Global Warming/Climate Change

Coffee and TV · February 28, 2014

Kinda like changing the name from global warming to climate change so you can point to cold winters as an actual sign of "climate change", right?

A better analogy would be when the Big East changed it's name to the AAC.

GTWT · March 2, 2014

Kinda like changing the name from global warming to climate change so you can point to cold winters as an actual sign of "climate change", right?

Yeah, it turns out climate is a bit more complex than some extreme right-wingers can comprehend. It would be so much easier to grasp if the only effect was glabal warming rather than global warming, and changes in precipitation pattern, and changes in climate variability, and....

UNT90 · March 2, 2014

Yeah, it turns out climate is a bit more complex than some extreme right-wingers can comprehend. It would be so much easier to grasp if the only effect was glabal warming rather than global warming, and changes in precipitation pattern, and changes in climate variability, and....

Thanks for finally admitting that your views on this have much more to do with politics than science.

It took 20 some odd pages, but we finally got there.

FirefightnRick · March 2, 2014

Anyone seen Al Gore in Tarrant couty? We got IceMagedden Part III in Fort Worth, wrecks and rollovers from one end of the city to the other.

Seriously though....If you come this way today or tonight take extra caution of the bridges.

Rick

Edited March 2, 2014 by FirefightnRick

GTWT · March 2, 2014

Thanks for finally admitting that your views on this have much more to do with politics than science.
It took 20 some odd pages, but we finally got there.

I'm not sure how you get my politics from this statement. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. In the last election I voted for some of each along with a few folks with a variety of affiliations.

I'm also neither liberal nor conservative. I think an intelligent person should examine every issue and make up his/her mind based on reason, not ideology.

But you do your thing.

UNTFan23 · March 2, 2014

All I can say is that there once was a great flood. Was that Man's fault as well?

KingDL1 · March 2, 2014

All I can say is that there once was a great flood. Was that Man's fault as well?

If there was an ark involved, I think the answer is yes?

GTWT · March 3, 2014

All I can say is that there once was a great flood. Was that Man's fault as well?

Is this the flood to which you refer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMc9kP9q-d8

FirefightnRick · March 3, 2014

Great Lakes Approaching 100 Percent Ice Cover For The First Time On Record.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/great-lakes-approaching-100-ice-cover-for-the-first-time-on-record/

Rick

UNT90 · March 3, 2014

Great Lakes Approaching 100 Percent Ice Cover For The First Time On Record.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/great-lakes-approaching-100-ice-cover-for-the-first-time-on-record/
Rick

Don't you understand that this PROVES that climate change exists?!?!?!!!!!11!!1

Much like the Great Lakes having zero ice for a whole winter would prove that climate change exists.

Any variance from established norms in any direction proves global "climate change."!!

Can't you stupid neo-Christian far right wing zealots understand this very simple concept backed up by ONE MILLION scientists????

Lol.

UNTFan23 · March 3, 2014

Is this the flood to which you refer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMc9kP9q-d8

Tony got it right.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 3, 2014

New Ice Age Dawning: 1970s are back!

...as well as awful 1980s white rap references: Ice, Ice Baby!

GTWT · March 4, 2014

New Ice Age Dawning: 1970s are back!
...as well as awful 1980s white rap references: Ice, Ice Baby!

Hey Lonnie, did you ever locate that citation in the scientific literature (i.e., not Newsweek or Mad Magazine) where a scientist predicted a new ice age?

yyz28 · March 4, 2014

Neither yyz28 nor UNT90 bothered to listen to nor read a report from the two most prestigious scientific organizations in the world and yet they're still willing to pretend they're informed on this subject. Ignorance is bliss.

That's rather assumptive on your part. I said I didn't listen to the broadcast. I have, before coming in and seeing not more sensible and well reasoned argument, rather finding my intellect questioned and the name calling game fully in effect, read the report. Hell, I even downloaded it to my iPad.

...and in reading it and then researching much of what is in there... I find it offers no new information, and most of the "evidence" cited as the basis of many of the conclusions made within are refuted by volumes that can be found with a simple search, many of which I posted pages back in this thread. These "most prestigious institutions" both list as their mission the promotion of global climate change awareness, and indeed in the case of the USNAS, their funding is dependent on their science being relevant - which gives them wide reason to ensure that their conclusions match up with their hypothesis. The study does nothing to refute the many questions that are absolutely valid about the data their conclusions are based on.

I find it comical that you'd label your opponents as ignorant since they (or so you thought) hadn't read something that isn't new and is simply a regurgitation of stuff I can find you links to having been posted 5+ years ago. I'm not saying it is the case here - I don't want to descend into name calling and other such childish things, but rarely do I find someone who starts throwing around name calling and labels who is winning a debate.

Thanks for sharing the link.

DeepGreen · March 4, 2014

It's early March. I woke up to frozen rain on the trees in my yard. The Hill Country is experiencing climate change.

GTWT · March 4, 2014

...and in reading it and then researching much of what is in there... I find it offers no new information, and most of the "evidence" cited as the basis of many of the conclusions made within are refuted by volumes that can be found with a simple search...

Your 'volumes' included links to non-peer-reviewed literature - web-based publications from science-denial sites - very little from legitimate literature.

If you really think that trumps the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society you need to learn a bit more about science.

I'm sorry to come off as snarky but it's frustrating to read so much ignorance such as 'a 1970's prediction of an ice age' or 'the last decade has been cooler that other decades in the last 150 years'. If you want to be treated with respect then do better than simply regurgitating the silly arguments of Rush Limbaugh or Anthony Watts.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 4, 2014

Hey Lonnie, did you ever locate that citation in the scientific literature (i.e., not Newsweek or Mad Magazine) where a scientist predicted a new ice age?

Was I supposed to? I posted information on the climate e-mail book cooking.

But, here's a bone from the NY Times, writing a piece on one of Obama's science guys. In the 70s, he was selling global cooling. Fast forward: now he's selling the global warming: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

The global warming people - as you can see are the same people (if still living)...thanks to Obama for the retreading - have the advantage of more self-media in the 21st century. They don't have to wait anymore on TIME and Newsweek and the "Big Three" networks to spread their (latest) ecological doom; they can now just do it continuously. Thanks for the internet, Al Gore!

And, sales for it are way up. Just looks at Al Gore's amassed fortune. Busy guy. Internet inventing, selling the chicken little ideology...220, 221...whatever it takes.

Here's another freebie from the NY Times, citing a National Academy of Sciences study:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Of course, now NAS is on the train the other way. Whatever makes a buck/grant. It's all good. Global cooling then, warming now. Just keep the money rolling in for the grants, and the regulatioins going to expand the power (and budgets) of the government agencies.

Then, as now, all reports - urgent reports always as well - blame humans. Global cooling? It was those damn humans. Global warming. Yep...humans again. Why can't these pesky, climate-hating humans just go away!

Edited March 5, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

GTWT · March 4, 2014

Was I supposed to? I posted information on the climate e-mail book cooking.

But, here's a bone from the NY Times, writing a piece on one of Obama's science guys. In the 70s, he was selling global cooling. Fast forward: now he's selling the global warming.
The global warming people - as you can see are the same people (if still living)...thanks to Obama for the retreading - have the advantage of more self-media in the 21st century. They don't have to wait anymore on TIME and Newsweek and the "Big Three" networks to spread their (latest) ecological doom; they can now just do it continuously. Thanks for the internet, Al Gore!
And, sales for it are way up. Just looks at Al Gore's amassed fortune. Busy guy. Internet inventing, selling the chicken little ideology...220, 221...whatever it takes.
Here's another freebie from the NY Times, citing a National Academy of Sciences study:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf
Of course, now NAS is on the train the other way. Whatever makes a buck/grant. It's all good. Global cooling then, warming now. Just keep the money rolling in for the grants, and the regulatioins going to expand the power (and budgets) of the government agencies.
Then, as now, all reports - urgent reports always as well - blame humans. Global cooling? It was those damn humans. Global warming. Yep...humans again. Why can't these pesky, climate-hating humans just go away!

Lonnie, you’re linking to a popular article in the NY Times. Try reading, and understanding, the science.

From the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report on climate referenced by the Times article,

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

That seems a reasonable assessment of climate science 40 years ago.

Oh, the report did mention cooling,

"there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".

A little further on the report states,

"The question remains unresolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing, although as each 100 years passes, we have perhaps a 5% greater chance of encountering its onset If, on the other hand, these changes are more sinusiondal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of thousands of years. … “

A little further…

“These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...”

I don't really see much global cooling hysteria here but you can read it however you want.

If you really want to understand climate change don’t read Time or Newsweek or the NY Times. Read the 1975 report itself or read the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Read ‘The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Consensus’ published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society..

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

I’m not sure why the fiction of a global cooling consensus in the 1970s gives comfort to science deniers. That old canard is so easily disproven. I suspect it boils down to the lack of regard that climate science deniers have for the truth.

GTWT · March 4, 2014

Here's a link to that rare popular press article that give an objective and fair look at the 'Global Cooling Scientific Consensus'.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030720102706/thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm

If only all conservative joutnalism was this balanced!

You do sense the sarcasm? Please?

ChristopherRyanWilkes · March 4, 2014

Was I supposed to? I posted information on the climate e-mail book cooking.

But, here's a bone from the NY Times, writing a piece on one of Obama's science guys. In the 70s, he was selling global cooling. Fast forward: now he's selling the global warming.
The global warming people - as you can see are the same people (if still living)...thanks to Obama for the retreading - have the advantage of more self-media in the 21st century. They don't have to wait anymore on TIME and Newsweek and the "Big Three" networks to spread their (latest) ecological doom; they can now just do it continuously. Thanks for the internet, Al Gore!
And, sales for it are way up. Just looks at Al Gore's amassed fortune. Busy guy. Internet inventing, selling the chicken little ideology...220, 221...whatever it takes.
Here's another freebie from the NY Times, citing a National Academy of Sciences study:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf
Of course, now NAS is on the train the other way. Whatever makes a buck/grant. It's all good. Global cooling then, warming now. Just keep the money rolling in for the grants, and the regulatioins going to expand the power (and budgets) of the government agencies.
Then, as now, all reports - urgent reports always as well - blame humans. Global cooling? It was those damn humans. Global warming. Yep...humans again. Why can't these pesky, climate-hating humans just go away!

Is TFLF a satire? Look at his new avatar, this has to be a bit. Is this part of the whole Andrew scheme?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 4, 2014

You "missed" this part of the article?
"The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years. Recent studies have produced strong evidence that such warm periods tend to last 8,000 to 12,000 years and that they sometimes end abruptly."

Then, of course, you skipped the end wheremtheir answer is to filch $10-$40 million more in taxpayer money to keep studying the cooling trend..

Then, filching taxpayer money to feed the cooling theory; now, to feed the warming frenzy. It doesn't matter which it is, they are going to beg taxpayer money for it either way. It's what keeps them in business.

After all, we don't want to be there in year 8,001 or 10,001 or 12,001 (or, whatever other year number they dream up), when these "abrupt" climate demons finally do arrive.

These are as fun(ny) to read as the current global warming nonsense: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Why.pdf

Gems from the chicken littles of the 70s, chock full of scientists angling for the Ice Age research dollars:

"There are specialists who say a new ice age is on the way - the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere (gee, this sounds familiar)."

Woo-hoo! We're freezing! No, wait...we're warming! Wait, the statistics now show we aren't warming...quick, hide the e-mails and studies! Give us our taxpayer money, one way or the other!

It's got to be one way or the other - freezing or warming! Freezing or warming! Weather can't just be random - that doesn't make us any money or justify expanding governmental and quasi-governmental agency budgets!

Egads, man! Give us our money before we all starve, freeze, burn, or overpopulate! God (or, whatever you believe in) almighty! In another 20 years, Pecos could be a suburb of Fort Worth if we're not careful!

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 4, 2014

Is TFLF a satire? Look at his new avatar, this has to be a bit. Is this part of the whole Andrew scheme?

If only. The problem, as stated before, is the Center for Disease Control pretty much backs up the claim of the avatar. Go complain to that bastion of religion and conservatism, the Center for Disease Control:

http://www.returnofkings.com/3882/the-truth-about-aids

500x522xRate-of-Infection1.jpg.pagespeed

Edited March 4, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 4, 2014

Why, oh, why is the CDC lying about safe sex? I mean, come on - gay, bi, straight, drugged, sober - just put a condom on...there are no "high risk" groups. That's so 80s and 90s "homophobia."

Just like the global freezing/warming hysteria...we're all at risk! Government! Government! Throw more taxpayer money at it to stop it like you've stopped poverty!