us_but_warm.html#more
I'm not actually convinced that global warming isn't going on. But I think people like Al Gore are running with it just to make a buck. If they thought they could make money arguing against it, I have no doubt they would. -
superman
The map he uses shows this huge hot spot over Bolivia. There has been no weather data for Bolivia in the GHCN since 1990. Since the GISS map has no data for this area, it just uses the data from the closest areas that it does have. The closest areas are the beaches of Chile and Peru and the Amazon rain forest. Bolivia is mostly mountains and high cold deserts.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Take it for what it is worth, but temps, why low in the U.S. rose worldwide this winter. Not saying it is true or false, just interesting.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/03/winter_was_cold_in_us_but_warm.html#more -
QuakerOats
-
believer
^^^The French also see the benefits of nuclear power. Damned socialists!
-
I Wear Pantsbeliever wrote: ^^^The French also see the benefits of nuclear power. Damned socialists!
-
Bigdogg
Al Gore is a wealthy man who doesn't need global warming to make him rich. I beleive Gore is sincere. He may or may not be wrong. The question is should anyone be concerned if he is correct?believer wrote: Good ol' Al Gore....We're finally climbing out of a very snowy and cold winter and the world's largest Man-made Climate Change Twit is at it again: Is Al Gore a Douche Bag? -
queencitybuckeye
Fixed.Bigdogg wrote: Al Gore is a hypocrite who does more harm to the environment in a day than most of us do in decades. -
jmog
You can't really believe he is sincere when you take a look at his own energy consumption compared to the average American (his house, private jet, cars, etc).Bigdogg wrote:
Al Gore is a wealthy man who doesn't need global warming to make him rich. I beleive Gore is sincere. He may or may not be wrong. The question is should anyone be concerned if he is correct?believer wrote: Good ol' Al Gore....We're finally climbing out of a very snowy and cold winter and the world's largest Man-made Climate Change Twit is at it again: Is Al Gore a Douche Bag?
The man does not live in an energy efficient house, does not drive a hybrid, etc.