I am tired of warmers...

[gslack]

Yeah, but who rolls out the Global Cooling Hoax everytime it snows?!?!

Global Cooling from the 70's brought to us by the many of the same scientists now claiming its global warming.. Yeah Kinda plays right into my OP thanks for helping me...

My, my, you just continue to lie. But what else is to be expected of a 'Conservative'.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

Moron, Conservative or Liberal is a classification of a political/social/financial school of thought. You want to classify me because your small mind can't live without a classification. Thats standard fair from a sheep... I am conservative on some things, liberal on some things, on some things I may agree with a democrat view, and sometimes a republican view. Doesn't make me either one, and only a fool would limit themselves like that.

Now on to your BS posted from the pro-AGW blog you cited... Might want to poke your head out of the approved algorian reading list once in a while.. Here is what the decidedly liberal leaning wikkipedia says on it....

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global cooling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Global cooling (disambiguation).


Mean temperature anomalies during the period 1965 to 1975 with respect to the average temperatures from 1937 to 1946. This dataset was not available at the time.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]

Read the page and follow the link you can find links to scientific papers and bodies that supported the claim back then... So, maybe your green blog isn't the bastion of truth after all hmmm.....

Socks slapping you with your own PR is getting tiresome.

 

[bripat9643]

None of that disproves AGW. It sounds like we just need "faith" that we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth. Meanwhile, the skeptic/deniers are the ones claiming AGW is a relgion, when the truth is they're the ones fighting the science, as tenaciously as Pope v. Galileo.

AGW doesn't need to be dis-proven. It's supporters need to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably, and they have been caught committing fraud and doctoring the data.

 

[RodISHI]

Just because very Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger means nothing at all, according the G-string. And they post sites where they clearly state that the climate is already being affect. Unequivocal statements, with real science to back them up.

But G-string believes political flap-yap will change all of that.

The problem is not the data or the evidence. It is the way that certain political money mongers decided they would shove their agenda down everyones throat so that they could make a buck.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- you lived throught the 70's so you know that there was a 'coming ice age' scare. just because fruitcakes like Connelly (who lost his wikipedia editorial privileges for continually rewriting anything remotely skeptical of AGW) can rewrite history to say what you want to hear, doesnt make it true. even if there were more scientists that were thinking warming than cooling back why werent they speaking up? Being a proponent of global cooling before he was a proponent of global warming didnt seem to hurt Stephen Schneider much.

in ten years, after the CAGW bubble has burst, there will be other Old Rocks commenting on how the 'real' scientists never said that CO2 was anything more than a minor factor and how no 'real' scientist had ever claimed catastrophe as anything but a faint possibility. and those new versions of Old Rocks will link up webpages and quote their favourite talking heads and ferverently believe what they are saying, just as Old Rocks does right now.

 

[westwall]

Just because very Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger means nothing at all, according the G-string. And they post sites where they clearly state that the climate is already being affect. Unequivocal statements, with real science to back them up.

But G-string believes political flap-yap will change all of that.

And once again, who cares. Scientific bodies once proclaimed the world was shrinking and that was the origin of mountain building. That was the paradigm when you were supposedly taking geology classes (how about a picture of your rock hammer, every geologist and rock hound I know has one, hell I've got three!) and look how fast that paradigme collapsed when they finally opened their eyes.

Climatologists have perverted science for the oldest reason in the book. Greed. They are being exposed now as are all the frauds like you olfraud. Be happy though, you guys had a long run, much longer then you should have but that's life.

 

[westwall]

Giant boring text wall not read.

You need to replace "Warmers" with "The entire world except American Republicans." Your title should be "I'm tired of the entire world except American Republicans..."

Short meaningless nay-saying response not worth the space it took to post.

I'm not a Republican, I am a thinker and unable to stop thinking long enough to fall into the BS political party sideshow unlike some of you...

Denial is the sideshow, with moving goal posts of historic proportions. Sooner or later you'll have no choice but to concede this.

The entire world save for the American right is not in a conspiracy against you, Oddball.

Moving the goal posts? Why yes the AGW fanatics move the goal post all the time. Not ONE of their predictions has ever been correct. You crack me up Cuyo
It's a good thing your brain stem operates seperately from everything else or you would suffocate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks- you lived throught the 70's so you know that there was a 'coming ice age' scare. just because fruitcakes like Connelly (who lost his wikipedia editorial privileges for continually rewriting anything remotely skeptical of AGW) can rewrite history to say what you want to hear, doesnt make it true. even if there were more scientists that were thinking warming than cooling back why werent they speaking up? Being a proponent of global cooling before he was a proponent of global warming didnt seem to hurt Stephen Schneider much.

in ten years, after the CAGW bubble has burst, there will be other Old Rocks commenting on how the 'real' scientists never said that CO2 was anything more than a minor factor and how no 'real' scientist had ever claimed catastrophe as anything but a faint possibility. and those new versions of Old Rocks will link up webpages and quote their favourite talking heads and ferverently believe what they are saying, just as Old Rocks does right now.

Look at your avatar closely, Ian. That shows cooling, correct?

Yes, I lived through the 70's, and the 60's. the 50's, and most of the 40's. And I read the Academy of Sciences publication on climate concerns shortly after it was published in 1975. That stated that there was not enough data at the time to support either a warming or a cooling trend. But most scientists thought that there would be warming because of the effect of GHGs.

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'Ice age is coming' BS was in Newsweek and Time. Not in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Short meaningless nay-saying response not worth the space it took to post.

I'm not a Republican, I am a thinker and unable to stop thinking long enough to fall into the BS political party sideshow unlike some of you...

Denial is the sideshow, with moving goal posts of historic proportions. Sooner or later you'll have no choice but to concede this.

The entire world save for the American right is not in a conspiracy against you, Oddball.

Moving the goal posts? Why yes the AGW fanatics move the goal post all the time. Not ONE of their predictions has ever been correct. You crack me up Cuyo
It's a good thing your brain stem operates seperately from everything else or you would suffocate.

Now Walleyes, you people living in the alternative reality of "Conservatism" stated up until about 2000 that there was no global warming. When the reality of the warming became apparent to all, in the form of warmer summers, shorter and warmer winters, melting glaciers, and ice caps, you then moved your claims to 'Well yes, it is warming, but it isn't our fault'. In spite of the fact that the warming was predicted in 1896 based on projected CO2 emissions.

 

[Cuyo]

Short meaningless nay-saying response not worth the space it took to post.

I'm not a Republican, I am a thinker and unable to stop thinking long enough to fall into the BS political party sideshow unlike some of you...

Denial is the sideshow, with moving goal posts of historic proportions. Sooner or later you'll have no choice but to concede this.

The entire world save for the American right is not in a conspiracy against you, Oddball.

Moving the goal posts? Why yes the AGW fanatics move the goal post all the time. Not ONE of their predictions has ever been correct. You crack me up Cuyo
It's a good thing your brain stem operates seperately from everything else or you would suffocate.

Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. Drought, desertification, melting ice caps, warmer climate, increased storms and increased storm severity, rising ocean levels... None of that cultist stuff has come true...

Westy, you think you're profound, but you're not. You're parroting junk science. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 10 or 100 blockheads on this site to agree with you. You're wrong.

 

[Big Fitz]

None of that disproves AGW. It sounds like we just need "faith" that we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth. Meanwhile, the skeptic/deniers are the ones claiming AGW is a relgion, when the truth is they're the ones fighting the science, as tenaciously as Pope v. Galileo.

AGW doesn't need to be dis-proven. It's supporters need to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably, and they have been caught committing fraud and doctoring the data.

You're absolutely right. This just sinks most of what was left of their "Reputable data". That's all. Between this and Climategate. Their cause is fucked.

Time to find a new problem to solve with their solution of global fascism.

 

[gslack]

The 'Ice age is coming' BS was in Newsweek and Time. Not in peer reviewed journals.

Oh stop lying man, I already showed that it came from scientists and many of whom are now supporting global warming. You saw the post retard, you saw it and you know dam good and well it was a claim made by the scientific community. Dude you are losing credibility by the minute here...

 

[gslack]

Denial is the sideshow, with moving goal posts of historic proportions. Sooner or later you'll have no choice but to concede this.

The entire world save for the American right is not in a conspiracy against you, Oddball.

Moving the goal posts? Why yes the AGW fanatics move the goal post all the time. Not ONE of their predictions has ever been correct. You crack me up Cuyo
It's a good thing your brain stem operates seperately from everything else or you would suffocate.

Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. Drought, desertification, melting ice caps, warmer climate, increased storms and increased storm severity, rising ocean levels... None of that cultist stuff has come true...

Westy, you think you're profound, but you're not. You're parroting junk science. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 10 or 100 blockheads on this site to agree with you. You're wrong.

Care to point out where the desertification is at?.... How about those islands that are evacuating due to rising sea levels? Or the arctic being completely free of ice a few years ago..... You algorians have your goalposts on a trolley...

 

[skookerasbil]

The 'Ice age is coming' BS was in Newsweek and Time. Not in peer reviewed journals.

But why are the peer reviewed guys faking the data??

 

[gslack]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

 

[konradv]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

 

[gslack]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

So then you just basically said, that the climate can do anything and you would consider it proof of AGW.. Thanks for clarifying the religious aspect again...

 

[Sallow]

Makes two of us. I am tired of whacky weather. Bring back Spring and Fall.

 

[konradv]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

So then you just basically said, that the climate can do anything and you would consider it proof of AGW.. Thanks for clarifying the religious aspect again...

No, I didn't. That's what the skeptics/deniers say. Don't tell me what I said. Tell me what you've got to say. You're just foolishlly going back to your original thesis, as if I hadn't said anything at all. That's intellectual dishonesty, IMO, gramps.

 

[Old Rocks]

Moving the goal posts? Why yes the AGW fanatics move the goal post all the time. Not ONE of their predictions has ever been correct. You crack me up Cuyo
It's a good thing your brain stem operates seperately from everything else or you would suffocate.

Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. Drought, desertification, melting ice caps, warmer climate, increased storms and increased storm severity, rising ocean levels... None of that cultist stuff has come true...

Westy, you think you're profound, but you're not. You're parroting junk science. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 10 or 100 blockheads on this site to agree with you. You're wrong.

Care to point out where the desertification is at?.... How about those islands that are evacuating due to rising sea levels? Or the arctic being completely free of ice a few years ago..... You algorians have your goalposts on a trolley...

My, my, another 'Conservative' that never reads the newspapers. Where is desertification happening? How about China, India, Africa, just to start?

Nobody stated that they Arctic was to be free of ice a few years ago. In fact, what was stated by most scientists a decade ago was that the Arctic could be free of ice in the summer by 2100. Now, most are stating that it will be free of ice in the summer by 2060. However, by volume decrease, it may well be free of ice in the summer by 2030.

And, given the fact that it seems to decrease stepwise, rather than in a nice straight line, it could happen sooner.

G-string, you can lie all that you want, you can misrepresent what the scientists have stated all you want. However, just as when you lying assholes were shouting, in chorus with the obese junkie, that there was no global warming, the obvious events will overtake you and show you the be lying once again. And you will move on to other false claims. You know no other course.