The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

[RollingThunder]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

By the way..........this is the same goofball that was on another forum raving about the greatness of "shovel-ready" projects!!!


People have to understand...........these radical environmental assholes like Rolling Thunder would happily buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000.00 a pop if you packaged it up just right. If its hysterical............they buy into it hook, line and stinker...............every time.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[westwall]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

You need to get your facts straight bucko. The planet has only been "stable" when it so damned cold you would have frozen to death. It was real stable then. The Holocene Maximum occured between 7,500-4,000 years B.P. Try reading some science you anti science fraud.
I even included a wiki link so it is simple enough even you can understand it.



Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early Holocene Climate Variability and the Timing and Extent of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM): Comparisons From the Northern and Southern Hemispheres II - Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology [PP]

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia -- Clague and Mathewes 17 (3): 277 -- Geology

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

You need to get your facts straight bucko. The planet has only been "stable" when it so damned cold you would have frozen to death. It was real stable then. The Holocene Maximum occured between 7,500-4,000 years B.P. Try reading some science you anti science fraud.
I even included a wiki link so it is simple enough even you can understand it.



Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early Holocene Climate Variability and the Timing and Extent of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM): Comparisons From the Northern and Southern Hemispheres II - Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology [PP]

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia -- Clague and Mathewes 17 (3): 277 -- Geology

Westwall............as deadly to a k00k environmentalist as a Navy Seal is to a bearded Islamic fcukk-up!!

 

[RollingThunder]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

You need to get your facts straight bucko. The planet has only been "stable" when it so damned cold you would have frozen to death. It was real stable then.

LOLOLOL....very funny coming from someone like you, walleyedretard, who can never manage to get "your facts straight". The Earth has experienced many long periods of relative climate stability, as it did during various parts of the age of dinosaurs. It is only in the braindead myths of you crackpot denier cultists that the Earth's climate has been in an eternal state of constant change on a timescale of decades or centuries, as it is now due to anthropogenic global warming.

The Holocene Maximum occured between 7,500-4,000 years B.P. Try reading some science you anti science fraud.

Try reading the material you link to, you wet-behind-the-ears, scientifically illiterate, uneducated half-wit.

I even included a wiki link so it is simple enough even you can understand it.

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the first paragraph of the article:
"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."

Early Holocene Climate Variability and the Timing and Extent of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM): Comparisons From the Northern and Southern Hemispheres II - Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology [PP]

Nice paper but no mention of actual temperatures during this period or any numerical comparison between temperatures then and temperatures now.

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf

A paper about Holocene thermal maximum in the Western Arctic, not globally.

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

From the article:
"Early Holocene climate variability and the timing and extent of the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) in northern Iceland"
Again - not global. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet now so it is not surprising that the Arctic warmed more during this period too but that does not mean that it was warmer globally then than it is now. According to the wikipedia article you cited, just the opposite occurred - "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."

Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia -- Clague and Mathewes 17 (3): 277 -- Geology

What is about the phrase "in western North America" that fools you into imagining that it means the whole world?
From the abstract: "Mean growing-season temperature at Castle Peak during this period thus may have been 0.4-0.8°C warmer than at present."

So walleyed....you fail again, as usual. You might make yourself look like somewhat less of a fool if you would at least read your citations before just copying and pasting them from some lame-brained denier cult blog. You would still need to comprehend what you read and that is a much bigger problem for you, given that you're such a clueless retard.

Of course, your whole premise is screwed up and illogical. Just because there were some natural factors in the past that changed the climate does not mean that those factors are the only mechanisms that can cause climate changes. That's like saying that because over many millions of years previously forest fires started naturally, therefore mankind never starts any now. Scientists understand the forces that produced climate changes in the past and they can say with some certainty that those forces are not producing the current abrupt warming. They can however scientifically link the current warming to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has created.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The climate has been in flux since the earth was formed. It will be in flux long after the planet is no longer fit for life as we know it.

The sky is not falling and we are not all going to die.

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

Hey fuck stick a few thousand years is statistically insignificant when the earth has been around for billions of years.

What is a long time for puny humans like us is not even a blink of an eye geologically

Don't you know that Mr Science?

.

 

[westwall]

Just more pointless stupidity from another clueless denier cult dingbat. You anti-science morons don't really understand what the word "climate" even means or why and how scientists have determined that mankind has been and still is altering the delicate natural atmospheric balances of greenhouse gases in a way that is causing abrupt global warming and rapid climate changes. Your braindead denial of reality doesn't alter the fact that AGW threatens the survival of our civilization and the Earth's current ecosystems and perhaps even the human race itself.

And BTW, in the geological record, there have been very long periods of very stable climate, not this 'constant "flux"' myth that deniers embrace. The human race enjoyed such a period of relative climate stability for the last 6 to 8 thousand years, during which the average global temperatures only varied by about a half a degree up or down and sea levels stayed about the same. It is this long period of stable climate patterns and temperatures, predictable and dependable rainy seasons, etc., that allowed mankind to develop agriculture and cities and civilization.

You need to get your facts straight bucko. The planet has only been "stable" when it so damned cold you would have frozen to death. It was real stable then.

LOLOLOL....very funny coming from someone like you, walleyedretard, who can never manage to get "your facts straight". The Earth has experienced many long periods of relative climate stability, as it did during various parts of the age of dinosaurs. It is only in the braindead myths of you crackpot denier cultists that the Earth's climate has been in an eternal state of constant change on a timescale of decades or centuries, as it is now due to anthropogenic global warming.





Try reading the material you link to, you wet-behind-the-ears, scientifically illiterate, uneducated half-wit.






From the first paragraph of the article:
"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."




Nice paper but no mention of actual temperatures during this period or any numerical comparison between temperatures then and temperatures now.




A paper about Holocene thermal maximum in the Western Arctic, not globally.

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

From the article:
"Early Holocene climate variability and the timing and extent of the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) in northern Iceland"
Again - not global. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet now so it is not surprising that the Arctic warmed more during this period too but that does not mean that it was warmer globally then than it is now. According to the wikipedia article you cited, just the opposite occurred - "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."

Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia -- Clague and Mathewes 17 (3): 277 -- Geology

What is about the phrase "in western North America" that fools you into imagining that it means the whole world?
From the abstract: "Mean growing-season temperature at Castle Peak during this period thus may have been 0.4-0.8°C warmer than at present."

So walleyed....you fail again, as usual. You might make yourself look like somewhat less of a fool if you would at least read your citations before just copying and pasting them from some lame-brained denier cult blog. You would still need to comprehend what you read and that is a much bigger problem for you, given that you're such a clueless retard.

Of course, your whole premise is screwed up and illogical. Just because there were some natural factors in the past that changed the climate does not mean that those factors are the only mechanisms that can cause climate changes. That's like saying that because over many millions of years previously forest fires started naturally, therefore mankind never starts any now. Scientists understand the forces that produced climate changes in the past and they can say with some certainty that those forces are not producing the current abrupt warming. They can however scientifically link the current warming to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has created.

The point, dear foul mouthed little boy, is that the warming was everywhere and it was the warmest it has been since the end of the last ice age. There are TONS of peer reviewed articles you can look up on your own if you choose to. I just posted a couple of quick reads to get people started. But the central point remains little boy, it was warmer during the Holocene Thermal maximum then it is now.

 

[RollingThunder]

You need to get your facts straight bucko. The planet has only been "stable" when it so damned cold you would have frozen to death. It was real stable then.

LOLOLOL....very funny coming from someone like you, walleyedretard, who can never manage to get "your facts straight". The Earth has experienced many long periods of relative climate stability, as it did during various parts of the age of dinosaurs. It is only in the braindead myths of you crackpot denier cultists that the Earth's climate has been in an eternal state of constant change on a timescale of decades or centuries, as it is now due to anthropogenic global warming.

Try reading the material you link to, you wet-behind-the-ears, scientifically illiterate, uneducated half-wit.

From the first paragraph of the article:
"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."

Nice paper but no mention of actual temperatures during this period or any numerical comparison between temperatures then and temperatures now.

A paper about Holocene thermal maximum in the Western Arctic, not globally.

From the article:
"Early Holocene climate variability and the timing and extent of the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) in northern Iceland"
Again - not global. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet now so it is not surprising that the Arctic warmed more during this period too but that does not mean that it was warmer globally then than it is now. According to the wikipedia article you cited, just the opposite occurred - "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."

Early Holocene thermal maximum in western North America: New evidence from Castle Peak, British Columbia -- Clague and Mathewes 17 (3): 277 -- Geology

What is about the phrase "in western North America" that fools you into imagining that it means the whole world?
From the abstract: "Mean growing-season temperature at Castle Peak during this period thus may have been 0.4-0.8°C warmer than at present."

So walleyed....you fail again, as usual. You might make yourself look like somewhat less of a fool if you would at least read your citations before just copying and pasting them from some lame-brained denier cult blog. You would still need to comprehend what you read and that is a much bigger problem for you, given that you're such a clueless retard.

Of course, your whole premise is screwed up and illogical. Just because there were some natural factors in the past that changed the climate does not mean that those factors are the only mechanisms that can cause climate changes. That's like saying that because over many millions of years previously forest fires started naturally, therefore mankind never starts any now. Scientists understand the forces that produced climate changes in the past and they can say with some certainty that those forces are not producing the current abrupt warming. They can however scientifically link the current warming to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has created.

The point, dear foul mouthed little boy, is that the warming was everywhere and it was the warmest it has been since the end of the last ice age. There are TONS of peer reviewed articles you can look up on your own if you choose to. I just posted a couple of quick reads to get people started. But the central point remains little boy, it was warmer during the Holocene Thermal maximum then it is now.

LOLOLOLOL. Your moronic "point" was that the holocene thermal maximum was globally warmer than current average global temperatures and that contention was destroyed when your citations were shown to either not support you or actually say the opposite of what you claim. And this is your response??? LOLOLOL. You are really deranged as well as incredibly stupid and ignorant. I show your citations don't support you and you tell me there's really "TONS of peer reviewed articles" that, of course, you can't be bothered to actually cite, but they will be the ones, you assure me, that will turn out to support your claims, if I will just go and find them. LOLOLOL. You say you "posted a couple of quick reads to get people started" but none of those "reads" backs you up at all. LOLOLOLOL. The "central point remains", as your wiki citation made clear -
"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day..."


***

 

[FiscalSanity]

Ok, how about the little ice age? The Baltic went from being navigable year round to being locked in ice throughout the winter, but I guess that's not a dramatic enough change to qualify? We've got plenty of medieval records describing how the climate in Europe change dramatically between around 1000-1500 AD, so where do you get that we've been living in a period of climactic stability for the last several thousand years? For that matter, we have plenty of archeological artifacts as well as written records that indicate the much of the middle east was much wetter and more temperate 2000-3000 years ago then it is today. Do you really think the Assyrians were hunting lions and the other big game that their statues show in the middle of a desert?

 

[westwall]

Ok, how about the little ice age? The Baltic went from being navigable year round to being locked in ice throughout the winter, but I guess that's not a dramatic enough change to qualify? We've got plenty of medieval records describing how the climate in Europe change dramatically between around 1000-1500 AD, so where do you get that we've been living in a period of climactic stability for the last several thousand years? For that matter, we have plenty of archeological artifacts as well as written records that indicate the much of the middle east was much wetter and more temperate 2000-3000 years ago then it is today. Do you really think the Assyrians were hunting lions and the other big game that their statues show in the middle of a desert?

Oh don't bother trying to reason with trollling blnder. He is a religious fanatic. Historical fact, scientific enquiry, none of that matter to him. He gets off on spewing nonsense and trying to insult people. He's basically 12 years old so pay him no mind. He is good for a laugh though!

 

[Synthaholic]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

 

[sparky]

more fat for the bonehead conflaguration>

Flat Earthers and Deficit Hawks
Creationist Economics
By DEAN BAKER

Sometimes it can be fun to get inside a crazy worldview to ask how they deal with contradictory evidence. For example, how do creationists reconcile their view that all plants and animals were created in their current form around 10,000 years ago with fossil evidence of life forms dating back hundreds of millions of years?

In this vein, it's worth asking how the proponents of deficit-reduction think that lower deficits will lead to increased growth and job creation in an economy mired in a severe slump. There is not an easy answer.

Dean Baker: Creationist Economics

 

[RollingThunder]

Ok, how about the little ice age? The Baltic went from being navigable year round to being locked in ice throughout the winter, but I guess that's not a dramatic enough change to qualify? We've got plenty of medieval records describing how the climate in Europe change dramatically between around 1000-1500 AD, so where do you get that we've been living in a period of climactic stability for the last several thousand years? For that matter, we have plenty of archeological artifacts as well as written records that indicate the much of the middle east was much wetter and more temperate 2000-3000 years ago then it is today. Do you really think the Assyrians were hunting lions and the other big game that their statues show in the middle of a desert?

Regional warming in one part of the planet was usually offset by cooling somewhere else. The point under discussion involves global average temperatures and climate patterns and those have remained fairly stable throughout most of the Holocene period. There are things happening now, like melting glaciers and icecaps, rising sea levels and other indicators, that scientists know, from geological and other physical evidence, have not happened before during this interglacial period that we're in.

 

[westwall]

Ok, how about the little ice age? The Baltic went from being navigable year round to being locked in ice throughout the winter, but I guess that's not a dramatic enough change to qualify? We've got plenty of medieval records describing how the climate in Europe change dramatically between around 1000-1500 AD, so where do you get that we've been living in a period of climactic stability for the last several thousand years? For that matter, we have plenty of archeological artifacts as well as written records that indicate the much of the middle east was much wetter and more temperate 2000-3000 years ago then it is today. Do you really think the Assyrians were hunting lions and the other big game that their statues show in the middle of a desert?

Regional warming in one part of the planet was usually offset by cooling somewhere else. The point under discussion involves global average temperatures and climate patterns and those have remained fairly stable throughout most of the Holocene period. There are things happening now, like melting glaciers and icecaps, rising sea levels and other indicators, that scientists know, from geological and other physical evidence, have not happened before during this interglacial period that we're in.

Interesting how "local" warming can remain fixed over a spot for hundreds of years. What is the mechanism for that? I find it likewise interesting that you make the claim that as glaciers melt it is the most they have melted in this interglacial? What is your evidence for this?

The actual evidence shows quite the opposite. Retreating glaciers are exposing forests that are dated around 7,000 years B.P. which places them right in the middle of the Holocene Thermal maximum. And of course, putting another nail in your claim, is the fact that these ancient forests are found in both northern and southern hemisphere which refutes the ever repudiated claim that the warming was "local".


"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.

Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

"The stumps were in very good condition, sometimes with bark preserved," said Koch, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Koch will present his results on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver.

The pristine condition of the wood, he said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location."



And....

"COLUMBUS , Ohio – For the third time in as many years, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson has returned from an Andean ice field in Peru with samples from beds of ancient plants exposed for the first time in perhaps as much as 6,500 years.


Lonnie Thompson
In 2002, he first stumbled across some non-fossilized plants exposed by the steadily retreating Quelccaya ice cap. Carbon dating showed that plant material was at least 5,000 years old."



Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

New Plant Finds In Andes Foretell Of Ancient Climate Change

 

[daveman]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.

You just don't get it (see previous remark for the reason).

Idiot leftists are the most intolerant and closed-minded people on the planet. (See your posts to me for proof.)

Some of you want those who disagree with you tattooed. Some of you want their professional credentials revoked. Some of you want them jailed or executed.

From the last link:

The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.
Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...
November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN's scientific “consensus."
Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)
UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
Barone: Warmists have 'a desire to kill heretics' -- Calls for capital punishment for 'global warming deniers' - DC Examiner - June 9, 2009
Strangle Skeptics in Bed! 'An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds' - June 5, 2009​

This bears repeating: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.

Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ok, how about the little ice age? The Baltic went from being navigable year round to being locked in ice throughout the winter, but I guess that's not a dramatic enough change to qualify? We've got plenty of medieval records describing how the climate in Europe change dramatically between around 1000-1500 AD, so where do you get that we've been living in a period of climactic stability for the last several thousand years? For that matter, we have plenty of archeological artifacts as well as written records that indicate the much of the middle east was much wetter and more temperate 2000-3000 years ago then it is today. Do you really think the Assyrians were hunting lions and the other big game that their statues show in the middle of a desert?

Regional warming in one part of the planet was usually offset by cooling somewhere else. The point under discussion involves global average temperatures and climate patterns and those have remained fairly stable throughout most of the Holocene period. There are things happening now, like melting glaciers and icecaps, rising sea levels and other indicators, that scientists know, from geological and other physical evidence, have not happened before during this interglacial period that we're in.

Interesting how "local" warming can remain fixed over a spot for hundreds of years. What is the mechanism for that? I find it likewise interesting that you make the claim that as glaciers melt it is the most they have melted in this interglacial? What is your evidence for this?

All over the planet currently most of the glaciers that have been present in substantially their present form since the last period of planetary glaciation are retreating rapidly and some are vanishing completely. Since the end of the last glaciation 10,00 years ago, glaciers have advanced and retreated somewhat many times without disappearing. This is a sign of how sensitive glaciers are to even minor climate changes. Since the beginning of the LIA in the sixteenth century, a number of glaciers seem to have advanced and grown somewhat in size over their average size during most of the holocene. The current rapid worldwide glacial melting however is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial period.

Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes
PhysOrg.com
June 6, 2011
(excerpts)

During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate. A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.

In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate. And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.

Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.

“Which is simply wrong,” Schaefer said.

He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, “we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly … telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.”

The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.

The actual evidence shows quite the opposite. Retreating glaciers are exposing forests that are dated around 7,000 years B.P. which places them right in the middle of the Holocene Thermal maximum. And of course, putting another nail in your claim, is the fact that these ancient forests are found in both northern and southern hemisphere which refutes the ever repudiated claim that the warming was "local".

"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.

Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

"The stumps were in very good condition, sometimes with bark preserved," said Koch, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Koch will present his results on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver.

The pristine condition of the wood, he said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location."

Some glaciers retreated a bit in the early part of the holocene, about 7 thousand years ago. Finding fossilized trees under some retreating ice now just means that that glacier has been at least that large for the past 7 thousand years.

I like your article but did you even read it? You left out some good parts but just what you quoted says:
"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..."
"The pristine condition of the wood, [Dr. Koch] said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice."

And the parts of that article you left out:
"There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees."
""It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."

 

[westwall]

Regional warming in one part of the planet was usually offset by cooling somewhere else. The point under discussion involves global average temperatures and climate patterns and those have remained fairly stable throughout most of the Holocene period. There are things happening now, like melting glaciers and icecaps, rising sea levels and other indicators, that scientists know, from geological and other physical evidence, have not happened before during this interglacial period that we're in.

Interesting how "local" warming can remain fixed over a spot for hundreds of years. What is the mechanism for that? I find it likewise interesting that you make the claim that as glaciers melt it is the most they have melted in this interglacial? What is your evidence for this?

All over the planet currently most of the glaciers that have been present in substantially their present form since the last period of planetary glaciation are retreating rapidly and some are vanishing completely. Since the end of the last glaciation 10,00 years ago, glaciers have advanced and retreated somewhat many times without disappearing. This is a sign of how sensitive glaciers are to even minor climate changes. Since the beginning of the LIA in the sixteenth century, a number of glaciers seem to have advanced and grown somewhat in size over their average size during most of the holocene. The current rapid worldwide glacial melting however is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial period.

Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes
PhysOrg.com
June 6, 2011
(excerpts)

During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate. A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.

In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate. And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.

Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.

“Which is simply wrong,” Schaefer said.

He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, “we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly … telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.”

The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.

The actual evidence shows quite the opposite. Retreating glaciers are exposing forests that are dated around 7,000 years B.P. which places them right in the middle of the Holocene Thermal maximum. And of course, putting another nail in your claim, is the fact that these ancient forests are found in both northern and southern hemisphere which refutes the ever repudiated claim that the warming was "local".

"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.

Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

"The stumps were in very good condition, sometimes with bark preserved," said Koch, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Koch will present his results on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver.

The pristine condition of the wood, he said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location."

Some glaciers retreated a bit in the early part of the holocene, about 7 thousand years ago. Finding fossilized trees under some retreating ice now just means that that glacier has been at least that large for the past 7 thousand years.

I like your article but did you even read it? You left out some good parts but just what you quoted says:
"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..."
"The pristine condition of the wood, [Dr. Koch] said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice."

And the parts of that article you left out:
"There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees."
""It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."

Millenia is thousands of years, not millions. So yes the historic minimum puts it right in the middle of the Holocene Maximum. Just like I said and which you denied.

 

[auditor0007]

If the public ever realizes the full extent and meaning of what you AGW denier cretins are doing in the service of the oil corp profits, you deniers would probably be hunted down in the streets by angry mobs and strung up from lampposts. And it would be no more than what you so richly deserve for working so stupidly to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created that threatens the lives of billions of humans and large parts of the biosphere. If there is any justice in the world, we may yet see Exxon executives on trial before a world tribunal for 'crimes against humanity'.

The planet has too many people. Eventually, those numbers will be reduced dramatically. Maybe the Earth heating up will be the cause of our reduced numbers over the next few hundred or thousand years.

 

[RollingThunder]

Interesting how "local" warming can remain fixed over a spot for hundreds of years. What is the mechanism for that? I find it likewise interesting that you make the claim that as glaciers melt it is the most they have melted in this interglacial? What is your evidence for this?

All over the planet currently most of the glaciers that have been present in substantially their present form since the last period of planetary glaciation are retreating rapidly and some are vanishing completely. Since the end of the last glaciation 10,00 years ago, glaciers have advanced and retreated somewhat many times without disappearing. This is a sign of how sensitive glaciers are to even minor climate changes. Since the beginning of the LIA in the sixteenth century, a number of glaciers seem to have advanced and grown somewhat in size over their average size during most of the holocene. The current rapid worldwide glacial melting however is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial period.

Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes
PhysOrg.com
June 6, 2011
(excerpts)

During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate. A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.

In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate. And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.

Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.

“Which is simply wrong,” Schaefer said.

He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, “we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly … telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.”

The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.

The actual evidence shows quite the opposite. Retreating glaciers are exposing forests that are dated around 7,000 years B.P. which places them right in the middle of the Holocene Thermal maximum. And of course, putting another nail in your claim, is the fact that these ancient forests are found in both northern and southern hemisphere which refutes the ever repudiated claim that the warming was "local".

"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.

Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

"The stumps were in very good condition, sometimes with bark preserved," said Koch, who conducted the work as part of his doctoral thesis at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Koch will present his results on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver.

The pristine condition of the wood, he said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location."

Some glaciers retreated a bit in the early part of the holocene, about 7 thousand years ago. Finding fossilized trees under some retreating ice now just means that that glacier has been at least that large for the past 7 thousand years.

I like your article but did you even read it? You left out some good parts but just what you quoted says:
"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..."
"The pristine condition of the wood, [Dr. Koch] said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice."

And the parts of that article you left out:
"There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees."
""It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."

Millenia is thousands of years, not millions.

Well, of course, who ever said otherwise. Don't assume other people are as linguistically challenged as you are, walleyed. You're "special".

So yes the historic minimum puts it right in the middle of the Holocene Maximum. Just like I said and which you denied.

Yeah, it means that it's warmer now than it has been for at least seven thousand years in some areas of the planet and longer than that in other areas. Or did you overlook this item in the article I quoted: "...the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene". What happened to your precious 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Roman Warm Period' claims? Have you debunked yourself now?