Fifty whacked out war room scenarios.

Thanks for the kind words. In context it looks like I was fired for raising the BS flag. :censored
Actually I knew what a large political and economic topic it is, and mostly kept the debatable facts to myself. E.g. if it gets $multimillion systems to "further study" this global warming, do you think I'd be popular to say it may well be bs and have the funding and support cut off?
I took a small pension and left the field for now. Porn looked to be more fun.
But like others have said, the best way to dislike your favorite hobby is get into the business.
Can't quite say I don't like porn or girls anymore, but porn doesn't look the same to me now.

Kind of sad people are not understanding that. :1orglaugh

Wish we would of had some of that global warming this summer lol.

http://www.wsmv.com/weather/20116659/detail.html

Please point out to me where I have ever stated that..."'no scientists say otherwise". I am aware that some "scientists" state that global warming is not taking place. I am also aware that the consensus of "scientists" state that global warming is taking place...but some do not feel that it is being caused by man...which is where the real argument lies.

Not arguing for or against the global warming crowd, but this always kind of makes me laugh. Drudge is good for this, anytime there's a global warming summit or something of the sort, he finds some link to "record low temperatures" in Krgyzstan or something.

Here's the thing, suppose we ARE experiencing a global rise in temperature, for whatever reason. The higher temp would also bring with it increased evaporation, both in latent humidity and in large bodies of water. Increased evaporation = more water in the air = increased rain/snow which in turn causes temporarily lower temperatures. Meanwhile, the outer atmospheric temperature remains higher.

You can't judge global warming or cooling by one day, one week or even one year. You have to look at longterm trends. Again, not saying you're WRONG about global warming, because I'm not enough of a climate expert to judge. But just saying, you're only looking at one piece of the puzzle.

I think I might just know why you lost your job.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/tem...ll/angell.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...g/pollack.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500

:2 cents:

Global warming...or cooling...apparently upsets weather patterns.

I suspect you are onto something here.

it's already irreversible ... argue all day long.

Cheers ! :drinkup

Just a couple of debunks of the "official story"

"Introduction

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient."

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm

193,000 square miles of Artic Ice "Overlooked"

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called ?sensor drift,? began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That?s when ?puzzled readers? alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

?Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,? the center said. ?Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.??

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn?t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven?t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That?s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.

?There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,? NSIDC said. ?Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aIe9swvOqwIY

If it was legit it could be debated.

Lot's of pretty pictures and alternative theory

"It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?

At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3...-and-ice-ages/

While that's certainly true, it's far from a "debunk". That you would even think so is quite laughable.

Again, not a "debunk". The bold parts should make that clear.

how can anyone take Glenn Beck seriously is beyond me ......

Increased CO2 is better for the growth of plants. That's a good thing rather than a bad thing. Greenhouses actually pump increased levels of CO2 into them to improve plants growth. Get it? hmm greenhouse gases. lol

They would have never admitted to their "mistake" in the ice if it wasn't pointed out. The fact is they are only using data from the Western portion of the Antarctic to make their claims when the ice in the East is actually growing

Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

Nobody is claiming that CO2 "controls" temperature. Rather, it's being said that, along with other greenhouse gases, it influences it, and that human CO2 emissions are proving to be a strong influence on it.

Aside from that, it is indeed generally accepted that CO2 lags temperature in Antarctic graphs - but not by very much. It is generally believed that in the past, CO2 and other greenhouse gases worked as a feedback mechanism - higher temperatures caused the release of more CO2, which amplified the rise of temperatures. Later on, the earth cooled again due to other factors than CO2, though fairly slowly because of the presence of additional greenhouse gases.

The idea behind AGW is not that CO2 is the one and only factor influencing climate. If it was, it would indeed be a ridiculous, palpably false theory.

Instead, the theory is that it is one of many influences on natural climate cycles. By releasing shitloads of greenhouse gases into the air artificially, however, humans amplify this one specific factor significantly.

Of course, that does not imply that other factors have suddenly become non-existent, but rather that human influence is having an acute and measurable effect on the dynamic balance, which may cause effects severe enough to have a large negative impact on the well-being of numerous people.

Um thanks, I didn't lose my job. I was respected in my work as an atmospheric scientist.
I already gave you a hint, but you conveniently forgot that. The inconvenient truth I guess, new satellites, new supercomputers, new resources.
I'm all for continued research by all means. It simply isn't fully proven there is global warming, nor that it's due to human CO2 emissions.
I'm not going to waste my time pointing to other research etc. What do I have to gain by doing so? When someone does point to an opposing view, it's easy to say its not a convenient truth.

"few...if any" means something completely different to you than the rest of the world i guess.

Lot's of contributing factors and lot's of insane theories. The one everyone seems to want to run to means more money for those spreading their insane theories (Al Gore) and less for the average person.



Global warming? Cut down forests

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34

Are artificial trees and sunshields in humanity's future? (yes replace mother nature with a genetically modified one.. GREAT IDEA!)

http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energ...manitys-future

Sun spot cycle impacting global warming and cooling

http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlan...ng-and-cooling

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

"It is the greatest scam in history."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Flatulence tax could bankrupt farmers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-1053519.html

Global Warming or Global Government
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81878429061634

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij...ry_Film. aspx

EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430362.ece

Sea smoke rises from the ocean and rivers freeze over as temperatures around the world plummet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...d-plummet.html

Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.
http://www.climatescienceinternation...catid=1:latest

The Sunspot Cycle
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/co...view/3053/252/


Scientists find greenhouse gas hysteria to be myth
'Global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined' WND

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=82829



Oceans cooling since '03
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Balti...ording-to-NASA

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/m...e#contentSwap1


Sprayed Aerosols Could Ease Climate Woes (err you mean chemtrails??)
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/1...01-101-ae-0003

I do not believe that Glen Beck is as horrible of a human as he is on TV and radio. But he's PAID! I'd spew the kind of nutty bullshit he does for $18 million per year, too!

There are too many variables to be calculated. Increased water vapor might mean more clouds, it might not because hot air can also hold more watervapor. But assume we have more clouds, then we have more reflectivity or refraction of incoming solar radiation...less heating of the earth.

CO2 cycle itself can't be calculated, more co2, more oceanic absorption, more algae growth...

Find information how much co2 is released in big volcanoes for example, then tell me about sh#tloads of co2.

Some guys made some good points already to factors that mitigate the global warming is a given idea.
Yes, mostly consensus is there is some warming, but much of that consensus is bought.
And if you could figure out how to tax the air...oh wait, yes, cap and trade. $$$$$

So you're saying that what's good for plants is good for humanity? :eek7

The article you quoted first was about the Arctic. Which is NOT the same as the Antarctic. Are you really that damn ignorant? :helpme

As for the link you posted about the Antarctic, it is quite interesting. First, because it shows that journalists are scientifically illiterate ("Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially" - false, the ice on Greenland alone being molten would raise sea levels substantially). Second, because it shows that Fox News isn't a particularly good source of scientific information.

Notice how, at the end of the article, this is mentioned:

That would be this article:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL037524.shtml

Or, more easily readable:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.html (you'll need a subscription to get access to the full article - get it. a subscription to an actual science magazine definitely wouldn't hurt you)

From that last article:

But anyway, I'm off to bed.

A great example of how people are sold on something being a good thing for the environment when instead it turns out to be a huge financial gain for "carbon credit" scammers

'Cash For Clunkers' Program Is Expensive Way To Cut Carbon Emissions, Expert Argues

"While carbon credits are projected to sell in the U.S. for about $28 per ton (today's price in Europe was $20), even the best-case calculation of the cost of the clunkers rebate is $237 per ton, said UC Davis transportation economist Christopher Knittel."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0814100109.htm

This is true, of course. It hasn't been fully proven, and it won't be until after the fact. A few hundred years from now, we'll know which side was actually right.

Meanwhile, however, there are strong indications that there is global warming, as well as strong indications that there is an anthropogenic influence.

Whether these indications are being interpreted correctly is another matter, and what the end results will be remains to be seen. That's the nature of science: different groups with different theories, only one of which will turn out to be right.

However, in this particular case, if the AGW camp (which, as you should know, does enjoy the support of a great many prominent climate scientists) turns out to be right, the potential damage is enormous.

Ignoring the possibility is simply not an option, nor is ignoring it for all practical purposes while waiting for the research to settle.

CO2 is a basic building block of all forms of life, including yours and mine. The basic theory would be that more CO2 would mean more abundant life including plants which equals food. If you wanted to kill off life. Cut off the food supply and you kill off those which feed on it. It's no secret that most of the people behind these agenda's believe there are too many people on earth. They speak of it openly. Or if you wanted to kill of the natural food source you can sell your patented genetically modified foods. This thread is a great example. To save a little fish they are killing off a large portion of our food supply.

All works out to (as pointed out) tax the air you breathe and the food you eat.

As far as the Artic Antarctic reference. I'm copying and pasting a lot from old discussions.

Both are showing signs of growing in portions as well as decreasing. Mother nature at work.

Bottom line: Urban heat trends are significant and can
contribute significantly to the reported global warming of
0.06 C/decade. In fact, it could very well explain all the
warming.

http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenho...gScorecard.pdf

I copied the para from the link. You see, no matter how many magazines you read, or people with $$$ in the game you follow, if you don't look at the fundamental measurement methods an validity, you are wrong from the get-go. Most people don't get it. And there are no $$$ or news stories in it for somone to prove it's all questionable. There is however $100million and a nobel prize for a (one science class education) conclusion.

...and as has already been pointed out, remote sensing has it's share of inaccuracies also. I am not convinced their accuracy is sufficient to measure in the .1C range that is being used to support the whole theory. Look up how they were calibrated after being placed in service, hint, it goes back to my previous post, compounding and or supporting the errors.
But we certainly can't wait to do something drastic, just like the stimulus and health care plans. It is time for action, not research or debate on even if there is a problem :eyecrazy

And as far as group think, a person can point to things like communism, few, if any, disagreed on that great idea also.

The reason I said...if any...and the reason I put scientists in quotes is because some that are weighing in on the subject are not recognized as really being scientists.

That's true, and most weighing in, supporting the subject are not recognized as really being scientists also.

To a prior post that most scientists and leaders support the G.W. theory, it reminds me of how similar it is to the fact we all know the sun orbits the earth, and the earth is flat. As at one time it was blasphemous to say otherwise. All the leading science folks fully supported those ideas.

I wonder if Nostradamus wrote, '... they had science of the sun orbiting the earth, a flat earth, and the most inane of all, global warming...'

Yes...there are psuedo scientists...pro and con weighing in.

They have been up for years. :2 cents:

global warming scam exposed in the news
 

ok, now any comments about how some of us who tried to tell you it was very questionable based on manipulated science, and was "accepted" and pushed as a fact for profit? :xmas-smil