NEWS FLASH: Global Cooling ended 15 minutes ago

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warm front travels across country setting a "new normal" for January. Break out the golf clubs, we've seen the last of winter.


*DISCLAIMER* Makes as much sense as clueless "Global Cooling" predictions. Funny how the deniers ignore "natural cycles" when it becomes inconvenient.

Funny how warmist cult members ignore natural cycles when it becomes inconvenient

heat wave? global warming
cold wave? That's just weather.

I'm not the one talking about no warming for 15 years. So, how could you say I'm ignoring natural cycles? The 15 year flat period could just as easily be "proof" that the Ice Age we're supposed to be heading towards has been stopped by AGW!!!

More good news! Now Al Gore can STFU.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why would you bother? Maybe to prove you know something about the topic and weren't just posting as a political exercise.

Your shit don't stink, does it? Most of your posts is nothing but a religious faith in a political structure that only death could separate you from. You toss a thin rime of science-y looking stuff to it to try and justify your political desires and think you're some hot shit. Nothing can be 'proven' to you, but you can be exposed for what you are to others ignorant of your history, and that is you're just another hack pimping global fascism with a green dress.

If I'm stubborn, it's because no one has refuted the logical syllogism I've posted repeatedly.

You're stubborn because you're a religious zealot. Another thing I should point out to you is this truism: "To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough." You are a skeptic of ANYTHING that disagrees with your presupposition of the universe and therefore, no proof can ever be enough. You'll always wheedle some sort of excuse or justification to not believe.

But hey! Don't worry! this is a universal truth!

If you've really read "post after post" of my stuff, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Very much so. CO2 produced by man is somehow more dangerous than the production by nature which composes the other 99.96% of CO2 production in the world. Yeah, we must change society to an ecofascist global tyranny based on a reading that doesn't even MEET THE MARGIN OF ERROR!

I know precisely what you're saying.

Care to take stab at that, since the Conservation of Energy question is obviously over your head?

More like beneath my dignity and interest since others have said it better, played research monkey and spread your shit like manure in a field.

Go ahead, consult that list of brainiacs you touted earlier. I can wait.

Do I look like I'm gong to jump for your piddly ass and satisfaction?

 

[RollingThunder]

CO2 produced by man is somehow more dangerous than the production by nature which composes the other 99.96% of CO2 production in the world.

Your every post just reveals you to be a really ignorant mental defective without a clue about what is going on with the Earth's climate, BigFritz.

Mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over the pre-industrial levels that had never gone up anywhere near that much in perhaps as much as the last two and half million years, you hopeless moron.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

***
Carbon Dioxide Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years
(excerpt)

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) — Researchers have reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 2.1 million years in the sharpest detail yet, shedding new light on its role in the earth's cycles of cooling and warming. The study, in the June 19 issue of the journal Science...confirms many researchers' suspicion that higher carbon dioxide levels coincided with warmer intervals during the study period. The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher. This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate

 

[konradv]

Looks like you scared him off

Looks like you're a douchebag.

I may look like one, but you are a certified douche

Seeing is believing!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

For any lurkers, here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say on the subject;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You mean that's what the toadies who run the American Institute of Physics have to say on the subject. They don't speak for the rank and file.

Now Pattycake, show a site to prove that, or be branded the liar that you are.

In fact, there has been one Scientific Society that changed it's statement on global warming. That was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The people at the head of that society created a policy statement flat out denying the existance of global warming. The membership threatoned to not renew unless the policy statement was changed. So they changed it to a neutral statement.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversy

In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming, and for Jurassic Park.[2] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[3] The award has since been renamed the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[4]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[5] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[6]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[7] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[8]

[edit] 2007 AAPG revised positionAcknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."