Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[CrusaderFrank]

I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention

 

[Qantrill]

I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention

It will be "warming heat" like those loony bastards never imagined. It will cook everything in sight for hundreds and hundreds of miles around.

 

[westwall]

Why are denialists babbling about volcanoes?

Oh, that's right. They're deflecting again. Move along, nothing new to see.

There's nothing unusual happening in Yellowstone. Get a grip. Little earthquakes swarms come and go. Emphasis on the "go" right now, as they ain't happening. Cherrypicking from a couple years ago, so very impressive.

What are you denialists denying? Oh right, you're denying the scientific method in its entirety.

Move along, religious dogma is the only thing alowed. Move along. PERSECUTE THE HERETICS!

 

[saveliberty]

Why are denialists babbling about volcanoes?

Oh, that's right. They're deflecting again. Move along, nothing new to see.

There's nothing unusual happening in Yellowstone. Get a grip. Little earthquakes swarms come and go. Emphasis on the "go" right now, as they ain't happening. Cherrypicking from a couple years ago, so very impressive.

If you knew anything about science, it is obvious.

 

[skookerasbil]

I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention

LOL.......actually, a couple of recent AGW conventions here in the US in the past few years took place as a blizzard hit town.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some of the stuff they put out really does stretch all credibility.

Remember the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) about a global super storm ushering in the next ice age......within days.....? Setting aside all the real science problems with that movie--it was a pretty good sci-fi flick--it was based on the premise that the Antarctic ice was breaking up and melting to the extent that the oceans were desalinated and that shut down the Gulf Stream and that triggered a new ice age. About the same time there was much continuing hullabaloo from the AGW promoting scientific community about dire predictions about Antartica and the terrible ramifications as the ice melted due to gloal warming. This was continuing up through 2010 led by such great scientific minds (cough) as Al Gore who has made himself into a multi-millionaire many times over selling this stuff.

Well now, even the most fanatical AGW proponent has to admit that there is no evidence of global warming in the Antarctic and ice coverage has steadily increased over that entire time based on the satellite record.

So now what are they selling? They predicted this. The increased ice coverage over Antartica is caused by global warming as they knew would occur!!!!! I kid you not.

And the sad thing is, that those who really want their belief in global warming to be validated will believe them, and will just sort of conveniently forget all they said before.

 

[polarbear]

The American Dream
I just uploaded a short video and to stay on the "climate subject" I had to rub it in as usual how "warm" it is today where I live. My oldest friend Siegfried in Germany who could easily be "OldRocks" is used to my teasing over the years.
Ameircan Dream Catcher - YouTube

All my dreams have come true. When I was a little kid I closed my eyes and put my finger a couple of times on a globe my dad had on his desk.
It "landed" on the Yukon and Manitoba. Then I wanted to know from my dad "what`s up there" and he explained "The North Pole".
I`m not making this up, but that`s how it was and since then I`ve been and even lived in all these places. Now I`m living out my last few years on Long Plain First Nations which made me part for their tribal family. Just a few days ago I got the best birthday presents (video greetings) from my old friends and this morning some more from a brand new friend from right here in this forum,...the U.S. Message Board,...where I enjoy hanging out almost as much as where I live now.
Especially so since I got a heart-warming e-mail from somebody I argued with before.
It did not take long to realize that we are all human beings who share common values even though we don`t agree in politics and climate computer models. The internet is a great info-& meeting place but it can also dehumanize how we communicate with each other. As far as this forum is concerned that no longer applies in my view, since I`ve read the e-mail I got from one of my fiercest discussion opponents.
It`s not up to me to say who that is but he is a good example to show how often the internet and reality diverge and former foes can become good friends, even if we have different opinions about a few subjects.But as I said, Long Plain First Nations is just a big family and no matter where You live we make You a part of it .
Not only will we send out greetings to You over www Rez Radio

Rez Radio LIVE

...but also tokens of our friendship such as what my daughter is making right now for Siegfried in Landsberg Germany. There is nothing stopping us to do the same right here in this forum yet still have a difference of opinion.
Greetings from Canada
P.S.: although I`m a Clint Eastwood fan I`m going to change my signature avatar.
Where I live most of our traffic signs have bullet holes, but that was just for target practice. We don`t really shoot anybody..

 

[saveliberty]

Not to worry, the "scientists" in charge of the satellites will just recalibrate them to show more melting...

 

[Foxfyre]

Not to worry, the "scientists" in charge of the satellites will just recalibrate them to show more melting...

Fortunately we still have a few--apparently a very few--scientists working with the satellites who are not willing to jury rig the photos.

But if the arctic ice should start coming back with a vengeance, you can bet that they will introduce the meme that this was to be expected and is a byproduct of global warming.

They will keep milking the gravy train as long and as much as they possibly can.

 

[depotoo]

Friday November 4, 2005

“Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes brought on by global warming and the resulting climate changes.” writes Larry West, About.com’s Guide to Environmental Issues.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. — Maurizio Morabito

4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

I’m impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have 10 years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Former Vice President Al Gore said we only have 10 years left 3 1/2 years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al’s betting Armageddon kicks in January 2016 — unless he’s just peddling glib generalities. — Mark Steyn

5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming:

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres [of sea level rises] in the next century…do you really think that?

Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.

It is possible, no, actually.

Now Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Russian Academy of Science reassures Williams about global warming:

If all ice on the earth melted, the level of the oceans would rise by 64 meters. Many coastal cities would be under water, and so would the Netherlands, a significant part of which lies below sea level. However, the Dutch and the rest of the planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years

6) The UK faces a “catastrophe” of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse.”

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was “no plan B”. — October 19, 2009

7) Meanwhile, the Director of the Goddard Institute, James Hansen, recently sent a letter to President Obama saying that Obama has “only four years left to save the earth” from “runaway warming.” He told the London Observer in February that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” Hansen maintains that recent warming has pushed the planet close to a “tipping point” for runaway warming. What recent warming? Three hundredths of a degree C over 30 years, with temperatures still declining, doesn’t seem worth ruining the world’s economies. — April 20, 2009

8) While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met (James) Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989. — Author Rob Reiss talks with Salon’s Suzy Hansen

9) A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. — Friday, 16 September 2005

10) According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks depotoo, but the AGW proponents will request links for the quoted sections you posted.

 

[saveliberty]

He must be so pissed we're not dead yet...

...is it warm in here?

 

[depotoo]

Environmentalist's Wild Predictions
The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files » The Spectator
Another take on the history of Earth Day - Times-Standard Online
Kenneth Watt, Professor Emeritus, UC Davis | ZoomInfo.com
In eight years, quoth the prince - Washington Times
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'
A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly | Watts Up With That?
Global warming 'past the point of no return' - Science - News - The Independent
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

[Qantrill]

I love how these sky-is-falling global warming freaks, throw up all this "scientific data" (read that bullshit) trying to look all impressive and convincing and scare the living crap out of each other. Then depotoo throws up those FACTS about GW predictions and how wrong they've been so far and...get ready for Rolling Blunder and Old Rocks to return with a vengeance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is anybody following this new British study, funded by the U.K. government, that concludes that there has been zero global warming for the last 16 years? Trying to find good information from reliable sources is like pulling teeth, but I'm going to keep digging. Certainly the warmers and MSM are trying to squelch this story. A few have said 16 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions, though they certainly have broadly advertised any seasonal anomallys that suggest increased global heat.

Global-Warming Hysteria Setback - By Wesley J. Smith - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[westwall]

Is anybody following this new British study, funded by the U.K. government, that concludes that there has been zero global warming for the last 16 years? Trying to find good information from reliable sources is like pulling teeth, but I'm going to keep digging. Certainly the warmers and MSM are trying to squelch this story. A few have said 16 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions, though they certainly have broadly advertised any seasonal anomallys that suggest increased global heat.

Global-Warming Hysteria Setback - By Wesley J. Smith - The Corner - National Review Online

I'm trying to get the study now. It is difficult just paying for the study!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the AGW Cult was active in the 1930's they would have said that Arctic would be totally ice free by 1940, 1945 tops

 

[mamooth]

Cherry picking fallacy. Those of us capable of logical thinking -- that is, not the denialists -- spotted it immediately.

Now, let's go over Depotee's graph, as I love to watch denialists sputter. Why is Depotee's graph so dishonest? Because Hansen put out 3 scenarios, A-B-C. "A" was the worst case CO2 emissions case, "B" the middle, "C" the least. Since James Hansen does not control how much CO2 humans emit, he had to model the different possibilities.

An honest person would have seen how much CO2 was emitted and compared actual temps to the Hansen model for that case. The actual emissions were very close to "B". Depotee's liar source chose to use "A" instead, the much higher emissions case. Extremely dishonest of him.

So, the points:

1. Hansen's 1988 prediction was a little above the actual warming, but still pretty good. Still, one wonders why they focus so much on a 1988 prediction, since no one else does. We're not using a Macintosh SE with 4mb ram any longer. Models get better. Everyone has known for many years that one was a little high, which why no one uses that 24-year-old model any more.

2. None of the denialists could be bothered to do any independent research, such good little herdbeasts as they are. Me, first thing I do is independent research, which is why I'm not a denialist. They saw something that confirmed what they wanted to believe, so they instantly believed, declared it an absolute fact in their own mind, and saw no need to ever check out any other data.

3. Depotee's source is a liar, who deliberately tried to mislead by saying Hansen should have matched "A" instead of "B". And none of the denialists will call out that source for lying. He lied for their cause, therefore they love him and his lie. If any of them would like to prove me wrong, simply call out Larry West (the source) for lying, or Patrick Michaels, who lied to congress the same way.

(Bueller? Bueller? <crickets chirping>. No, I didn't expect any of them to break away from their herd by acting honesty. Herd identity is everything to a denialist.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Ahhh.. Quick glance says the "B" scenario is up to 0.28deg C wrong for the current years. And with the actual trend line being 0.19degC/dec that makes Hansen nearly 1.5 decades wrong... Pretty piss poor when your only forecasting over 2 decades..

Just because you can draw lines thru it -- don't mean it's useful... Hansen bet the farm that the rate would increase by 30% or so --- and it didn't.. In fact one would have to conclude that NO secondary feedbacks are obvious and none of that awful stuff is more likely now than was in 1988...

Besides --- You see anything to PANIC ABOUT in those plots?????

 

[westwall]

Cherry picking fallacy. Those of us capable of logical thinking -- that is, not the denialists -- spotted it immediately.

Now, let's go over Depotee's graph, as I love to watch denialists sputter. Why is Depotee's graph so dishonest? Because Hansen put out 3 scenarios, A-B-C. "A" was the worst case CO2 emissions case, "B" the middle, "C" the least. Since James Hansen does not control how much CO2 humans emit, he had to model the different possibilities.

An honest person would have seen how much CO2 was emitted and compared actual temps to the Hansen model for that case. The actual emissions were very close to "B". Depotee's liar source chose to use "A" instead, the much higher emissions case. Extremely dishonest of him.

So, the points:

1. Hansen's 1988 prediction was a little above the actual warming, but still pretty good. Still, one wonders why they focus so much on a 1988 prediction, since no one else does. We're not using a Macintosh SE with 4mb ram any longer. Models get better. Everyone has known for many years that one was a little high, which why no one uses that 24-year-old model any more.

2. None of the denialists could be bothered to do any independent research, such good little herdbeasts as they are. Me, first thing I do is independent research, which is why I'm not a denialist. They saw something that confirmed what they wanted to believe, so they instantly believed, declared it an absolute fact in their own mind, and saw no need to ever check out any other data.

3. Depotee's source is a liar, who deliberately tried to mislead by saying Hansen should have matched "A" instead of "B". And none of the denialists will call out that source for lying. He lied for their cause, therefore they love him and his lie. If any of them would like to prove me wrong, simply call out Larry West (the source) for lying, or Patrick Michaels, who lied to congress the same way.

(Bueller? Bueller? <crickets chirping>. No, I didn't expect any of them to break away from their herd by acting honesty. Herd identity is everything to a denialist.)

Only in the mind of a science denying AGW cultist could a 100% error be considered "good".