North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘No

[Old Rocks]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

Hard data is not at all hard to come by. Simply go to USGS site on world glaciers and see what they have to say. One can also look at the statements of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorological Society concerning global warming. These are the people the are active in investigating what is happening here and now.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

 

[zeke]

I like the way people like to look at historical weather data and draw the conclusion that nothing is changing that hasn't happened before. Of course the before part was before there were billions of humans on the planet.

But what the hell.

The question I like to ask is WHEN in the history of the earth has man burned trillions of pounds of coal and oil and then put that carbon back into the atmosphere?

Seeing as how we have never done that till the past couple hundred years or so, seems like there would be no historical evidence to point to and say; not a problem.

We really don't know what burning trillions of tons of carbon will do eventually. Especially considering that the best carbon traps (huge forests) are being cut down.

The last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, the volcanoes of the earth wee going bat shit crazy spewing shit everywhere.

Do you think those volcanoes and that carbon had any impact on the earth or are those scientists lying about that also?

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

And I have a problem with global warming deniers who can't even TRY and answer the very logical questions that I posed.

I read where you are a big conservationist. So when was the last time man burned trillions of pounds of carbon, put it back into the atmosphere and what was the end result?

 

[Old Rocks]

I like the way people like to look at historical weather data and draw the conclusion that nothing is changing that hasn't happened before. Of course the before part was before there were billions of humans on the planet.

But what the hell.

The question I like to ask is WHEN in the history of the earth has man burned trillions of pounds of coal and oil and then put that carbon back into the atmosphere?

Seeing as how we have never done that till the past couple hundred years or so, seems like there would be no historical evidence to point to and say; not a problem.

We really don't know what burning trillions of tons of carbon will do eventually. Especially considering that the best carbon traps (huge forests) are being cut down.

The last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, the volcanoes of the earth wee going bat shit crazy spewing shit everywhere.

Do you think those volcanoes and that carbon had any impact on the earth or are those scientists lying about that also?

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

Show where and how this is being done.

On the contrary, the lies are being told by the denialists. And spread by exactly the same people that were hired by the tobacco companies to spread doubt about the ill effects of tobacco use.

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

Hard data is not at all hard to come by. Simply go to USGS site on world glaciers and see what they have to say. One can also look at the statements of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorological Society concerning global warming. These are the people the are active in investigating what is happening here and now.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

You don't say!

 

[Old Rocks]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

What is your take? Which "side" do you fall on?

While I am not in any way activist on this issue, I am convinced that we are experiencing climate change and that our activities are contributing to it.

I am a serious conservationist. I am actually thrilled for your honesty and that you are thinking about it.

Granted I am not my usual best this morning. Puppy is killing me (just dewormed and really chewing on my ankles as I type)

My deal has always been water. I take on local issues. Why? Because the Al Gores of the planet will always find a way to make money on a so called global issue that just doesn't exist.

It's all a lie. Got to run her again but did you know they all set up a carbon trading system?

Lady, you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Al Gore made his money off of investing in hi-tech stocks when the market was on a downer in those stocks. He has since proved himself to have a keen instinct for other investments. He did not make money off of his movie or his advocating the steps neccessary to reduce the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

As far as that issue not existing, you are denying what the vast majority of scientists on this planet state. State in peer reviewed articles, state in the conventions of their scientific societies, and state in personal conversations. So, you are either stating that you know more than all these scientists, or that there is a world wide conspiracy among the scientists in these many disciplines. Either way, you look the fool.

 

[zeke]

I like the way people like to look at historical weather data and draw the conclusion that nothing is changing that hasn't happened before. Of course the before part was before there were billions of humans on the planet.

But what the hell.

The question I like to ask is WHEN in the history of the earth has man burned trillions of pounds of coal and oil and then put that carbon back into the atmosphere?

Seeing as how we have never done that till the past couple hundred years or so, seems like there would be no historical evidence to point to and say; not a problem.

We really don't know what burning trillions of tons of carbon will do eventually. Especially considering that the best carbon traps (huge forests) are being cut down.

The last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, the volcanoes of the earth wee going bat shit crazy spewing shit everywhere.

Do you think those volcanoes and that carbon had any impact on the earth or are those scientists lying about that also?

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

Show where and how this is being done.

On the contrary, the lies are being told by the denialists. And spread by exactly the same people that were hired by the tobacco companies to spread doubt about the ill effects of tobacco use.

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

Oh fuk me. How stupid are you really? What in the hell do you think oil and coal are made of? Here is a hint. The first letter starts with a "C" and the last three "BON".

Here is another clue as to how this is happening. WE BURN COAL AND OIL. Everyday. Tens of millions of pounds. Every day.

Bet you didn't know that either.

 

[FJO]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

There was big money in it Mac. Think about it. Taxes galore all for "the planet". They all went into a spending frenzy over in Europe. But you should have been watching your Al Gore.

It was all bullshit and the politics of the EU drove it. Now they are broke and impacting the rest of us.

It's not both sides. Not at all. The liberal crazies are driving this bullshit and have been for decades.

Why do you go trying to make it equal in it's insanity? Both sides? Fuck you. It's bullshit. And I knew it from the beginning.

NOT BOTH SIDES.

When all the smoke clears, Al Gore's Academy Award for "An Inconvenient Truth" will be like Hussein Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, like Lance Armstrong's Tour de France "victories", like the pitching and hitting accomplishments of various baseball stars, phony and false, achieved by lying and cheating and falsifying facts for profit.

The claim of so-called scientists that humanity's actions cause global warming/climate change is like the rooster saying: Look, I said cock-a-doodle-doo and the Sun came up!

 

[zeke]

My bad old rocks. Sorry.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

There was big money in it Mac. Think about it. Taxes galore all for "the planet". They all went into a spending frenzy over in Europe. But you should have been watching your Al Gore.

It was all bullshit and the politics of the EU drove it. Now they are broke and impacting the rest of us.

It's not both sides. Not at all. The liberal crazies are driving this bullshit and have been for decades.

Why do you go trying to make it equal in it's insanity? Both sides? Fuck you. It's bullshit. And I knew it from the beginning.

NOT BOTH SIDES.

When all the smoke clears, Al Gore's Academy Award for "An Inconvenient Truth" will be like Hussein Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, like Lance Armstrong's Tour de France "victories", like the pitching and hitting accomplishments of various baseball stars, phony and false, achieved by lying and cheating and falsifying facts for profit.

The claim of so-called scientists that humanity's actions cause global warming/climate change is like the rooster saying: Look, I said cock-a-doodle-doo and the Sun came up!

Because you say so?

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[FJO]

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

Show where and how this is being done.

On the contrary, the lies are being told by the denialists. And spread by exactly the same people that were hired by the tobacco companies to spread doubt about the ill effects of tobacco use.

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

Oh fuk me. How stupid are you really? What in the hell do you think oil and coal are made of? Here is a hint. The first letter starts with a "C" and the last three "BON".

Here is another clue as to how this is happening. WE BURN COAL AND OIL. Everyday. Tens of millions of pounds. Every day.

Bet you didn't know that either.

Plants are like liberals going to a buffet with someone else paying the tab: Consume as much as they possibly can.

The more carbon dioxide is in the air, the more plants flourish.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is your take? Which "side" do you fall on?

While I am not in any way activist on this issue, I am convinced that we are experiencing climate change and that our activities are contributing to it.

I am a serious conservationist. I am actually thrilled for your honesty and that you are thinking about it.

Granted I am not my usual best this morning. Puppy is killing me (just dewormed and really chewing on my ankles as I type)

My deal has always been water. I take on local issues. Why? Because the Al Gores of the planet will always find a way to make money on a so called global issue that just doesn't exist.

It's all a lie. Got to run her again but did you know they all set up a carbon trading system?

Lady, you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Al Gore made his money off of investing in hi-tech stocks when the market was on a downer in those stocks. He has since proved himself to have a keen instinct for other investments. He did not make money off of his movie or his advocating the steps neccessary to reduce the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

As far as that issue not existing, you are denying what the vast majority of scientists on this planet state. State in peer reviewed articles, state in the conventions of their scientific societies, and state in personal conversations. So, you are either stating that you know more than all these scientists, or that there is a world wide conspiracy among the scientists in these many disciplines. Either way, you look the fool.

Al Gore invested in Google? LOL

Uh huh

 

[Old Rocks]

What is your point? Local temperatures do not mean anything, particularly when you are taking a snapshot of a single month.

Or when you delete Serbia from data or when you move a data collector (I'm being generous here) to a black top parking lot in Phoenix and skew results.



they almost got away with it and thank the good lord they didn't.

I still think they all need to be outed and punished, but that's for another day.

That bullshit was disproven in the Berkeley climate study;

Berkeley Earth

It is people like yourself that are trying to get away with flat out lies concerning what the scientists have found.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am a serious conservationist. I am actually thrilled for your honesty and that you are thinking about it.

Granted I am not my usual best this morning. Puppy is killing me (just dewormed and really chewing on my ankles as I type)

My deal has always been water. I take on local issues. Why? Because the Al Gores of the planet will always find a way to make money on a so called global issue that just doesn't exist.

It's all a lie. Got to run her again but did you know they all set up a carbon trading system?

Lady, you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Al Gore made his money off of investing in hi-tech stocks when the market was on a downer in those stocks. He has since proved himself to have a keen instinct for other investments. He did not make money off of his movie or his advocating the steps neccessary to reduce the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

As far as that issue not existing, you are denying what the vast majority of scientists on this planet state. State in peer reviewed articles, state in the conventions of their scientific societies, and state in personal conversations. So, you are either stating that you know more than all these scientists, or that there is a world wide conspiracy among the scientists in these many disciplines. Either way, you look the fool.

Al Gore invested in Google? LOL

Uh huh

LOL. Well, here we have another idiot child 'Conservative' raging against Al Gore for doing the very same thing that he defends other capitalists for doing. Yes, Al Gore has substancial investments and ties to hi-tech companies. And has made many millions of dollars off of those ties. After being denied the Presidency in 2000, he was hired by these companies, and given options on stock as part of the deal. These options have paid off nicely for him. Unlike certain other politicians, he seems to have a very keen business sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show where and how this is being done.

On the contrary, the lies are being told by the denialists. And spread by exactly the same people that were hired by the tobacco companies to spread doubt about the ill effects of tobacco use.

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

Oh fuk me. How stupid are you really? What in the hell do you think oil and coal are made of? Here is a hint. The first letter starts with a "C" and the last three "BON".

Here is another clue as to how this is happening. WE BURN COAL AND OIL. Everyday. Tens of millions of pounds. Every day.

Bet you didn't know that either.

Plants are like liberals going to a buffet with someone else paying the tab: Consume as much as they possibly can.

The more carbon dioxide is in the air, the more plants flourish.

Really? Care to show us some articles from peer reviewed magazines about that? Or what the long term affects on agriculture will be from a changing climate?

 

[tinydancer]

I like the way people like to look at historical weather data and draw the conclusion that nothing is changing that hasn't happened before. Of course the before part was before there were billions of humans on the planet.

But what the hell.

The question I like to ask is WHEN in the history of the earth has man burned trillions of pounds of coal and oil and then put that carbon back into the atmosphere?

Seeing as how we have never done that till the past couple hundred years or so, seems like there would be no historical evidence to point to and say; not a problem.

We really don't know what burning trillions of tons of carbon will do eventually. Especially considering that the best carbon traps (huge forests) are being cut down.

The last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, the volcanoes of the earth wee going bat shit crazy spewing shit everywhere.

Do you think those volcanoes and that carbon had any impact on the earth or are those scientists lying about that also?

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

And I have a problem with global warming deniers who can't even TRY and answer the very logical questions that I posed.

I read where you are a big conservationist. So when was the last time man burned trillions of pounds of carbon, put it back into the atmosphere and what was the end result?

Glad I jumped back in an found this gem of yours.

I'm freezing my ass off up here in Manitoba in the coldest summer ever.



Now to me being a conservationist versus you being a little brat on the net this summer?

Let's dance. Do you know Ducks Unlimited?

 

[Old Rocks]

.

Seems to me the first problem is agreeing on the freakin' data.

We can't have a constructive conversation on climate change when both "sides" of the debate bring entirely different data to the table. One day I'll hear the earth is cooling, the next day I'll hear the earth is warming.

As usual, both "sides" need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

.

There was big money in it Mac. Think about it. Taxes galore all for "the planet". They all went into a spending frenzy over in Europe. But you should have been watching your Al Gore.

It was all bullshit and the politics of the EU drove it. Now they are broke and impacting the rest of us.

It's not both sides. Not at all. The liberal crazies are driving this bullshit and have been for decades.

Why do you go trying to make it equal in it's insanity? Both sides? Fuck you. It's bullshit. And I knew it from the beginning.

NOT BOTH SIDES.

When all the smoke clears, Al Gore's Academy Award for "An Inconvenient Truth" will be like Hussein Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, like Lance Armstrong's Tour de France "victories", like the pitching and hitting accomplishments of various baseball stars, phony and false, achieved by lying and cheating and falsifying facts for profit.

The claim of so-called scientists that humanity's actions cause global warming/climate change is like the rooster saying: Look, I said cock-a-doodle-doo and the Sun came up!

Really? So called scientists? Only every Scientific Society on earth. Every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Now you have flapped your yap, give us some hard information backing your viewpoint. Not blogs by undegreed ex-TV weathermen, but articles from peer reviewed scientific journals.

Here is the history of the investigation of GHGs from the largest Scientific Society of physicists on this planet, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

I have a problem with so called scientests who loved being climate rock stars skewing data.

And I have a problem with global warming deniers who can't even TRY and answer the very logical questions that I posed.

I read where you are a big conservationist. So when was the last time man burned trillions of pounds of carbon, put it back into the atmosphere and what was the end result?

Glad I jumped back in an found this gem of yours.

I'm freezing my ass off up here in Manitoba in the coldest summer ever.



Now to me being a conservationist versus you being a little brat on the net this summer?

Let's dance. Do you know Ducks Unlimited?

And we are having what looks to be a stellar fire summer here in Oregon. So how does local climate compare to global?

Yes, I know who and what Ducks Unlimited are and the conservation efforts they have led in. So what does that have to do with the fact that we are changing the climate by the injections of vast amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere?

 

[Freewill]

It is not global warming, nor is it global cooling. It is global weirding. Kinda like the way the republicans act. Weird.

But you know scientists did say that weather patterns would change in an unpredictable way as more and more heat entered the atmosphere. Wonder if that's what we are seeing?

But IS more heat entering the atmosphere?

Unlike the chicken little global warming people I asked a simple question..
"how much heat is manmade?"

AND here is a VERY common sense, logical response.
Please read in it's entirety as it is very informative!
For example:
Facts about man and earth.
There are about 6 billion people on this planet.
They would all fit standing up in a space 25 miles by 25 miles.
The earth has a little less than 200 million square miles on its total surface.
Spread the 6 billion out equally and there would be 30 of us per square mile.
Each group of 30, with their autos and power plants, produces approximately 3 billion BTU's per year (my best assumption). This is 108 BTU per square foot per year.

If all that heat was put into the ocean for 5,000 years, it would heat it 1°F; but just 13 feet of ocean evaporation in those 5,000 years would take back that 1°F increase. However, putting that amount of heat into our atmosphere for only 100 years would heat our air by 21°F (with everything else staying constant).

If you understand the last paragraph, you'll appreciate our oceans more than ever. Perhaps the reader can now better appreciate the climate stabilizing influence of our oceans, and realize that any global warming predictions read or heard which ignore the ocean should be viewed with deep skepticism

Part 3 of Global Warming: Man-made Heat

So why isn't the Earth 21 degrees warmer? Or even 10 degrees? Are we not putting most if not all of the heat into the atmosphere? One of the effects of CC is predicted to be increasing ocean levels not decreasing. I am assuming that is your point.

 

[tinydancer]

What is your point? Local temperatures do not mean anything, particularly when you are taking a snapshot of a single month.

Or when you delete Serbia from data or when you move a data collector (I'm being generous here) to a black top parking lot in Phoenix and skew results.



they almost got away with it and thank the good lord they didn't.

I still think they all need to be outed and punished, but that's for another day.

That bullshit was disproven in the Berkeley climate study;

Berkeley Earth

It is people like yourself that are trying to get away with flat out lies concerning what the scientists have found.

I'm a Delingpole baby.

You know normally I stay out of this bullshit forum where you all pharump your we are killing the planet crap you don't fix a thing.

EVER. Fix what? Capture carbon? What moondream is this?

Instead of really attempting to help China to wean itself off of coal before it kills it's population?

What moondream are you on?

Don't you seriously care or are you just that mimicking that bloated rich warthog Gore?