"Global warming"?? We don't have no stinking global warming!.. We have Ice age coming

[Freewill]

Just in case some of you that suffer from LOAFB (Lack of a Funny Bone).. here is the reason for the topic title:

BRAND: And in 1974, Mel Brooks used a shorter version of the line in "Blazing Saddles."

(Soundbite of movie, "Blazing Saddles")

Unidentified Man (Actor): (As Bandit) Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

SMITH: And that's the form that became pop culture gold. On TV, all you have to do is place the word stinking in front of a noun and it brings the funny. John Belushi used it on "Saturday Night Live" as a trick-or-treating bee.

(Soundbite of show, "Saturday Night Live")

Unidentified Man (Actor): (As character) Here's some candy and who has the Unicef box?

Mr. BELUSHI: (As Gigantic Bee) We don't have no stinking Unicef. We are the killer bees!
Correction: 'Stinking Badges' and Movies : NPR

Here is where the sound bite orginated, Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ]We don't need no stinking badges! - YouTube[/ame]

Hey thanks... I thought of using that but didn't know if many of readers understand Bogart!

I can imagine, "Bogart who?"

 

[jon_berzerk]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

2008 Explanation: Its snowing because of Global Warming

2013 Explanation: Its snowing because of Climate Change

the terms seem to be related to daylight savings time

fall back= climate change

spring ahead- global warming

notice weather shaman al gore likes to have his concerts on the predictably the days of the year

 

[jon_berzerk]

Notice how it morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

That's not science

two words

"Junk science"

Altered data fed through into computer models programmed to solve every set of circumstances with "ZOMG!!! Global Climate Warming Change!!!" is not science

not only fed wrong data

but other data not supportive of the model

hid away discarded

 

[LeftofLeft]

Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age
Incredibly, British Summer Time officially starts tomorrow but millions of brassed off Brits pining for warmth will have to endure freezing temperatures and biting winds until May.

The misery will continue with daytime temperatures struggling to reach a bracing 5C (41F). The only ray of sunshine, forecasters said, is that it will stay dry.

As if the outlook wasn’t bleak enough already, meteorologists believe the shivering start to 2013 has been the coldest in more than 200 years.

More worryingly, the combination of sub-zero temperatures and heavy snow experienced across much of the country recently could be the prelude to a new Ice Age that will begin next year and last for 200 years.

Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, painted the Doomsday scenario saying the recent inclement weather simply proved we were heading towards a frozen planet.

Dr Abdussamatov believes Earth was on an “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop”. The last big freeze, known as the Little Ice Age, was between 1650 and 1850.
Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age | Science & Tech | News | Daily Express

Looks like University of East Anglia needs to bring out its Dan Rather hat again and fabricate some documentation and present as fact.

 

[edthecynic]

Texas climatologist: Global temperatures ?likely? to set a new record this year | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

The Texas state climatologist — the top climate official in one of the most conservative states in the country — has predicted that this year probably will be the warmest on record.

In his periodic report on Texas weather and crops released this week, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist John Nielsen-Gammon said:

“Global temperatures have been relatively flat for the past several years. Some people use that information to try to imply that global warming has stopped. But it turns out that the factors causing global warming are still there, it’s just that the El Niño-La Niña cycle has temporarily trended cooler and has partially masked the warming. In the tropical Pacific, there’s actually fairly cold water just below the surface. With a La Niña event, that cold water is drawn all the way up to the surface, and interacts with the atmosphere and causes it to be cooler. If you leave the refrigerator door open, the room will be a little cooler. If my forecast is correct, and there’s no La Niña to hide the underlying warming trend, global surface temperatures are likely to increase and set a new record this year.”

He may well be right.

A quick check of the 10 warmest years on record, based upon data going back to 1880, shows that 2010 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005. Last year was the 10th warmest.

The last two years, as shown in the chart below, were La Nina years so we would expect them to be a bit cooler. The most recent El Nino year, 2010, was the warmest overall year on record.

The significance of this prediction is that it’s coming from Nielsen-Gammon, who was appointed by George W. Bush back in 2000 when he was still the governor. He has continued to serve under Gov. Rick Perry for the last 12 years.

What measure is used for the normal temperature since this is a chart not of temperature but of abnormality. What temperature are they using that says it is the correct temperature and why is it selected as the correct temperature. There is much more to the whole discussion then just posting a chart that one thinks proves their point.

This is a perfect example of the problem with brilliant know-it-all climate experts and the stupid know-nothing scientists, the know-it-alls don't understand why the stupid scientists use anomalies rather than the absolute temperature. The know-it-alls seem to think that every thermometer everywhere in the world is calibrated exactly the same while the stupid scientists know that is impossible.

So to determine a TREND with uncalibratable thermometers the stupid scientists use anomalies to determine whether the TREND is up or down. An anomaly is the variation from a 30 year average of the same uncalibrated thermometer, so if the thermometer measures freezing at +1 degree C or -1 degree C it will not affect the TREND because the same thermometer will always read the same temp for freezing over the 30 year average. So if that same thermometer reads progressively cooler anomalies over time, the TREND is down and if it reads progressively warmer anomalies over time the TREND is warmer without having to know the absolute temperature at any time.
Anomalies determine a TREND not an absolute temperature!
Get it?

So while the brilliant know-it-alls can't figure out how to determine a TREND with equipment that can't be calibrated from station to station, the stupid scientists are creative enough to come up with a technique that is not dependent on the calibration of the measuring instruments matching from station. So the know-it-alls have no choice but to attack the stupid scientists for being able to do what no know-it-all could figure out.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

They don't need to be peer reviewed. If you need an expert to tell you how cold it is, an expert isn't going to help you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

They don't need to be peer reviewed. If you need an expert to tell you how cold it is, an expert isn't going to help you.

So they weren't tested and confirmed to be accurate by their peers?

 

[longknife]

As my wife constantly says, "They can't predict today's weather. How can they predict it a week from now?"

I completely agree!

 

[healthmyths]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

I don't have to be a scientist to say based on what I've been reading from the MSM.. generally risen???
So these "scientists" didn't get asked "Based on YOUR personal studies..........:

About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.

Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Again.. as a layman I'd answer of course it has.. simply because at 98.6 F. with now 7 billion people versus one billion for the first time in 1804 there is bound to be an increase!

About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.

So these "OPINIONS"
by The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts (Table 1). Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

 

[JoeNormal]

A) Who pays the $10 tax.. the generators of CO2.
B) Who pays the generators of CO2. The public
C) Who collects the $10.00 tax. The government.
D) 100% returned to who? The public.

I don't think you could come up with a better example of black-and-white, conservatard thinking if you tried. So all these CO2 generators are exactly the same? All companies create the same levels of CO2? There's no competitive advantage for the most efficient companies?

 

[ClosedCaption]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

[/url]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

[/url]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

Yes, 100 like-minded AGW cultists agree that AGW is fer real...

 

[Google]

The belief, oh and yes it is a belief, that the inevitable and undeniable result of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is uncontrolled and ever increasing global warming is no different then belief in any religion really. By the way, global temperatures have remained stable for the last decade and is now actually cooling.

The politically motivated zealots then proclaimed it was now Climate Change instead of Global Warming.

In fact, the only thing the environmental left has been correct about, from its conception in academia in the 60's to modern day is: they are consistently and wholly incorrect about their predictions and propaganda. The apocalypse has also been prophesied, from global famine due to overpopulation killing us all before the 80's, global cooling--now the political environmental left has solidified their dogma into a religion of its own.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

[/url]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

Yes, 100 like-minded AGW cultists agree that AGW is fer real...

Yes, like that

 

[LordBrownTrout]

This is just as hokey as the global warming scam.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

[/url]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

"Reviewed by peers" and "confirmed to be accurate" are two separate things.

"Reviewed by pals" is a more accurate description of what occurs.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

[/url]

No I mean peer reviewed like, reviewed by peers and confirmed to be accurate. Cause if not you're just throwing shit against the wall

"Reviewed by peers" and "confirmed to be accurate" are two separate things.

"Reviewed by pals" is a more accurate description of what occurs.

Does that come from the Institute of Your Sphincter or do you have anything that resembles proof for that statement. I'm guessing no...

 

[Wyatt earp]

What James Hansen has to say would be much more important if he wasn't a large investor in Al Gore's carbon credit trading scheme. George Soros also pays Hansen directly to peddle the global warming snake oil.

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

In 2000 world scientists were convinced that British children would never again see snow.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

12 years later, Britian faced the coldest winter in 100 years.

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood | Mail Online

Global warming is a hoax, it was a hoax then it is a hoax now.

Of course all these were from peer reviewed articles, right?

You mean the "peer" reviews where the questions were:

Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

I don't have to be a scientist to say based on what I've been reading from the MSM.. generally risen???
So these "scientists" didn't get asked "Based on YOUR personal studies..........:

About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.

Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Again.. as a layman I'd answer of course it has.. simply because at 98.6 F. with now 7 billion people versus one billion for the first time in 1804 there is bound to be an increase!

About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.

So these "OPINIONS"
by The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts (Table 1). Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, 97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame. Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground

with regards to your question #1 do you even understand the history of the themometer and when we started keeping day to day records?

The History of the Thermometer

The question: Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

 

[healthmyths]

A) Who pays the $10 tax.. the generators of CO2.
B) Who pays the generators of CO2. The public
C) Who collects the $10.00 tax. The government.
D) 100% returned to who? The public.

I don't think you could come up with a better example of black-and-white, conservatard thinking if you tried. So all these CO2 generators are exactly the same? All companies create the same levels of CO2? There's no competitive advantage for the most efficient companies?

There was NO reason to differentiate between CO2 generators.
Because the point was the idiocy of Hansen ASSUMING 100% would be redistributed.

Never heard of administrative costs evidently!

Now to address your comment... NO BETTER example of how dumb liberals are when it comes to how taxes, money , etc. works!
Again.. Regardless the volume of CO2 generators $10 per CO2 ton must be collected. OK who collects? Federal govt. Right?
So how in the hell do you think there is NO cost in distributing 100% back to the public? Someone must pay the salaries, computers,etc. that taxes and pays the $10.
WHO does it???
That was my point!!!