Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[k2skier]

Well March 2009 was the coldest March globally since 2000 - meaning we have just concluded the coldest March in 10 years. March 2009 was just marginally warmer than March 1980.

While the global warming rhetoric heats up, it appears earth continues to cool down...

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

 

[KittenKoder]

Well March 2009 was the coldest March globally since 2000 - meaning we have just concluded the coldest March in 10 years. March 2009 was just marginally warmer than March 1980.

While the global warming rhetoric heats up, it appears earth continues to cool down...

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

 

[k2skier]

Well March 2009 was the coldest March globally since 2000 - meaning we have just concluded the coldest March in 10 years. March 2009 was just marginally warmer than March 1980.

While the global warming rhetoric heats up, it appears earth continues to cool down...

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

 

[Sinatra]

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

C'mon now - I don't disagree with anyone's desire for a cleaner environment - I recycle, I updated my windows, I try to keep the home's thermostat no higher than 70 in the winter months, we work from home so our "carbon footprint" is minimal, etc - but those are choices made, not mandates from government.

Be very cautious in giving up personal freedom in the name of a widely circulated cause.

Therein lies great danger - and not the kind speculated by agenda-driven climate models...

 

[KittenKoder]

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

The term environuts is the most polite one I can think of to demonstrate how insane the movement has become. It was cute when they actually did care about the environment, but now it's beyond insanity, crossing into many forms of insanity. However that is beside the point.

In the grand scheme of things a 25-50 year change would still not constitute a trend, even if your data was accurate and not so easily altered. Here's a bit of logic for you, look at the one factor that is used to push these claims, fear. Nothing good comes from the use of fear, and only three types of people use it, terrorists, tyrants, and con artists. Since environuts have yet gotten to the threat level (though many are starting to embrace such tactics) that leave tyrants and con artists.

However, the problem with those who do not really fit into those categories (those like you who are just easily frightened into following) is that you are falling for their use of less than .01% of the science and data.

 

[Sinatra]

It would appear the enviros wish to define trend - define earth's optimal temperature based on data of approximately 100 years, define optimum CO2, define humankind's CO2 impact from marginal to majorital, define proper role of governments in individual freedoms, and on and on and on.

That is a very slippery slope you wish to stand upon enviro friends.

The kind that if you fall, could do serious harm to your soft enviro skulls...

 

[k2skier]

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

The term environuts is the most polite one I can think of to demonstrate how insane the movement has become. It was cute when they actually did care about the environment, but now it's beyond insanity, crossing into many forms of insanity. However that is beside the point.

In the grand scheme of things a 25-50 year change would still not constitute a trend, even if your data was accurate and not so easily altered. Here's a bit of logic for you, look at the one factor that is used to push these claims, fear. Nothing good comes from the use of fear, and only three types of people use it, terrorists, tyrants, and con artists. Since environuts have yet gotten to the threat level (though many are starting to embrace such tactics) that leave tyrants and con artists.

However, the problem with those who do not really fit into those categories (those like you who are just easily frightened into following) is that you are falling for their use of less than .01% of the science and data.

Clueless. You are absolutely clueless about me and my thought processes.

You opinions are the ONLY correct ones, and EVERYONE else is wrong, we should all be so graced to have someone who knows everything and all about the future and is never wrong about anything.

I have never said we need to make drastic changes , NEVER! Common sense and sustainability is what we need. You are now putting words in my mouth.

You are extremely jaded and paranoid about all scientist, unless they are some fringe lunatic scientist.

I'm more about common sense and sustainability, I have never said what I think we should do to help ourselves, you just assume.

 

[KittenKoder]

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

The term environuts is the most polite one I can think of to demonstrate how insane the movement has become. It was cute when they actually did care about the environment, but now it's beyond insanity, crossing into many forms of insanity. However that is beside the point.

In the grand scheme of things a 25-50 year change would still not constitute a trend, even if your data was accurate and not so easily altered. Here's a bit of logic for you, look at the one factor that is used to push these claims, fear. Nothing good comes from the use of fear, and only three types of people use it, terrorists, tyrants, and con artists. Since environuts have yet gotten to the threat level (though many are starting to embrace such tactics) that leave tyrants and con artists.

However, the problem with those who do not really fit into those categories (those like you who are just easily frightened into following) is that you are falling for their use of less than .01% of the science and data.

Clueless. You are absolutely clueless about me and my thought processes.

You opinions are the ONLY correct ones, and EVERYONE else is wrong, we should all be so graced to have someone who knows everything and all about the future and is never wrong about anything.

I have never said we need to make drastic changes , NEVER! Common sense and sustainability is what we need. You are now putting words in my mouth.

You are extremely jaded and paranoid about all scientist, unless they are some fringe lunatic scientist.

I'm more about common sense and sustainability, I have never said what I think we should do to help ourselves, you just assume.

Define what my opinions are ... here's a hint, you have to take one of at least three views I have posted.

No, I am jaded and paranoid of anything that resembles American Idol ... as we should all be, which is exactly what the scientists environuts are relying on are, prove me wrong, show that they fund their own research without having to pander to governments and corporations.

Sustainability is very different than shooting oneself in the foot, which is what the environuts have done and keep doing (ethanol anyone?) without even heeding the warnings of the other views.

 

[Meister]

Well March 2009 was the coldest March globally since 2000 - meaning we have just concluded the coldest March in 10 years. March 2009 was just marginally warmer than March 1980.

While the global warming rhetoric heats up, it appears earth continues to cool down...

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Really, Ever?.....Time to sit back and drink whatever those whacko's are serving. You have been indoctinated

 

[Meister]

All the while 8 of the 10 hottest years ever have been between 1997 and 2008. 10 years is much too short to draw any trends from...

Really, Ever?.....Time to sit back and drink whatever those whacko's are serving. You have been indoctinated

Okay, you are right, whats your solution, to increase the rate we use our natural resources by 10,000% on green energy that will not close the gap between rising demand and current usage? Try looking up those facts and give us those figures, until you can show that going green is not destroying the planet at a faster rate than why should we discuss something that is impossible to change.

obamas energy policy will accelerate global warming, and those in his cabinet represent the richest democratic corporations in the world (cheap shot, corporations payoff both sides of the fence).

So you are right the globa is warming because of us, and when you begin to tell us its cooling because of us, (which you are bit slow to catch onto, terminology has changed, for your arguement it is now global climate change that way any change supports your fantasy) I concede, so whats the plan, use more oil to make more propene which without you cannot go green.

Renewable energy is renewable as propene, propene only comes from oil, oil from the ground, so run out of oil, your renewable energy is gone. Thats such an oxymoronic statement, windmills always need to be replaced yet they are renewable, solar panels always need to be replaced and they are renewable.

Explain renewalbe to me brainiacs.

My point is the term ever. Science has really only caught the last ...let's say 45 years of Earth's existence, we are talking approx. 5 billion years.. Yet they are claiming that the Earth is at it's hottest the last 10 years. I agree with you on everything you stated.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

The cost of of tackling global climate cvhage has doubled while the actual climate change has flattened out. Around whre i live, we've been about ten degrees below normal for the month of April.

If we don't bother to tackle climate change, do we save all of that money? From where I sit, with furnace on and windows closed ten degrees below normal temps, it looks a little like the tackle was made.

Of course, where you sit is hardly the whole world. You might ask the people in Australia what their opinion is on global warming.

You don't know what the rest of the world is temperature wise and stop acting like you do. Your hero Hansen even admits as much. There isn't even an agreement on how to measure temperature. If you can't even decide what to measure, how and the hell can you derive any kind of accurate (AND OH MY GOD, we're talking tenths of a degree of change as being significant) readings to base decisions on?

This whole issue is and always has been about CONTROL. This can only be viewed as an effort to control behavior and, at a macro level, to redistribute wealth from "have" countries to "have not" countries. All the rest of it is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Really, Ever?.....Time to sit back and drink whatever those whacko's are serving. You have been indoctinated

Okay, you are right, whats your solution, to increase the rate we use our natural resources by 10,000% on green energy that will not close the gap between rising demand and current usage? Try looking up those facts and give us those figures, until you can show that going green is not destroying the planet at a faster rate than why should we discuss something that is impossible to change.

obamas energy policy will accelerate global warming, and those in his cabinet represent the richest democratic corporations in the world (cheap shot, corporations payoff both sides of the fence).

So you are right the globa is warming because of us, and when you begin to tell us its cooling because of us, (which you are bit slow to catch onto, terminology has changed, for your arguement it is now global climate change that way any change supports your fantasy) I concede, so whats the plan, use more oil to make more propene which without you cannot go green.

Renewable energy is renewable as propene, propene only comes from oil, oil from the ground, so run out of oil, your renewable energy is gone. Thats such an oxymoronic statement, windmills always need to be replaced yet they are renewable, solar panels always need to be replaced and they are renewable.

Explain renewalbe to me brainiacs.

My point is the term ever. Science has really only caught the last ...let's say 45 years of Earth's existence, we are talking approx. 5 billion years.. Yet they are claiming that the Earth is at it's hottest the last 10 years. I agree with you on everything you stated.

If they can't even tell you how to measure what they purport to measure, how can they tell you what was hotter or less hot? Hansen says there is no agreement as to whether to measure temperature at ground level, 10 feet up or up to 50 feet off the ground. In areas where there is surrounding vegetation do you measure below the vegetation or above it? They don't know. So, what does that tell us about measurements already in the books for the last 45 years? It tells us they've been done all kinds of ways. When a monitoring station has been replaced, did the siting change? Is it at the same height or different? Is the temp variation corrected for if it has changed?

Too many variations to count, none controlled for, and "scientists" are making claims based on tenths of a degree in variance? Please give me a fucking break!

 

[edthecynic]

Wait a minute ... that's what us non-environuts have been telling you ... so you either admitted that there isn't enough to create this hysteria or you are again moving the goal posts in some way.

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

BOLONEY YOURSELF!!

You don't have any kind of accurate data for 10 years let alone 130 years. Your data set is so full of bullshit you couldn't tell which way is up. So go parade you bullshit, made up statistics to the gullible folks that will believe you.

 

[Sinatra]

The use of environuts is quite amusing, you assume that anyone who has any concern for the environment is a nut, not very logical at all. A trend, IMO, should be a minimum of 25-50 years, 10 years is much too short of a time frame.

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

LOL - this past March was the 10th warmest March of the 21st Century.....

Yes, making it the COLDEST March of the 21st Century....

-Ahem-

I will say it again - I truly hope the earth is warming rather than cooling, but the last decade has not cooperated with that desire. Hopefully this trend will stop, and some marginal warming will begin again, but for now, nearly all the warming of the last 20 years has been wiped out, and an increasing number of scientists are stating we could see continued cooling for another 20 or 30 years.

Bummer.

 

[edthecynic]

[/COLOR]


The cost of of tackling global climate cvhage has doubled while the actual climate change has flattened out. Around whre i live, we've been about ten degrees below normal for the month of April.

If we don't bother to tackle climate change, do we save all of that money? From where I sit, with furnace on and windows closed ten degrees below normal temps, it looks a little like the tackle was made.

Of course, where you sit is hardly the whole world. You might ask the people in Australia what their opinion is on global warming.

You don't know what the rest of the world is temperature wise and stop acting like you do. Your hero Hansen even admits as much. There isn't even an agreement on how to measure temperature. If you can't even decide what to measure, how and the hell can you derive any kind of accurate (AND OH MY GOD, we're talking tenths of a degree of change as being significant) readings to base decisions on?

How can scientists get accurate data about warming or cooling trends with inaccurate thermometers or what ever? By being smarter than deniers, that's how.
They don't report the actual temp reading but the deviation from the average reading on that thermometer called an ANOMALY. So if that thermometer is getting higher readings than its 30 year average, then that shows a warming trend that year.

What the actual average temp of the globe is might be debatable, but the fact that we are warming is not, as proven by the anomalies.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course, where you sit is hardly the whole world. You might ask the people in Australia what their opinion is on global warming.

You don't know what the rest of the world is temperature wise and stop acting like you do. Your hero Hansen even admits as much. There isn't even an agreement on how to measure temperature. If you can't even decide what to measure, how and the hell can you derive any kind of accurate (AND OH MY GOD, we're talking tenths of a degree of change as being significant) readings to base decisions on?

How can scientists get accurate data about warming or cooling trends with inaccurate thermometers or what ever? By being smarter than deniers, that's how.
They don't report the actual temp reading but the deviation from the average reading on that thermometer called an ANOMALY. So if that thermometer is getting higher readings than its 30 year average, then that shows a warming trend that year.

What the actual average temp of the globe is might be debatable, but the fact that we are warming is not, as proven by the anomalies.

You are the one that is in denial. You deny that your data set is a pile of shit. Your hero Hansen even admitted as much. You can't agree on where to site the thermometers. You don't know whether the siting arrangement has changed. I know damn good and well you weren't getting statistical information from the USSR and China 30-60 years ago, so your data set has massive holes in it. It's just crap. You need to stop denying it and set about correcting the record.

 

[Sinatra]

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

LOL - this past March was the 10th warmest March of the 21st Century.....

Yes, making it the COLDEST March of the 21st Century....

-Ahem-

I will say it again - I truly hope the earth is warming rather than cooling, but the last decade has not cooperated with that desire. Hopefully this trend will stop, and some marginal warming will begin again, but for now, nearly all the warming of the last 20 years has been wiped out, and an increasing number of scientists are stating we could see continued cooling for another 20 or 30 years.

Bummer.

,,,

 

[edthecynic]

2009 was cooler than 1938....

Now you wanna define "trend"? So 10 years is not a trend? But March 2009 was cooler than 1998, and 1990, and almost equal to 1981...

No trend?

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

LOL - this past March was the 10th warmest March of the 21st Century.....

Yes, making it the COLDEST March of the 21st Century....

-Ahem-

I will say it again - I truly hope the earth is warming rather than cooling, but the last decade has not cooperated with that desire. Hopefully this trend will stop, and some marginal warming will begin again, but for now, nearly all the warming of the last 20 years has been wiped out, and an increasing number of scientists are stating we could see continued cooling for another 20 or 30 years.

Bummer.

More BALONEY!
Don't you CON$ ever get tired of lying????

 

[Tech_Esq]

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

LOL - this past March was the 10th warmest March of the 21st Century.....

Yes, making it the COLDEST March of the 21st Century....

-Ahem-

I will say it again - I truly hope the earth is warming rather than cooling, but the last decade has not cooperated with that desire. Hopefully this trend will stop, and some marginal warming will begin again, but for now, nearly all the warming of the last 20 years has been wiped out, and an increasing number of scientists are stating we could see continued cooling for another 20 or 30 years.

Bummer.

More BALONEY!
Don't you CON$ ever get tired of lying????

You should ask yourself that question denier. Keep denying you data set is crap. You can show us all the pretty charts and graphs you want, but the data they are based on is bullshit, ergo, so's the chart. See ya, denier.