Hmm, funny that you didn't write this screed in response to this. Or this.

But since your writing is not based on facts (do you really still think Gore said he invented the Internet?! *snicker*), there's no need for you to be bothered by them.

Although, I do enjoy whenever some hack writer believes they disproved global warming just because they found someplace on the globe where it's... gasp... cold outside.

In 5 years when the ice at the north Pole has not melted Al Gore will stand up and say "Global warming is worse than we thought and that is why the ice didnt melt like it was supposed to"

What a joke (on whoever buys into the global warming myth).

When I was a kid everyone used to attribute any inclement or unusual weather to A-bomb testing.

Selective recall and confirmation bias rule OK.

My Great Grandfather had a word for climate change...Weather!
http://www.rightklik.net/

Brian, one effing warm day in Moonbatland and you're bleating about global warming? Sheesh.

If the Goreacle's predictions are true, shouldn't part of NYC be underwater by now due to the icecaps melting?

dave

"The only facts in your post are that Al Gore is scheduled to speak in Washington and it's winter in the Northeast. "

Actually it is also a fact that the following statements have been made by global warming nuts.

"See? Even when it's freezing, it's still proof of global warming! No matter what the weather does, it means that global warming is REAL, REAL, REAL! Temperatures burning up? Global warming. Temperatures freezing? Global warming. Too much rain? Global warming. Not enough rain? Global warming. Lots of hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. Disappearing polar ice? Global warming. Too much polar ice? Global warming!
"

shouldn't part of NYC be underwater by now due to the icecaps melting?

You've very perceptive, if premature.

Sea levels on the United States' mid-Atlantic coast are rising faster than the global average because of global warming, threatening the future of coastal communities, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday.

Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report.

By the way, that was Bush's EPA, not Obama's.

C'mon people! It's not Global Warming. It's Global Climate Change. Our climate has never changed before. It's changing now. We have to stop it.
[/sarcasm]

Hey brian - "Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report."

Considering water always seeks an even plain due to a silly thing called gravity, perchance could you explain why the world appears as if it's lop-sided or tilted based on high water levels on the East Coast?

And BTW, your ref to Bush's EPA is meaningless, most of us know he OD'd on The Goracle's Kool-aid long ago.

MANBEARPIG!

Considering water always seeks an even plain due to a silly thing called gravity,

You're snarking me because the EPA concluded something that you prefer to ignore? Good luck with that.

Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

Climate change in the form of global cooling was predicted several years ago by Russian astronomers on the basis of solar cycles. The predictive power of a scientific theory used to be considered strong evidence of it's correctness, but somehow that doesn't seem to apply to climate science. The AGW scammers, seeing nature discredit their predicted warming, have changed the reason for alarm from global warming to climate change while keeping man made CO2 as the cause.

Obama has elevated environmental religion to that status of science in his administration. As of yesterday CO2 is considered a pollutant that can be regulated in tailpipe emissions. How long before Obama burdens our economy with carbon cap and tax schemes that are powerless to alter natural climate cycles?

brian - "You're snarking me because the EPA concluded something that you prefer to ignore? Good luck with that."

Apparently VERY good luck. You made no attempt at answering the question.

A question not posed to the EPA I might add, unless you claim someone in this thread is a an EPA sock puppet.

In which case point them out and I'll address it to them.

Geez, Marc, your default mode must be "irrational anger".

If you have a problem with the EPA's conclusion, take it up with them. They have a phone.

Mac L - "Obama has elevated environmental religion to that status of science in his administration. As of yesterday CO2 is considered a pollutant that can be regulated in tailpipe emissions.

Worse than that. His "enviro" executive order "allows" each state to follow the California model.

The national policy as dictated by the new CAFE standards passed last year forces the auto makers to meet a 35mpg FLEET-WIDE standard.

Under the new exec order states are allowed to discard the fleet average standard and in effect pick and chose by model of car.

The end result in many cases are states disallowing the sale of high mpg cars like SUV's and light trucks within the state.

That will drive sales of those cars/trucks to other states with no restrictions if one is nearby.

No, my fellow retired friend, that is a not a fact its a straw man distortion of what AGW proponents assert. The key is GMST - Global Mean Surface Temperature - as a trend over time. Not whether it happens to be cold or warm in any one place at any one time.

Hey maggie,

Where's my post? I know it went up because I saw it and my friend "retired military" refers to it.

Is the playful use of Spanish now offensive? Please tell me the rules, so I can follow them.

brian - "Geez, Marc, your default mode must be "irrational anger".

Yeah you "caught" me. I expend enormous amounts of "anger" on the likes of troll-like blog commentors. /sarc>

BTW, an answer? Forthcoming?

Or an ID of the EPA sockpuppet?

We can, and have, bantered back and forth about how many scientists believe CO2 is or isn't the cause of global warming and if these are "real" scientists doing "real" science. As much fun as that is, the "real" question is, even if CO2 is the cause and even if human activity accounts for a significant amount of CO2, can the U.S. do anything that will decrease atmospheric CO2 quick enough to be helpful? Obviously, it's a pointless effort unless Obama can get both China and India to give up burning coal and other fossil fuels. Given that the science is not settled and won't be for several more years, it's unlikely Obama can succeed in convincing India and China that their people must continue to live in poverty, and thus, no carbon cap, tax, trade scheme is going to do anything but cripple our economy.

The answer of what the U.S. should then do is the same as it would be if science finally determines the Sun is in control of these natural climate cycles. Thus, it seems prudent to use our resources to prepare for climate change as best we can. It might be a good idea to form a taskforce to look into what the U.S. and individuals could do to prepare for either global warming or cooling.

Dave

"its a straw man distortion of what AGW proponents assert"

Are you saying that the global warmers havent said that increased hurricanes are a sign of globam warming?
Decreased hurricanes are a sign of global warming?
More snow is a sign of global warming?
Less snow is a sign of global warming?
etc etc

Come on now Dave. I could find each of those statements made by someone advocating Global warming.

rm - "Come on now Dave. I could find each of those statements made by someone advocating Global warming."

Not to mention how a "new model of the Earth's climate suggests that human-made carbon dioxide emissions may prevent the onset of the next ice age."

BTW, an answer? Forthcoming?

I told you the EPA has a phone. Do you need me to look up the number for you also?

Worse than that. His "enviro" executive order "allows" each state to follow the California model.

Just think what would happen if the Federal government ceded other standards setting authority to the states. How about digital TV going live in some states, but not others. How about California and a few other states deciding to require 50 Hz power like many European countries do. Manufacturers end up spending lots more money or abandoning some markets altogether.

Why even have a Federal EPA if it's not going to set national standards?

Hey maggie, Where's my post?

Hmm, one of mine is gone, too. One where I exactly quoted another post that remains, but I switched three words to turn the argument back on the poster. Always the sign of confidence in an argument when posts against it are mysteriously deleted. And this time the claim abusive language can't be made.

Brian, one effing warm day in Moonbatland and you're bleating about global warming? Sheesh.

Anyway, to recap...

First of all, it was multiple record-setting days, two months apart. Not "one warm day".

And to answer your question, not at all. What you meant to say is, one effing cold day in Wingnutland and Cassy's bleating about global warming.

Mac L - "Manufacturers end up spending lots more money or abandoning some markets altogether."

No better example is the chaotic standards for gasoline additives from state-to-state that result in higher prices for some, and in the worst case examples, gas shortages on one side of a stateline and abundant supply in an adjacent state.

Hey, guys,

Want a conversation? Talk to maggie.
depp=true

brian - "I told you the EPA has a phone. Do you need me to look up the number for you also?"

Umm... no.

However, considering you've endorsed the EPA's position asking you related question isn't too far out in left-field.

But, when you live outside the outfield fence as you do it's understandable you've failed to respond.

In the 70's, scientists were alarming us that we are entering a new ice age. Let's face it. The scientists are so all over the map on this to a point of looking like the keystone cops. ww

Umm... no.

Hey, good job, Marc! Your cognitive skills are improving! Have a cookie!

However, considering you've endorsed the EPA's position asking you related question isn't too far out in left-field.

You're asking me to explain an aspect of their conclusion that doesn't jibe with your simplistic "water always seeks an even plain due to a silly thing called gravity" view of the world. Do you really think that sea level is the same all over the planet?

But, when you live outside the outfield fence as you do it's understandable you've failed to respond.

Check out what percentage of the world's scientists are on my side and your side, and then figure out which one of us is outside the fence.

In the 70's, scientists were alarming us that we are entering a new ice age.

And willie again hits his quota for fake statements today! How long can he keep it up, folks?

Brian

I remember in grade school being taught and reading that scientists thought another ice age was on its way. That was in the late early 70s. Dont know where you were then.

That should read late 60s early 70s.

Brian, do you know it was -40, that is below zero F. without windchill in International Falls, Minn.? Are you aware it snowed in the Arab Emirates? First time in known history. The polar icecap is growing. Glaciers are expanding. They had three feet of snow in Walla Walla, Washington. More snow than in the last 75 years. Please explain how this relates to the foolish notion of global warming. I have to ask you Brian. Is it not actually supposed to get warmer when we have global warming?

I remember in grade school being taught and reading that scientists thought another ice age was on its way.

Did your school use Newsweek as a textbook? I think you are misremembering and misattributing scientific merit to sensationalized claims of popular media.

This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding

Brian, do you know it was -40, that is below zero F. without windchill in International Falls, Minn.?

Do you know what the global mean temperature is, and how it relates to the weather in International Falls, MN? (Hint: not at all.)

Z ragshaft - "Are you aware it snowed in the Arab Emirates? First time in known history."

That may be true for the UAE as it's in the southern portion of the Gulf.

However, in two of my many trips to the Mid-
East I've seen it snow in both Kuwait and the nearby northern Arabian Gulf and in Israel and across northern Iraq.

brian - "Check out what percentage of the world's scientists are on my side and your side, and then figure out which one of us is outside the fence."

Sorry, it's more instructive to see more scientists are becoming skeptical as time and additional evidence comes forth of GW, not to mention more of the U.S. pubic are as well.

Sounds like Brian has a mind like a steel trap. NOthing gets in and nothing gets out.

Brian, I do not believe you lived through the Ice Age alarm like Retired Military and I did. It was huge. It was going to happen. It was man's fault. Sounds like...um...now. ww

It was huge. It was going to happen.

And it was media sensationalism of non-science. I bet you think that Martians really landed in Grover's Mill, NJ.

When I was a kid everyone used to attribute any inclement or unusual weather to A-bomb testing.

Does "everyone" include the the scientific community? Or are you just referring to other kids in your neighborhood?

Brian

I distinctly remember the discussion in 4th grade geography class. I remember the teacher (as I remember all my teachers from 1st through 5th grade) and the general discussion matter. What can I say. I liked school at that age.

Cassy,

With global warming there will be occasional cold years. When you measure the temperature over a period of many years the trend shows temperatures world wide are rising.

If you do not understand this, you really should not be writing about global warming.

A story in Time from June 24, 1974 quotes several Climatologists and references many more. You have to remember that back in 1974 journalism actually meant something as did a news organization's credibility. To now claim fears of global cooling never had any significant scientific support is revisionist propaganda typical of what's found on Wikipedia concerning anything to do with global warming.

Here are some excerpts:

Climatologist George J. Kukla - "found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."

Climatologist Reid A. Bryson - "suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth."

Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, thinks that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather."

Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Some of the commentators on this thread are old enough to remember these times and are justifiably skeptical of the purveyors of AGW.

I distinctly remember the discussion in 4th grade geography class. I remember the teacher

Just goes to show the influence that a teacher can have when he teaches out of Time magazine instead of science textbooks.

Brian

Nice to know that you know what happened to me 38 years ago. I had never heard of Time magazine until I was in high school. I do remember LOOK though. Sorry I cant remember the name of the textbook we were using. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us.

However since you mention that Time, Newsweek, NY Times etc are the ones that were pushing the Ice Age theory isnt it interesting that they are the same ones pushing the global warming theory.

"Just goes to show the influence that a teacher can have when he teaches out of Time magazine instead of science textbooks"

Funny how this statement applies so well today.

carrying scientists from almost 70 nations

Interesting that you chose to bold that part, as if it makes your point. But you miss that it's linked to "all agree that vastly more information is needed", not that scientists from 70 nations claim there's global cooling. Well, the information has been gathered. And then you post a long-term prediction that "that the cooling trend may be only temporary". Along with two other guys commenting on snow cover and drought, not on global cooling.

Hardly a global scientific consensus, no matter how awesome it must have sounded to a kid in school.

Global Warming causes Global Cooling! Doublethink is easy.

Can anyone remember when scientist's were concerned that chemicals used in household products would deplete the ozone layer in the atmosphere?

Then, as now, there were critics(largely hired by industries making or using the chemicals) who said it was an unproven theory and stalled efforts to re-act.

Who was correct? The scientist were right. As a result there is now a hole in the ozone layer in the South Pole.

Looks like there's a crack in the dam - forgive me if the paragraph breaks and blockquotes don't work right...
------------------

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.



James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic



Says Hansen 'Embarrassed NASA' & 'Was Never Muzzled'



Gore Faces Scientific Blowback



Also See: Gore's Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Defies Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged'

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm 'Mistaken' & Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post - November 11, 2008 ]

When your supervisor repudiates your work...

Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.

I had never heard of Time magazine until I was in high school.

Bet your teacher did.

However since you mention that Time, Newsweek, NY Times etc are the ones that were pushing the Ice Age theory isnt it interesting that they are the same ones pushing the global warming theory.

Except this time there are a majority of the world's scientists saying it too. You keep forgetting that point. It's a rather important one.

I don't know about the rest of you, I'm
preparing to put a windmill on my pond,
next to where the proposed sod house will
be put without electricity.
Chances are the type of houses we're using now
will be outlawed except for those elites who
will be ruling the country.
/sarc

Interesting that you chose to bold that part, as if it makes your point. But you miss that it's linked to "all agree that vastly more information is needed"

My point is that in the mid 70's climatologists and other scientists believed, on the basis of the evidence they had, that the Earth's climate was cooling. If you look at the temperature reconstructions of the 20th century you'll see that they were correct. They didn't know the cause nor were they able to predict the magnitude or length of the climate change. In that regard they were no different than today's scientists.

You seem to imply that there was some other group of scientists who, in the mid 70's, were saying the climate wasn't cooling. If that's the case then we now know they were wrong. It would be about another decade before scientists started predicting global warming as a result of CO2, so the "science" reported in the Time story was representative of that science of the mid 70's.

By the way, that was Bush's EPA, not Obama's.

Filled by the same arseholes while Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan and Carter, etc, etc. were there as well.

In the 70's, scientists were alarming us that we are entering a new ice age.

And willie again hits his quota for fake statements today! :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970_SCEP_report

Douche.

For Brian:

In the science series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, physicist Carl Sagan warned of catastrophic cooling through the burning and clear cutting of forests. He postulated that the increased albedo of the earth's surface might lead to a new ice age. He also mentioned that this may be counteracted and overcome by the release of greenhouse gases. Cosmos was a popular series on public television and was often shown in elementary, junior and senior high schools in the United States

So, maybe that's why we have been increasing our output of greenhouse gases, to stave off the new Ice Age! Mystery Solved.

Except this time there are a majority of the world's scientists saying it too.

Well, there's 52 scientists behind the IPCC 2007 Summary. The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works maintains a list of dissenting scientists, which is now over 660 strong. These include Nobel Prize winners, former NASA scientists, former IPCC contributors, and many with over 100 published papers. What's telling is that in 2008 scientists started requesting they be added to the list. Another list cites 31,000 scientists who dissent from AGW. A 2007 survey of published studies found that the majority were neutral or dissented from AGW. The scientific consensus supporting AGW, if it every existed, has evaporated in light of on going studies. Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?

AGW - the 'Cold Fusion' of the 2000s...

We can all wait patiently for the dim-witted AGW fanatics to explain the Medieval warm period and the transition through the Little Ice Age to the present day.

The simplest question none of the AGW loons has been able to answer is: what is the normal temperature of the earth?

It's a nightmare to see the most technologically advanced society crumble at the whim of a bunch of 'believers' that make peasants from the Middle Ages seem bright.

It is ironic that the same people who shout and cry that one cold day does not disprove global warming and that we should be looking at GMST have yet to actually tell us what the GMST has been and where the trend is heading. That is probably becuase the GMST for 2008 has been colder than any year since 2000. Excessively cold and the sign of a coming ice age? No, in fact that same data from NASA GISS also lists 2008 as the 9th warmest year, but it hard to say that a planet that has been getting progressively colder for the last decade is experiencing warming.
It should also be noted that the NASA GISS data has come under critisism for accidentally and perhaps even purposefully inflating temperature data, so take that GMST with a grain of salt. It is possible that the warmest year actually occured in the 30's and 2008 is even further down the list.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/08/17/nasa_blocked_climate_change_blogger_from_data
One thing this most recent cooling trend does do is that when one considers its timing with regards to the recent downturn in solar activity is open up theories that Climate Forcing is driven by the sun more than anything else. Here is a link to someone who sums up the whole global warming debate far better than I do and had many links besides.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html
Just my 2 cents

Brian:
Hmm, funny that you didn't write this screed in response to this. Or this.

You're apparently unaware of a fundamental asymmetry in scientific reasoning. No number of observations can ever prove a theory true, but only ONE observation is required to render a theory false.

I suggest reading Karl Popper on scientific thought. You can start here...
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html

Just remember that 30 years from now when the polar ice caps havent melted, when NY city hasnt gone underwater and when people continue their every day actions as they have done for decades and we have a snowy day in Jan or a hot day in Aug, Al Gore will still be standing up (with his walker) proclaiming that there are only a few years left to save the earth from global warming.

"And it was media sensationalism of non-science."
Brian

And now you understand AGW. Straight from one of the believers, though he likely doesn't realize he just made our case.

Al Gore - The Man, The Mouth

One other thing -

We're capable of measuring average atmospheric temperatures long-term to a tenth of a degree.

We can measure sea levels to millimeter accuracy.

We can do this - but we don't really have any standards to judge what such changes MEAN long-term. Are they significant? If the ocean level rises three millimeters, is it something to worry about? If the temperature swings a degree, is it worth concern? Are massive, expensive efforts really needed to try to take care of such things?

There's a whole lot of theories out there, and a whole lot of guesswork. I think we need to be really cautious about what gets implemented (even if it's something as relatively harmelss as 'cap and trade') because the law of unintended consequences is still VERY much in effect!

So a little bit of cold means there is no global warming? LOL OMG.

So in winter global warming goes away, and in summer global warming is at it's worst? Oh the logic here is just amazing, rofl.

Maybe the sun switches off when we can't see it too? LOL.

All the global warming naysayers still think the Earth is flat, me i know it's round.

The BOREICLE ol AL BORE is a blabbering big mouth why dont he duct tape his mouth shut and cut down on all that HOT AIR