Martin Polikoff on Global warming..

[Baruch Menachem]

I still think it is mostly hokum. Mostly because we don't know how much co2 os in the atmosphere, how it cycles, etc. Also most of the fixes are ways to get government as an agent of theft, rather than agents of making more useful non carbon ways of doing things.

But here is someone who mostly believes in it, with some good science

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Saigon]

We don't know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

Are you sure?

Try 400 p.p.m.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

99% of our atmosphere's CO2 occurs naturally. It's an emission from the world's oceans. I think it's getting dangerous however, on account of it created 500,000 square miles of new arctic ice last year, and...well...you know. We can't have that.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I still think it is mostly hokum. Mostly because we don't know how much co2 os in the atmosphere, how it cycles, etc. Also most of the fixes are ways to get government as an agent of theft, rather than agents of making more useful non carbon ways of doing things.
But here is someone who mostly believes in it, with some good science

You think warmies are full of hokum, but you start threads about warmies with "good science"? Nice try Homer. How do you befuddle useful idiots the rest of your day? With a three-card Monte table on some street corner in Brooklyn?

 

[westwall]

We don't know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

Are you sure?

Try 400 p.p.m.

CO2 FOLLOWS warming temps. Thus it has NO EFFECT on climate.

 

[Saigon]

99% of our atmosphere's CO2 occurs naturally. It's an emission from the world's oceans. I think it's getting dangerous however, on account of it created 500,000 square miles of new arctic ice last year, and...well...you know. We can't have that.

And we don't have that.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

99% of our atmosphere's CO2 occurs naturally. It's an emission from the world's oceans. I think it's getting dangerous however, on account of it created 500,000 square miles of new arctic ice last year, and...well...you know. We can't have that.

And we don't have that.

Typo. I should have said square kilometers (roughly 200,000 square miles) of new arctic ice.

 

[orogenicman]

99% of our atmosphere's CO2 occurs naturally. It's an emission from the world's oceans. I think it's getting dangerous however, on account of it created 500,000 square miles of new arctic ice last year, and...well...you know. We can't have that.

And we don't have that.

Typo. I should have said square kilometers (roughly 200,000 square miles) of new arctic ice.

Erm, not so fast:

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Wait a minute. Half this graph falls in the period of the great global cooling hysteria. What's up with that? Furthermore, how much of this graph falls in the great warmiecoolie transition phase? Sorry, but I don't believe shit from any useful idiot global warmie snake oil salesman, nor does 90% of the American public. Go back to the your Bay Area billionaire puppet masters and tell them "no dice".

 

[orogenicman]

Wait a minute. Half this graph falls in the period of the great global cooling hysteria. What's up with that? Furthermore, how much of this graph falls in the great warmiecoolie transition phase? Sorry, but I don't believe shit from any useful idiot global warmie snake oil salesman, nor does 90% of the American public. Go back to the your Bay Area billionaire puppet masters and tell them "no dice".

What is up is that there was NEVER a great global cooling hysteria. A handful of scientists made a claim in the 1970s in a couple of papers which were not widely accepted and yet people like you don't do their homework and have latched onto it ever since. That's what is up with that.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Wait a minute. Half this graph falls in the period of the great global cooling hysteria. What's up with that? Furthermore, how much of this graph falls in the great warmiecoolie transition phase? Sorry, but I don't believe shit from any useful idiot global warmie snake oil salesman, nor does 90% of the American public. Go back to the your Bay Area billionaire puppet masters and tell them "no dice".

What is up is that there was NEVER a great global cooling hysteria. A handful of scientists made a claim in the 1970s in a couple of papers which were not widely accepted and yet people like you don't do their homework and have latched onto it ever since. That's what is up with that.

Oh my. They've really got you by the gonads, don't they? The coolie hysteria was sufficient to spark at least three Time Magazine covers, two Newsweek covers and countless chicken little televison scares. That went on for years. I was there.

 

[IanC]

Wait a minute. Half this graph falls in the period of the great global cooling hysteria. What's up with that? Furthermore, how much of this graph falls in the great warmiecoolie transition phase? Sorry, but I don't believe shit from any useful idiot global warmie snake oil salesman, nor does 90% of the American public. Go back to the your Bay Area billionaire puppet masters and tell them "no dice".

What is up is that there was NEVER a great global cooling hysteria. A handful of scientists made a claim in the 1970s in a couple of papers which were not widely accepted and yet people like you don't do their homework and have latched onto it ever since. That's what is up with that.

Oh my. They've really got you by the gonads, don't they? The coolie hysteria was sufficient to spark at least three Time Magazine covers, two Newsweek covers and countless chicken little televison scares. That went on for years. I was there.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

the "western world's leading climatologists" convinced the CIA that we were headed back into a Little Ice Age. someone tell me again that it was just a media hysteria that no one was paying attention to.

 

[Saigon]

99% of our atmosphere's CO2 occurs naturally. It's an emission from the world's oceans. I think it's getting dangerous however, on account of it created 500,000 square miles of new arctic ice last year, and...well...you know. We can't have that.

And we don't have that.

Typo. I should have said square kilometers (roughly 200,000 square miles) of new arctic ice.

One of the most compelling reasons to accept scientists' word on climate change is the ethics of the people opposing them.

When people START a conversation by lying - what does it tell us about the strength of their case?

Oh, and by the way -

Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Old Rocks]

Wait a minute. Half this graph falls in the period of the great global cooling hysteria. What's up with that? Furthermore, how much of this graph falls in the great warmiecoolie transition phase? Sorry, but I don't believe shit from any useful idiot global warmie snake oil salesman, nor does 90% of the American public. Go back to the your Bay Area billionaire puppet masters and tell them "no dice".

What is up is that there was NEVER a great global cooling hysteria. A handful of scientists made a claim in the 1970s in a couple of papers which were not widely accepted and yet people like you don't do their homework and have latched onto it ever since. That's what is up with that.

Oh my. They've really got you by the gonads, don't they? The coolie hysteria was sufficient to spark at least three Time Magazine covers, two Newsweek covers and countless chicken little televison scares. That went on for years. I was there.

OK, Sweetie Pie, so you get your science from Time and Newsweek. For those of us that get our science from peer reviewed journals;

Global Cooling Myth in the 70 s mdash OSS Foundation

Global Cooling Myth in the 70's
Many claim that in the 1970's all scientists believed the earth was cooling. Factual examination of the controversial report reveals that there was a consensus. The consensus was we don't know enough yet. The confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles indicated that we were to begin a cooling phase, the introduction of industrial greenhouse gases indicated we could interrupt the natural cycle. More study was needed.

Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index 2008

As in all things science and reason, context is required to understand relevance of any data or scope of understanding. In the case of the global cooling myth, let's take a look at the context.

This is around the time that the "Milankovitch Cycles' were confirmed by the deep ocean sediment core studies, thus solidifying the understanding that the earths climate system is subject to long term natural cycle influences that significantly alter our climate.

Ice age predicted in the 70's? As we show below, not really. We came out of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. Typically we would go back into an ice age as that is the natural cycle. The industrial imposedclimate forcing is so large that we can not at this level of forcing, return to an ice age.

• RealClimate The global cooling mole
• RealClimate The global cooling myth

SOURCE FOR ARTICLE & CONTEXT: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

 

[skookerasbil]

Brilliant...........and all historically accurate. Yet all of the AGW obsessed fools continue on as if the models are dependable. Most know this but just navigate with a consistent level of intellectual dishonesty. Some however, are so duped, that factual information doesn't matter.

 

[skookerasbil]

The models are wrong Behind The Black

 

[skookerasbil]

Bottom line?

The "science is settled" is one gigantic hoax. It isn't settled. If it was settled, the AGW crowd wouldn't be changing its narrative every few years.

As Dr Judith Curry, one of the leading climate change scientists in the world stated recently, "The alarmists are wrong" >>>

Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues - Scientific American

Indeed.........there is still MUCH to be studied in terms of climate change...............one look at the prediction wing of the AGW crowd is a clear illustration of that fact.

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Baruch Menachem]

does anyone want to discuss the video I put up? It had facts and other things people don't like, but Ir was very informative and entertaining too.