The truth of Global Warming

[Manc Skipper]

Yet I showed where they are saying weather is caused by GW

Global warming shares blame for Europe's cold weather says climate scientist
...

The author of this article (not peer reviewed) is a technology journalist, NOT a climatologist. You proved my point, that you quote opinion as fact.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Now THAT's a ****ing consensus, eh? :rofl:

No, it's a bunch of inaccurate opinion pieces by journalists

 

[Manc Skipper]

I guess you weren't around in the 70's when the ice age claims were being made, huh :rofl:

It appears you are in the minority on this one too.

 

[Catawba]

show us the scientific consensus of AGW today. :lamo

Already have, many times on this thread. No scientific institution of national or international standing has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

 

[Gill]

The author of this article (not peer reviewed) is a technology journalist, NOT a climatologist. You proved my point, that you quote opinion as fact.

You obviously missed this part of the article:

Citation:
Petoukhov, V., and V. A. Semenov (2010), A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D21111 [doi:10.1029/2009JD013568]

 

[OscarB63]

Already have, many times on this thread. No scientific institution of national or international standing has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

if you keep saying it often enough...it just may come true. now click your heels together 3 times and repeat, there's no place like home...there's no place like home...

 

[LimeLight]

sorry, you are wrong.

Many missed the joke. I wasn't talking about Limbaugh.

 

[Whovian]

It appears you are in the minority on this one too.

um.... did I say anythig about EVERYONE claiming ice age... or a 'consensus' about an ice age?

I think not.

 

[Whovian]

The author of this article (not peer reviewed) is a technology journalist, NOT a climatologist. You proved my point, that you quote opinion as fact.

Leon Clifford

Leon Clifford is a science/technology journalist with a BSc in Physics-with-Astrophysics and experience of senior management in media. He specialises in the physical sciences including climate science, particle physics and astrophysics as well as space technology, electronics, computing and IT.

sounds qualified to me.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You obviously missed this part of the article:

,
That must be a reference to thermohaline circulation. I mentioned that somewhere in this long thread.

 

[doctorhugo]

Surely, you must know by now that there is no such source. The only sources "debunking" AGW are from blogs and headlines that say things like, "Thousands of scientists counter AGW", while naming not one actual scientist, or "850 letters debunk AGW", then list letters that do no such thing. The argument against AGW is based on bloggers and pundits, not on scientists.

The so called "debate" still boils down to every scientific organization in the world vs a bunch of bloggers and pundits who have no useful information, just opinions.

You clowns are nothing but hollow poseurs and never learn do you? You keep brazenly repeating the same incorrect OPINIONS AS IF THEY WERE TRUE. Since you've dug that hole for yourself, I'm only too glad to bury you in it (along with the cadre of flapper-beating penguins following along with you.) Truly pitiful.

Valid authority:

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

Source: Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science
University of Virginia
Senior Fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute
Complete report> Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 329 (PDF, 16 pgs, 145 Kb

Valid authority:

I will discuss the global warming problem in detail because it is interesting, even though its importance is exaggerated. One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. To understand the movement of carbon through the atmosphere and biosphere, we need to measure a lot of numbers. I do not want to confuse you with a lot of numbers, so I will ask you to remember just one number. The number that I ask you to remember is one hundredth of an inch per year. Now I will explain what this number means. Consider the half of the land area of the earth that is not desert or ice-cap or city or road or parking-lot. This is the half of the land that is covered with soil and supports vegetation of one kind or another. Every year, it absorbs and converts into biomass a certain fraction of the carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere. Biomass means living creatures, plants and microbes and animals, and the organic materials that are left behind when the creatures die and decay. We don’t know how big a fraction of our emissions is absorbed by the land, since we have not measured the increase or decrease of the biomass. The number that I ask you to remember is the increase in thickness, averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, of the biomass that would result if all the carbon that we are emitting by burning fossil fuels were absorbed. The average increase in thickness is one hundredth of an inch per year.

The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.

Here is another heretical thought. Instead of calculating world-wide averages of biomass growth, we may prefer to look at the problem locally. Consider a possible future, with China continuing to develop an industrial economy based largely on the burning of coal, and the United States deciding to absorb the resulting carbon dioxide by increasing the biomass in our topsoil. The quantity of biomass that can be accumulated in living plants and trees is limited, but there is no limit to the quantity that can be stored in topsoil. To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical, depending on the economics of farming and forestry. It is at least a possibility to be seriously considered, that China could become rich by burning coal, while the United States could become environmentally virtuous by accumulating topsoil, with transport of carbon from mine in China to soil in America provided free of charge by the atmosphere, and the inventory of carbon in the atmosphere remaining constant. We should take such possibilities into account when we listen to predictions about climate change and fossil fuels. If biotechnology takes over the planet in the next fifty years, as computer technology has taken it over in the last fifty years, the rules of the climate game will be radically changed.

continues here
Source authority = FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. His professional interests are in mathematics and astronomy. Among his many books are Disturbing the Universe, Infinite in All Directions Origins of Life, From Eros to Gaia, Imagined Worlds, and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet. His most recent book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (Page Barbour Lectures), is being published this month by University of Virgina Press.


Valid authority:

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006

October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: Warning to Humanity

Source: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

[spate of yawning]Aw gee...I'm feelin' kind of sleepy[/spate of yawning] Are you fellas still with me?

(continued on my next post due to character limit maximum reached.)

 

[doctorhugo]

(Mercy killing continued.)
Valid authority:

This is a THREE 'FER, y' know as in Three for The Price of One. Another public service 'cause like I say..."I'm a giving guy." More top scientists commenting on global warning farce:

Dr. Dennis Jensen (Nuclear Physicist), a PhD-trained scientist and a former researcher for Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and the Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO), questioned man-made climate fears:

"It has been found that warming is occurring on Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Triton."

"The last time I looked, there were no evil greenhouse gas belching industries on those planets, sub-planets and moons," he said, which clearly indicated that increased solar activity was a significant factor," Jensen explained. He also noted that studies of ice core data reveals that warming precedes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. "In other words, it would be more correct to say that temperature changes cause CO2 concentration changes."

----------

UK - Dr. John Brignell is Emeritus Engineering Professor, University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton and was awarded the Calendar Silver Medal by InstMC. He also served on a committee of the Institute of Physics and currently publishes the website Number Watch - the guide to wrong numbers in science, media and politics with the mission to expose "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers."

His motto is "Working to Combat Math Hysteria."


"Global warming is a new phenomenon in human affairs. Not only is it now a major religion, but it has an associated industrial complex of a wealth sufficient to give it unheard of political power throughout the world. It presides over a virtual monopoly of research funding," Brignell wrote in July 2007. (LINK) "Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources - careless data acquisition and dubious data processing," Brignell wrote. In November 2007, Brignell, who wrote a book entitled Sorry, Wrong Number: The Abuse of Measurement, compiled a list of over 600 things allegedly caused by global warming.

---------------

USA - Dr. Edward F Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma retired Air Force atmospheric scientist, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007.


"Is their any solid evidence the earth is warming due to man's use of fossil fuels transferring excessive amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere? The answer is NO!" Blick wrote on June 17, 2007 in an article titled "The Religions of Global Warming."

"The amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere each year is about 3 billion tons per year. But this is insignificant compared to the 39,000 billion tons in our oceans, 2,200 billion tons in our vegetation and soils, and 750 billion tons in our atmosphere. Much of the CO2 generated by man is consumed by vegetation," Blick explained. "Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use,"

Source: right-tilt fault zone: Top scientists debunk global warming theories and AGW alarmists

The End.

Conclusion: Let this be a lesson to you mister bluster-bunny. Never be so overly confident that you make a complete big ass of yourself! My favorite pasttime is outing you frauds. We'll chat again, I'm confident of that. Just to show that my heart is in the right place here's a replacement "Gender:" icon for you to post with in the future>

 

[Catawba]

if you keep saying it often enough...it just may come true. now click your heels together 3 times and repeat, there's no place like home...there's no place like home...

"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

[Dittohead not!]

Wow! It's going to take a long time to debunk all of the above pile of rubbish. Let me start at the beginning, and maybe someone else can jump in.

Of course, most of this has been already discussed, but here's the first paragraph:

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore,

National media?
Al Gore is not a scientist. We've already discussed him. Next?

some federal scientists,

From what country? Every scientific organization in the world is saying the same thing.

Further, we've already discussed the National Geographic Society, as well as Exxon Oil. Hardly "federal scientists."

and environmental activists

This is a discussion of science, not environmental activism.

that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming.

No, that's not what the scientists have been saying. I just finished posting what they actually are saying. No more strawmen, please.

In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño

Last year was not an El Nino year, not that it matters. The El Nino phenomena has nothing to do with global warming.

superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

The last decade was the warmest on record due to what took place in the first half of the century? The 20th. century?

In a pile of absurdities, that has to be the most absurd.

No, I'm not going to take the time to put my barnyard boots on and wade through the rest of that manure, not when it starts out the way it started out.

 

[Catawba]

You clowns are nothing but hollow poseurs and never learn do you? You keep brazenly repeating the same incorrect OPINIONS AS IF THEY WERE TRUE. Since you've dug that hole for yourself, I'm only too glad to bury you in it (along with the cadre of flapper-beating penguins following along with you.) Truly pitiful.

Valid authority:

Source: Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science
University of Virginia
Senior Fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute
Complete report> Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 329 (PDF, 16 pgs, 145 Kb

He is not denying AGW.

Valid authority:
continues here
Source authority = FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. His professional interests are in mathematics and astronomy. Among his many books are Disturbing the Universe, Infinite in All Directions Origins of Life, From Eros to Gaia, Imagined Worlds, and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet. His most recent book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (Page Barbour Lectures), is being published this month by University of Virgina Press.

He is also not denying AGW.

Valid authority:
Source: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

[spate of yawning]Aw gee...I'm feelin' kind of sleepy[/spate of yawning] Are you fellas still with me?

(continued on my next post due to character limit maximum reached.)

Ok, you've got one guy, but he's French so what do you expect. Seriously though, one person does not a consensus make. Sorry.

 

[Catawba]

(Mercy killing continued.)
Valid authority:

This is a THREE 'FER, y' know as in Three for The Price of One. Another public service 'cause like I say..."I'm a giving guy." More top scientists commenting on global warning farce:

----------

---------------

Source: right-tilt fault zone: Top scientists debunk global warming theories and AGW alarmists

The End.

Conclusion: Let this be a lesson to you mister bluster-bunny. Never be so overly confident that you make a complete big ass of yourself! My favorite pasttime is outing you frauds. We'll chat again, I'm confident of that. Just to show that my heart is in the right place here's a replacement "Gender:" icon for you to post with in the future>

Ok, you now have a total of 4 against the consensus of world scientists since 2007. You are almost fractionally there!!!!

 

[Whovian]

Valid authority:
continues here
Source authority = FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. His professional interests are in mathematics and astronomy. Among his many books are Disturbing the Universe, Infinite in All Directions Origins of Life, From Eros to Gaia, Imagined Worlds, and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet. His most recent book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (Page Barbour Lectures), is being published this month by University of Virgina Press.

He is also not denying AGW.

Yeah... he's just saying their computer models suck :rofl:

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

 

[Catawba]

Yeah... he's just saying their computer models suck :rofl:

Right, but he is not denying AGW. So you realize this does nothing to change the scientific consensus regarding AGW, right?

 

[doctorhugo]

Right, but he is not denying AGW. So you realize this does nothing to change the scientific consensus regarding AGW, right?

That won't work for you sucker. IF my manner offends you tough, you clowns all deserve it. You see I've read Sagan! Okay boys! If you're all done I'll address those whom you are seeking to confuse. I tried a "mercy killing" to be somewhat benevolent, but since you insulted my intelligence by thinking you could slip one by me here we go...

Folks..., you'll notice the reference CONTINUALLY AND CONSISTENTLY slipped in here of "AGW". The hysteria promulgators, in true Gorian manner, know that the average person doesn't get too deeply into this stuff for the same reasons they don't learn about economic theory. It makes the hair follicle roots hurt! HAAAA! So the "poseurs" say that some of my sources haven't denied it and haven't dismissed it. "It" is fallacious and was never a part of this discussion in reality. It's a defense made by Sagan against challenges to his theories that they could not be proven accurate. Now you'll learn the key to the disingenuous posting against my sources you've read here. You'll know the meaning of the A in A__________ Global Warming and know why they didn't want to spell it out, because they know it's based upon BAD SCIENCE taken in the short view.

This may help to clear it up.

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

Sounds exactly like what the realists claim, and have been claiming, correct? But there's more:

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose [sic] their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

The conclusion:

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored

.
Read more: Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age' | NewsBusters.org

(Highlighting in the text was mine for emphasis.)

Bottom line is that AGW is bad science based upon statistical data in the shorter term and not the longer term. It also cannot prove how much of any warming is attributed accurately to man. Not unlike the mutual fund salesman showing you his performance chart for the last 5 years that looks very impressive, but he can't seem to locate the one that goes back to 1960!

Recommended reading:
The Ice Age Cometh

 

[doctorhugo]

Ok, you now have a total of 4 against the consensus of world scientists since 2007. You are almost fractionally there!!!!

Very humorous, but not really to the people reading this who are not the dolts you give them credit for being. I've been selective and picked a very few of the most respected to use. You can keep up the defensive prattle if you wish. I haven't fallen asleep yet.

Gee! I just remembered. I haven't even got into the fraudulent email scam embarassment and all the rest associated with that, which drove Bad Algorithms into hiding to reinvent himself once again. Well spin me around and call me Al Z. Heimer...I'll be darned!

 

[Manc Skipper]

That's quite a pile of poo you introduced. Suffice to say that the ice age link leads to a "Newbusters" report of a "Pravda" article. Didn't you mention pulling the wool being easy because people don't look? I looked, then I laughed, but not with you.

 

[whysoserious]

Very humorous, but not really to the people reading this who are not the dolts you give them credit for being. I've been selective and picked a very few of the most respected to use. You can keep up the defensive prattle if you wish. I haven't fallen asleep yet.

Gee! I just remembered. I haven't even got into the fraudulent email scam embarassment and all the rest associated with that, which drove Bad Algorithms into hiding to reinvent himself once again. Well spin me around and call me Al Z. Heimer...I'll be darned!

I think what anyone but a dolt would realize he is trying to say that he has far more scientists that agree with his point of view than you do.

 

[doctorhugo]

That's quite a pile of poo you introduced. Suffice to say that the ice age link leads to a "Newbusters" report of a "Pravda" article. Didn't you mention pulling the wool being easy because people don't look? I looked, then I laughed, but not with you.

Skipper, you ain't a-gonna like this, but I dangled the angry American Pravda bait for you and you went for the Poo Pile right away, confident you had me. Admit it...you thought that, huh? (I shouldn't say you, because it wasn't personal, it was for those of your common belief. My error there.)

What you may not have done was to follow-up and check out the sanity of my "Recommended reading". I'm gonna got out on a limb here and say that you're a checkers player, not a chess player. Don't feel bad, because whysoserious checked in right behind you and is sold on the Truth in Numbers Theory of Global Warming, because he too is too lazy to go out and dig for himself, content to repeat what he sees his budds posting. This is getting wilder and wilder. Forget the truth, go by the numbers of anonymous scientists signing on to a bogus "theory" based upon selective and edited science, but [sarcasm]all great experts in climatogy science[/sarcasm]. WHEW!

 

[doctorhugo]

If you grow weary of all this after so many logged comments check out this source for a concluding comment that does make sense. One must acknowledge and understand that these changes are hemispheric in nature.
Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age?' : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

(Quote highlighting mine for emphasis.)

 

[Catawba]

That won't work for you sucker. IF my manner offends you tough, you clowns all deserve it. You see I've read Sagan! Okay boys! If you're all done I'll address those whom you are seeking to confuse. I tried a "mercy killing" to be somewhat benevolent, but since you insulted my intelligence by thinking you could slip one by me here we go...

Aren't you supposed to save bragging until after you actually accomplish something?

Folks..., you'll notice the reference CONTINUALLY AND CONSISTENTLY slipped in here of "AGW".

There hasn't been any slipping yet, at least as far as you have shown.

This may help to clear it up.

.
Read more: Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age' | NewsBusters.org

(Highlighting in the text was mine for emphasis.)

A copy and paste from a blog in large font is how you refute the world wide scientific consensus????

Bottom line is that AGW is bad science based upon statistical data in the shorter term and not the longer term. It also cannot prove how much of any warming is attributed accurately to man. Not unlike the mutual fund salesman showing you his performance chart for the last 5 years that looks very impressive, but he can't seem to locate the one that goes back to 1960!

Recommended reading:
The Ice Age Cometh

Well thanks for your opinion! After all the huffing and puffing you were doing, I thought for a moment you might have something different than the usual science denier BS we hear day in and day out. Evidently, I overestimated you at first.