Make Up Yer Minds, You Warmists

[westwall]

Like I said, you can always tell when CON$ KNOW they are LYING, they will NEVER warranty their LIES with even a token amount of money. You CON$ are soooooo predictable.

How about $10.00, are the beliefs of a CON$ervative worth $10.00?

You are not helping your cause one iota. No one will bet to something where a requirement is they divulge even the slightest bit of info to a person like you. There are many here I would have no problem divulging my identity to, but you HAH!

So put up or shut up.

That's a load of crap and you know it! You could set up a PayPal account with the same screen name you use here and I would have no more clue to your ID than I have now.

The real reason you won't put up money against me is this "consensus" lie has been thoroughly debunked even in the popular media like USA Today, not just the environmental web sites, so even you CON$ know it is bullshit.

So put some money where your CON$ervative bullshit is.
How about $5.00? Is the crap you swallow every day from your CON$ervative sources worth even $5.00?????

Setting up a Paypal account with a complete new email address and all the other horse crap is more effort than you are worth.

 

[edthecynic]

You are not helping your cause one iota. No one will bet to something where a requirement is they divulge even the slightest bit of info to a person like you. There are many here I would have no problem divulging my identity to, but you HAH!

So put up or shut up.

That's a load of crap and you know it! You could set up a PayPal account with the same screen name you use here and I would have no more clue to your ID than I have now.

The real reason you won't put up money against me is this "consensus" lie has been thoroughly debunked even in the popular media like USA Today, not just the environmental web sites, so even you CON$ know it is bullshit.

So put some money where your CON$ervative bullshit is.
How about $5.00? Is the crap you swallow every day from your CON$ervative sources worth even $5.00?????

Setting up a Paypal account with a complete new email address and all the other horse crap is more effort than you are worth.

CON$ always have an unlimited number of excuses for not backing their crap with money, but the real reason is always that they know they are lying.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

 

[westwall]

That's a load of crap and you know it! You could set up a PayPal account with the same screen name you use here and I would have no more clue to your ID than I have now.

The real reason you won't put up money against me is this "consensus" lie has been thoroughly debunked even in the popular media like USA Today, not just the environmental web sites, so even you CON$ know it is bullshit.

So put some money where your CON$ervative bullshit is.
How about $5.00? Is the crap you swallow every day from your CON$ervative sources worth even $5.00?????

Setting up a Paypal account with a complete new email address and all the other horse crap is more effort than you are worth.

CON$ always have an unlimited number of excuses for not backing their crap with money, but the real reason is always that they know they are lying.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

I am actually going to do my own literature review of this so until that is done I can't say yes or no. So far the vast majority of the "cooling" articles deal with CO2 concentration but none mention warming in their abstract o I am going to have to track them down. I will get back to you when I have accomplished that.

 

[edthecynic]

Setting up a Paypal account with a complete new email address and all the other horse crap is more effort than you are worth.

CON$ always have an unlimited number of excuses for not backing their crap with money, but the real reason is always that they know they are lying.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

Find an article from the time frame or a peer reviewed article from the time frame. It's a simple request. This is simply propaganda.

You know it's not propaganda or you would have put up some money if only to make a fool of me!!!!

How about $1.00? Is your faith in your CON$ervative sources worth even $1.00????? You know it isn't!!!!

 

[westwall]

CON$ always have an unlimited number of excuses for not backing their crap with money, but the real reason is always that they know they are lying.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

Find an article from the time frame or a peer reviewed article from the time frame. It's a simple request. This is simply propaganda.

You know it's not propaganda or you would have put up some money if only to make a fool of me!!!!

How about $1.00? Is your faith in your CON$ervative sources worth even $1.00????? You know it isn't!!!!

Not yet. I will admit that I was hasty. I fired off a response before I got into the meat of the article and they may have done smoe good work..I won't know till I have done the lit review. The one article I do have is a typical "it is cold but there is a small chance that warming could begin again" which is why I discounted it almost immediately but it looks like there will be more to go through so I will. If the paper is correct I will admit it publicly.

 

[edthecynic]

Find an article from the time frame or a peer reviewed article from the time frame. It's a simple request. This is simply propaganda.

You know it's not propaganda or you would have put up some money if only to make a fool of me!!!!

How about $1.00? Is your faith in your CON$ervative sources worth even $1.00????? You know it isn't!!!!

Not yet. I will admit that I was hasty. I fired off a response before I got into the meat of the article and they may have done smoe good work..I won't know till I have done the lit review. The one article I do have is a typical "it is cold but there is a small chance that warming could begin again" which is why I discounted it almost immediately but it looks like there will be more to go through so I will. If the paper is correct I will admit it publicly.

If it happens I'll be impressed. That's worth more than $1.00 so I'll Post some links.

Global Cooling? | Science/AAAS

Science 6 August 1976:
Vol. 193 no. 4252 pp. 447-453
DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4252.447
Global Cooling?

1. Paul E. Damon and
2. Steven M. Kunen

Abstract

The world's inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based, in large part, on a severe cooling trend at high northern latitudes. This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. We need an early warning system such as would be provided by a more intensive international world weather watch, particularly at high northern and southern latitudes.



Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

 

[westwall]

You know it's not propaganda or you would have put up some money if only to make a fool of me!!!!

How about $1.00? Is your faith in your CON$ervative sources worth even $1.00????? You know it isn't!!!!

Not yet. I will admit that I was hasty. I fired off a response before I got into the meat of the article and they may have done smoe good work..I won't know till I have done the lit review. The one article I do have is a typical "it is cold but there is a small chance that warming could begin again" which is why I discounted it almost immediately but it looks like there will be more to go through so I will. If the paper is correct I will admit it publicly.

If it happens I'll be impressed. That's worth more than $1.00 so I'll Post some links.

Global Cooling? | Science/AAAS

Science 6 August 1976:
Vol. 193 no. 4252 pp. 447-453
DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4252.447
Global Cooling?

1. Paul E. Damon and
2. Steven M. Kunen

Abstract

The world's inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based, in large part, on a severe cooling trend at high northern latitudes. This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. We need an early warning system such as would be provided by a more intensive international world weather watch, particularly at high northern and southern latitudes.



Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

I'm gathering the articles now. My wifes college will have them for me in about a week.

 

[edthecynic]

Not yet. I will admit that I was hasty. I fired off a response before I got into the meat of the article and they may have done smoe good work..I won't know till I have done the lit review. The one article I do have is a typical "it is cold but there is a small chance that warming could begin again" which is why I discounted it almost immediately but it looks like there will be more to go through so I will. If the paper is correct I will admit it publicly.

If it happens I'll be impressed. That's worth more than $1.00 so I'll Post some links.

Global Cooling? | Science/AAAS

Science 6 August 1976:
Vol. 193 no. 4252 pp. 447-453
DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4252.447
Global Cooling?

1. Paul E. Damon and
2. Steven M. Kunen

Abstract

The world's inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based, in large part, on a severe cooling trend at high northern latitudes. This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. We need an early warning system such as would be provided by a more intensive international world weather watch, particularly at high northern and southern latitudes.



Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

I'm gathering the articles now. My wifes college will have them for me in about a week.

Don't welsh on me now!

What's wrong with those 2 articles from Science, you only asked for 1???? One is 1975 and the other is 1976, aren't they 1970s enough??????

They must be "propaganda!"

 

[westwall]

If it happens I'll be impressed. That's worth more than $1.00 so I'll Post some links.

Global Cooling? | Science/AAAS

Science 6 August 1976:
Vol. 193 no. 4252 pp. 447-453
DOI: 10.1126/science.193.4252.447
Global Cooling?

1. Paul E. Damon and
2. Steven M. Kunen

Abstract

The world's inhabitants, including Scientists, live primarily in the Northern Hemisphere. It is quite natural to be concerned about events that occur close to home and neglect faraway events. Hence, it is not surprising that so little attention has been given to the Southern Hemisphere. Evidence for global cooling has been based, in large part, on a severe cooling trend at high northern latitudes. This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. We need an early warning system such as would be provided by a more intensive international world weather watch, particularly at high northern and southern latitudes.



Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

I'm gathering the articles now. My wifes college will have them for me in about a week.

Don't welsh on me now!

What's wrong with those 2 articles from Science, you only asked for 1???? One is 1975 and the other is 1976, aren't they 1970s enough??????

They must be "propaganda!"

I'll be looking at them as well rest assured. I'm still recovering from heart surgery! I get tired real easy right now! All you have is the abstract. I need the body of the article and I don't have to pay for them when the college gets them for me.

 

[Big Fitz]

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.

Ummm...AGW depends on proxy data. You know, the same proxy data you say are less accurate and limited in scope.

The data must fit the predetermined outcome for it to be 'truthy' in the chicken little's mind.

 

[Ava]

Not enough snow? It's because of global warming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#


Too much snow? It's because of global warming!

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill



Hey, what ever happened to this prediction? (thanks to MM for the article find)

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent


What's next? Weather just right? It's because of global warming!

You're kidding, right? How many times does this have to be explained? If the temp "warms" from 20F to 25, it's still going to snow! It actually may snow more, because warmer air holds more moisture. The only minds that need to be made up are those of the deniers, who need to finally decide to actually study the subject instead of parroting anything that fits their bias.

And that's why they changed it from globull warming to climate change. 'Covering your ass no matter what it does so we are always right' is the warmists motto.

Yes, CYA, at any price, and especially and hopefully, often....

 

[FactFinder]

"This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere."

Okay..clear things up here. Do we have Gobal Warming or just "Southern Hemisphere Warming"?

 

[edthecynic]

And that's why they changed it from globull warming to climate change. 'Covering your ass no matter what it does so we are always right' is the warmists motto.

Except they were always calling it climate change. Again, how stupid do you have to be to believe anything from a CON$ervative source?????

Here is an article from 1975 calling it "climate change."

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

 

[daveman]

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Then let's see some.

Would you like to put some money on it?

The vast majority of scientific papers from the period predicted global warming. There were less than ten papers predicting global cooling. Only deniers would call less than ten a "consensus."

Meet the challenge.

I see no money, therefore I see no challenge. Talk is cheap, you can always tell when CON$ know they are lying because they will never warranty their lies with money, not even a token amount like say $20.00.
We can settle up with PayPal.

The fact remains, the majority of per reviewed scientific papers in the period, over 40, predicted global warming and only 7 predicted global cooling.

YOU make the claim. YOU back it up.

Or you can continue to weasel out of it. Moron.

 

[FactFinder]

And that's why they changed it from globull warming to climate change. 'Covering your ass no matter what it does so we are always right' is the warmists motto.

Except they were always calling it climate change. Again, how stupid do you have to be to believe anything from a CON$ervative source?????

Here is an article from 1975 calling it "climate change."

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

Am I the only one.. or is that clearly bullshit? Does any know? Doe it matter since we are all wormfood anyway?

 

[Big Fitz]

"This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere."

Okay..clear things up here. Do we have Gobal Warming or just "Southern Hemisphere Warming"?

Regardless of what's really happening, one thing is for sure: It's not mankind's fault, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

And that's why they changed it from globull warming to climate change. 'Covering your ass no matter what it does so we are always right' is the warmists motto.

Except they were always calling it climate change. Again, how stupid do you have to be to believe anything from a CON$ervative source?????

Here is an article from 1975 calling it "climate change."

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

Now you're trying to say it wasn't called globull warming back in the day and only in recent years nudged to climate change? I don't think so, Tim. Your article calls it 'climatic change'; the buzz word is 'climate change' (oh sure, they mean the same thing but 'climate change' is so much more user friendly, don't you think?). Oh and you'd better give the Goracle a buzz and let him know he's outta the loop. This is from last week.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now, and they say increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming,"

Read more: FoxNews.com - Al Gore Explains 'Snowmageddon'

 

[rdean]

Not enough snow? It's because of global warming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#


Too much snow? It's because of global warming!

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill



Hey, what ever happened to this prediction? (thanks to MM for the article find)

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent


What's next? Weather just right? It's because of global warming!

You could try to explain all the extra precipitation and how the extra energy puts more moisture into the atmosphere and how the earth is turned away from the sun during the winter months which is why that precipitation comes down as snow and not rain and how the glaciers are melting and how the sea levels have risen, but why bother? Why talk science with people who believe we can "build another ark"?

One of my truly favorite comments from a right winger on this board was when he called "evaporation" a "wild liberal theory".

The other one was getting turned on to a video of Bill O'Reilly saying no one knows what causes the tides. This is "conservative science".

 

[FactFinder]

Not enough snow? It's because of global warming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#


Too much snow? It's because of global warming!

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill



Hey, what ever happened to this prediction? (thanks to MM for the article find)

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent


What's next? Weather just right? It's because of global warming!

You could try to explain all the extra precipitation and how the extra energy puts more moisture into the atmosphere and how the earth is turned away from the sun during the winter months which is why that precipitation comes down as snow and not rain and how the glaciers are melting and how the sea levels have risen, but why bother? Why talk science with people who believe we can "build another ark"?

One of my truly favorite comments from a right winger on this board was when he called "evaporation" a "wild liberal theory".

The other one was getting turned on to a video of Bill O'Reilly saying no one knows what causes the tides. This is "conservative science".

Or, apparently noone knows much about nothin' If that was what he was saying, I concur.
and admit it, you or noone else has definitive answers. Just speculation and we already know where that leads us.

 

[edthecynic]

And that's why they changed it from globull warming to climate change. 'Covering your ass no matter what it does so we are always right' is the warmists motto.

Except they were always calling it climate change. Again, how stupid do you have to be to believe anything from a CON$ervative source?????

Here is an article from 1975 calling it "climate change."

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? | Science/AAAS


Science 8 August 1975:
Vol. 189 no. 4201 pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

Now you're trying to say it wasn't called globull warming back in the day and only in recent years nudged to climate change? I don't think so, Tim. Your article calls it 'climatic change'; the buzz word is 'climate change' (oh sure, they mean the same thing but 'climate change' is so much more user friendly, don't you think?). Oh and you'd better give the Goracle a buzz and let him know he's outta the loop. This is from last week.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now, and they say increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming,"

Read more: FoxNews.com - Al Gore Explains 'Snowmageddon'

No, I'm saying the denier's claim that it was only recently changed from global warming to climate change is just more CON$ervative bullshit. The two terms have been used interchangeably all along.

From the totally discredited Media Research Center in your link from the Fox Gossip Channel propaganda network:

“First we were told the world was cooling. Then it was getting hotter,” Dan Gainor, a spokesman for the Media Research Center, tells FoxNews.com. “Then cooling again. Then hotter. Now it’s just climate change -- so they can’t be wrong no matter what change occurs.”