Calling out Global-Warming Deniers

[Guru of Nothing]

WHAT IF we had insufficient data from which to draw conclusions? How might the arguments differ?

[MannyIsGod]

Except that they share the single-most responsible reason for warming...the sun.

You've -- indeed, the entire global warming Henny Pennys -- limited yourself to thinking globally.

You're a complete idiot. What happens on Mars is completely irrelevant to global warming theory on Earth. Completely! The fact that they share the same source of energy is true, but the amount of different variables makes it a pretty unimportant factor. Some of those variables:

1) Atmospheric composition
2) Atmospheric density
3) Distance from the Sun
4) Rotational differences
5) Differences in axis tilt
6) Different surface composition
7) Differing orbital times

God damn Yonivore, I could go on and on and on. So even with an increase in solar output the 2 planets would have no where near the same reaction and trying to draw a conclusion on what may be happening in the atmosphere of one by observing the other is completely baseless.

Props for manging to use yet another irrelevent piece of information into the dicussion.

[Yonivore]

You're a complete idiot. What happens on Mars is completely irrelevant to global warming theory on Earth. Completely! The fact that they share the same source of energy is true, but the amount of different variables makes it a pretty unimportant factor. Some of those variables:

1) Atmospheric composition
2) Atmospheric density
3) Distance from the Sun
4) Rotational differences
5) Differences in axis tilt
6) Different surface composition
7) Differing orbital times

God damn Yonivore, I could go on and on and on. So even with an increase in solar output the 2 planets would have no where near the same reaction and trying to draw a conclusion on what may be happening in the atmosphere of one by observing the other is completely baseless.

Props for manging to use yet another irrelevent piece of information into the dicussion.

:::YAWN:::

The Weather Channel Mess

January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

[Yonivore]

There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming.
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record

Let me know if you need any help with the big words Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

Its funny, I get from everyone on this issue. From Dan because I call his political bull and exagerations for what it is. From Yonivore because I call his introduction of Mars climate information irrelevant.



You're both idiots on the subject.

1. When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

2. I think that solar forcing may be a large mechanism behind climate change, but because of the above that doesn't mean CO2 emissions are correct.

From Gtown posting that ridiculous video, to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming, to Yonivore and his ridiculous posts about Mars its impossible to have a good discussion on the subject in this forum because everyone is too busy trying to prove their view on the subject they're too damn close minded to take a step back and review the information available instead of taking someone else's word for it. There are so many god damn agendas.

[Yonivore]

Its funny, I get from everyone on this issue. From Dan because I call his political bull and exagerations for what it is. From Yonivore because I call his introduction of Mars climate information irrelevant.



You're both idiots on the subject.

1. When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

2. I think that solar forcing may be a large mechanism behind climate change, but because of the above that doesn't mean CO2 emissions are correct.

From Gtown posting that ridiculous video, to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming, to Yonivore and his ridiculous posts about Mars its impossible to have a good discussion on the subject in this forum because everyone is too busy trying to prove their view on the subject they're too damn close minded to take a step back and review the information available instead of taking someone else's word for it. There are so many god damn agendas.

I sense a subject change in there somewhere.

[xrayzebra]

Its funny, I get from everyone on this issue. From Dan because I call his political bull and exagerations for what it is. From Yonivore because I call his introduction of Mars climate information irrelevant.



You're both idiots on the subject.

1. When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

2. I think that solar forcing may be a large mechanism behind climate change, but because of the above that doesn't mean CO2 emissions are correct.

From Gtown posting that ridiculous video, to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming, to Yonivore and his ridiculous posts about Mars its impossible to have a good discussion on the subject in this forum because everyone is too busy trying to prove their view on the subject they're too damn close minded to take a step back and review the information available instead of taking someone else's word for it. There are so many god damn agendas.

Well Manny I have found one thing I agree with you on. The earth indeed
may be warming, but it has in the past, remember one time most of
North America was covered in ice. So I guess a little global warming in
the past was good but not in the future. I have also read that at one
time the arctic was tropical and fossilized plants have been found to show
this.

And now we are told that man is all the fault. Well, like you I don't buy
into that theory. And like you I have also read some reports that say
warming could be a boom to parts of the world, while maybe hurting
some other parts.

But the debate is agenda driven in most cases, MONEY being one big
culprit, bring on those studies funded by tax dollars. Politics being the
other big factor. We must give money to some of the third world
countries, who I might add help pump the stuff into the air they are
opposed to.

England is now going to impose a tax based on this junk. And this
is only the beginning.

Anyhow, Mother Earth has taken care of itself for many years, before
man, during our early years and will continue to do so. I have a lot
more faith in Earth than I do some of these so called experts. Like
you know Al Gore, who wont debate with any detractors of his
theories.

[Yonivore]

it's pretty stupid to say that mars's climate and earth's climate are completely irrelevant, manny

It's not in his script.

[Yonivore]

java?

No thanks, I'm full up.

[Yonivore]

Zing!

The offer was java, were you being disingenious? I guess I should have known all you'd really have to offer was .

[Yonivore]

oh i meant that manny is an internet bot controlled by javascript

Really? I honestly thought you were offering me coffee!

[Yonivore]

and makes flowers grow

You must look like a Chia Pet.

[Guru of Nothing]

You must look like a Chia Pet.

You must look like a mushroom.

[MannyIsGod]

it's pretty stupid to say that mars's climate and earth's climate are completely irrelevant, manny

No, its not actually. Why in the would Mar's climate have any relevance in a dicussion regarding the Earth's?

[MannyIsGod]

It's not in his script.

Yes, because I'm not the one who has trouble composing original thoughts here.

Copy and paste is not only your friend, Yoni, its your brain.

[Yonivore]

Yes, because I'm not the one who has trouble composing original thoughts here.

Copy and paste is not only your friend, Yoni, its your brain.

Way to change the subject, Manny...again. Unless you're a climate expert, you're being informed on this issue by someone else as well.

[xrayzebra]

Here is a nice little article that you may find very interesting, about global warming
and Al Gore.

Will Al Gore Melt?
By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG
The Wall Street Journal
January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and do entary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?


One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century.Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.



Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

Some very pointed questions along with some facts, which strangely, we never
hear from the doomsayers on this forum. How come?

[scott]

It's a lot warmer than it was 5 days ago. That's some global warming, homes.

[Yonivore]

It's a lot warmer than it was 5 days ago. That's some global warming, homes.

I guess Miami will be an aquarium by next Tuesday?

[MannyIsGod]

Way to change the subject, Manny...again. Unless you're a climate expert, you're being informed on this issue by someone else as well.

YOU brought up me working off a script. Being informed by someone else is one thing, reading the information in other places and making up your own mind is quite another. You've shown very little cromprehensive ability and lots of copy and paste ability. Your critical thinkiing is done by others, Yonivore. You just act like its YOUR opinion when its only so by proxy.

[Yonivore]

YOU brought up me working off a script. Being informed by someone else is one thing, reading the information in other places and making up your own mind is quite another. You've shown very little cromprehensive ability and lots of copy and paste ability. Your critical thinkiing is done by others, Yonivore. You just act like its YOUR opinion when its only so by proxy.

Okay, so care to respond to the original subject of the thread now that you've got that out of your system?

[MannyIsGod]

I did that several times on page one Mr. Mars. The original subject of the thread was discussed and the discussion was concluded long before you brought your 2 (irrelevant) 2 cents into it. Now, if you'd like to add something of relevance to the discussion on the AMS seal of approval the importance of its threatened revocation then feel free. However, I'm not sure how the weather on Mars qualifies as staying on subject when the subject was that of a political nature here on Earth.

Dumb ass.

[Yonivore]

However, I'm not sure how the weather on Mars qualifies as staying on subject when the subject was that of a political nature here on Earth.

Well, as I stated, Mars and Earth share a sun that is the biggest factor in determining our climate and, if Mars is warming, Earth may be warming for the same reasons -- increased solar activity.

By the way, it's not my theory -- I posted a link.

Dumb ass.

Whatever makes you feel better but, you're the one that is having trouble understanding how climate influences on Mars could have anything to do with climate influences on Earth, not me.

[Nbadan]

When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

What doubt? There's little credible doubt, and absolutely none that you've presented in your argument for other causes of global warming in this thread, but there is plenty of relevant data that satisfies this hypothesis. That is what this thread is really about. Saying to all you global warming deniers, like Yoni, and it's underlying causes, like Manny, put up some facts or shut the up!

[Nbadan]

to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming,

Manny was so wrong about Katrina, it's ridiculous him calling me out on this, but I guess most people have short memories. I posted 10 months before Katrina hit that New Orleans was vulnerable to a violent Hurricane and deadly flooding, and then just for kicks, I added that the Houston-Galveston area would get hit too, in the same year.

10 Predictions for 2005

Let's see Manny back up his claims.