'Global Warming' Losing Support

[CrusaderFrank]

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

Show me one single test where you compared temperatures or local climates using only a 200PPM difference in CO2 as a control.

Just show me one time

That's dishonest!!! You asked me to show you in the lab and now you're asking me to show you in local climates?!?! You've moved the goal posts!!! I can easily show that 300 ppm CO2 doesn't absorb as much infra-red radiation as 500 ppm, so I consider the lab part of your question TOTALLY answered. You KNOW that, hence the need to constantly change the parameters in order to maintain the fiction that your questions don't get answered.

What I mean by local climate (in the experiment tank) was if you had 40% of the plankton die or a glacier melt. I need to very specific with you

 

[skookerasbil]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

What are you doing to minimize your GHG emissions?

Log out and go move into a wigwam in the woods.

Look where the k00k lives.............the oddball capital of the world outside of SanFransicko!!! Oregon is loaded with extreme radicals.....and the whole country knows it!!

 

[westwall]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

Oh please, you sound like a 12 year old. The only thing that the AGW proponents have shown us is a propensity to fabricate data. No one I know of thinks we should be using fossil fuels for our energy needs. It is just a simple fact that they are currently the most efficient, cost effective means of generating power and propelling our vehicles.

I would love it if instead of giving millions of dollars to the likes of Jones, and Mann, and all the other discreditied fraudsters, we invested in powercell fueled vehicles and put more money into fusion research....something that would actually help people.

What the alarmists propose will help no one but themselves and their investors. Sorry but I thought liberals were against that sort of thing. I know I am.

 

[code1211]

Bullshit! There was no cooling between 2001 and 2009. In fact, 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. Even by Dr. Spencers figures, the 13 month running average between 2001 and 2007 was never seen before for any six year period. Even with the dip in 2008, it was still a very warm period.

UAH global temperature posts warmest January | Watts Up With That?

Not only that, with a strong and persistant La Nina, a solar minimum not seen in nearly a century, 2008 still was the tenth warmest year on record. Not the tenth coldest as it should have been, given all the factors except GHGs, but the tenth warmest.

With your typical myopia, you hear read one thing and respond to something else.

The most recent full decade can be the warmest on record AND show cooling within the decade. I couldn't find the particualr graph i remembered, but here are two others:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uah-after-2002.jpg

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rss-after-2002.jpg

Both show cooling from 2002 to 2010. With the beginning of the decade so warm, cooling still allows warm final years in the decade. The obvious point is that CO2 was rising constantly throughout the decade and temperatures did not. How could this be?

Regarding the Solar minimum creating the tenth coolest year on record, this would be difficult. We are in the midst of a warming trend that has continued with only brief respites from 1650 until today. Just as August is generally warmer than june despite less direct Sun light, a warm decade is to be expected as a continuation of this overall trend.

Neat. So some natural variation within the decade means that we are not warming in spite of the fact that the decade was the warmest on record. Now that is one wonderful peice of twisted logic. Not only that, but this year is well on it's way to rivalling 1998 and 2005 for the warmest on record.

February 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: Version 5.3 Unveiled Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now Dr. Spencer is a sceptic. Yet, look at his graph. The year 2000 just touched the zero line, but from 2002 to 2007, the line is steady, and well above any other similiar period during the time of satellite observation. And even in 2008, the dip does not reach the zero line, in 2009, it goes above the steady line from 2002 to 2007.

That graph amply demonstrates that your statement concerning dropping temperatures from 2000 to 2009 is bullshit.

That wasn't my statement.

 

[code1211]

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

Show me one single test where you compared temperatures or local climates using only a 200PPM difference in CO2 as a control.

Just show me one time

That's dishonest!!! You asked me to show you in the lab and now you're asking me to show you in local climates?!?! You've moved the goal posts!!! I can easily show that 300 ppm CO2 doesn't absorb as much infra-red radiation as 500 ppm, so I consider the lab part of your question TOTALLY answered. You KNOW that, hence the need to constantly change the parameters in order to maintain the fiction that your questions don't get answered.

Dr. James Hansen missed with his prediction of how much warming would occur at a given rate of CO2 increase.

Are you claiming that there is another study with a long track record that hit it right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Hollywood producer James Cameron has the Midas touch when it comes to the silver screen, but his grasp on his favorite subject, the environment, is less confident than it once was. A debate between Mr. Cameron and climate realists set to take place last weekend at the American Renewable Energy Day conference in Aspen, Colo., was canceled after Mr. Cameron pulled out at the last minute.

[Cameron] was itching to take on the opposition for months. In March, he spouted off against those who dared question whether mankind's actions have heated the globe, saying "I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

...settled on Andrew Breitbart, founder of the popular BigGovernment and BigHollywood websites, to captain the "Climate Change denier" team that included documentary filmmaker Ann McElhinney and Marc Morano, editor of the Climate Depot website. Mr. Cameron was to be supported by a pair of scientists who share his faith that the planet faces cataclysm unless other people limit their consumption of the earth's resources.

...informed Mr. Cameron had withdrawn from the great event.

There's good reason for global warmists to be afraid. To take just one example,we've heard Hollywood big shots and United Nations bureaucrats peddling the tale for years that man has angered Mother Earth with development and she has struck back with "extreme" hurricanes, floods and other disasters. Unfortunately for the hysterics, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society earlier this month debunked this nonsensical plotline. "The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change," the peer-reviewed journal article concluded."
EDITORIAL: Cold feet on global warming - Washington Times

Rumor: noted warmists Chris and Old Rocks were offered the gig, but declined...

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

But where is there any evidence that the voters care about climate change!??
Links please...

 

[konradv]

But where is there any evidence that the voters care about climate change!??
Links please...

What makes AGW real, evidence or opinion?

 

[westwall]

What makes AGW real, evidence or opinion?

Evidence. You have none.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Hollywood producer James Cameron has the Midas touch when it comes to the silver screen, but his grasp on his favorite subject, the environment, is less confident than it once was. A debate between Mr. Cameron and climate realists set to take place last weekend at the American Renewable Energy Day conference in Aspen, Colo., was canceled after Mr. Cameron pulled out at the last minute.

[Cameron] was itching to take on the opposition for months. In March, he spouted off against those who dared question whether mankind's actions have heated the globe, saying "I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

...settled on Andrew Breitbart, founder of the popular BigGovernment and BigHollywood websites, to captain the "Climate Change denier" team that included documentary filmmaker Ann McElhinney and Marc Morano, editor of the Climate Depot website. Mr. Cameron was to be supported by a pair of scientists who share his faith that the planet faces cataclysm unless other people limit their consumption of the earth's resources.

...informed Mr. Cameron had withdrawn from the great event.

There's good reason for global warmists to be afraid. To take just one example,we've heard Hollywood big shots and United Nations bureaucrats peddling the tale for years that man has angered Mother Earth with development and she has struck back with "extreme" hurricanes, floods and other disasters. Unfortunately for the hysterics, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society earlier this month debunked this nonsensical plotline. "The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change," the peer-reviewed journal article concluded."
EDITORIAL: Cold feet on global warming - Washington Times

Rumor: noted warmists Chris and Old Rocks were offered the gig, but declined...