Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake!

Gore is not the high priest of climate science!

a well informed high school kid could pick a number of faults with gore's movie and nobody apart from denialists ever refers to it.

but that does not make AGW a lie. I have been following this since the early eighties. no credible scientist has denied anthropogenic influence is a contributor to warming since the late 90's, and the predictions that were made in the eighties/early nineties are pretty spot on - except perhaps a bit understated.

 

You ignore the lies, deception, and hysteria created by the Global Warming community

I have shown the corruption of the polar bear scam and you go on a rant saying how great Global Warming scientists are.

I say the corruption is so great they have no credibility

 

It shows the lack of credibility when they spread this propaganda and even show it in schools to our kids as truth. Global warming community has lost all credibility

 

he is the poster child of your movement like it or not Cass

anyway I like how once again the tipping point BS has been shown to be just that BS.


During the last 10,000 years the North Pole ice cover has been even smaller than it is today

 

lols - coming from the side that put out the oregon petition, the great global warming swindle, who supported the misinformation campaigns of the tobacco industry (yes, you have strange bedfellows), who hacked emails and were then found not to even understand what those emails are about, who have deliberately misrepresented scientists for decades ...

you want to take another look at the meaning of teh word credible.

 

no you haven't.

you have just shown that you are really not aware of what is happening.

there are numerous scientists in every field looking at the impacts of climate change, not because of the funding, but because they have to.

one of the most significant issues is food security - and there is plenty of crop research.

http://www.fao.org/foodclimate/hlc-home/en/

another issue is insect borne diseases:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-1/141-161reiter/reiter-full.html

http://www.saharov.com/eshact/Research/ClimateChangeVectorBorneDiseases/tabid/128/Default.aspx

what else?

water shortages ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ger-threat-than-financial-crisis-1645358.html

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/business_water_climate/full_report.pdf

and some places are already experiencing rising sea levels

http://www.povertyenvironment.net/node/2174

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31487&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.commonwealth-of-nations.org/Solomon_Islands

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/kyoto-panieu.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/ga-64/cc-inputs/PSIDS_CCIS.pdf

http://www.hotathrandom.com/BD-Global-Warming.htm

I realise you probably haven't heard of any of these places, but the US is not immune:

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20...tal-georgia-ecosystems-barrier-islands?page=2

http://www.sealevelreport.com/states.html

 

We have scientists putting forth "information' supporting something that will garner the governments that give them grants trillion of dollars in tax revenue, which in turn ensures they continue to receive grants. And you don't see a problem with that?

 

I see you know very little about science.

 

I know a lot about people. The fact that the predictions put out by the warmers have failed to materialize should tell you something.

 

but they haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

the results are pretty much in line with the predictions:




if not overshooting the predictions that were made in some areas.


and as my previous post showed - sea levels are already rising in many places and having significant impacts.

not to mention the increase globally in extreme weather events and the impacts that these have had on food supplies.

 

Nice how you think you know me. Truth is I have shown the scam and lie and deceptions of Global warming and you have only had rants about what you think of what you call deniers

 

Selected excerpts from UN IPCC scientist's recent testimony.
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and chemist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand is an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001. Dr. Gray's research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page "U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
Below are selected excerpts of his testimony before New Zealand's Committee for the Emissions Trading Scheme Review May 5, 2009:
I am an experienced research chemist, with a PhD from Cambridge 1946, and a long research career in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. I have over 100 scientific publications, many of them on climate science, which I have studied intensively for the past 18 years.
I have been an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC Reports since the beginning in 1990.I submitted 1,898 comments to the last (fourth) Working Group I (Science) Report.
I was recently invited to the Beijing Climate Center as a Visiting Scholar and I recently lectured to a Conference in New York.
I have reluctantly concluded, after detailed study of the evidence presented by the IPCC, that there are no convincing scientific arguments to support the claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate. [...]
The IPCC “central/benchmark projections” are based on a combination pf ridiculously oversimplified models and unrealistic futures scenarios. The projections themselves conflict with the current fall in global temperatures, the absence of any warming in New Zealand, and the lack of local evidence of sea level change. [...]
The presumed dangers of failing to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme appear to be illusory. We have enough problems coping with the current economic crisis without burdening ourselves with additional costs to our manufacturing and farming industries and adopting uneconomic sources of energy. [...]
Changes in climate can have many causes, some of which are partially understood, but the influence of increases in greenhouse gases are not likely to be important if there is no detectable warming resulting from them. [...] In reality the sun only shines in the daytime. The earth absorbs energy by day and emits it by night. It rotates, so that all surfaces have a diurnal and seasonal cycle. There is no energy balance anywhere, and no net energy balance either, as there are warming and cooling cycles of different lengths. Also none of the greenhouse gases are “well-mixed”, so the assumption by models that they are is wrong. [...]
The first IPCC Working Group I Report "Climate Change", published in 1990, provided the first set of climate models, from which the Panel made predictions about future global temperature change. It contained a Chapter 4 entitled "Validation of Climate Models". A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the Second (1995) Report. I sent in a comment pointing out that the Title of this Chapter was inappropriate, since no Climate Model had ever been "validated" in the sense understood by computer engineers. They agreed with me. The same Chapter in the next Draft was entitled "Evaluation of Computer Models", and they had changed the word "validation" to "evaluation" throughout the Chapter no less than fifty times. Since then, they have never used the word “validation”, and their models now never make “predictions”, but “projections”, dependent only on the prior assumptions.

"Validation" is a term used by computer engineers for the procedure that has to be applied to computer models before they can be considered useful for future prediction. This procedure must involve successful prediction of the range of circumstances for which it is to be used. Unless this is done there is no evidence of how accurate the predictions can be.

Not only has no computer climate model ever been subjected to this process, no IPCC Report has even discussed how it might be done. As a result, computer models cannot make "predictions", they only provide "projections" which are based on the value of the assumptions made in their preparation. Also there is no evidence as to how accurate they might be. This is one reason why the IPCC never gives opinions on the relative importance of the many models. There is no probability range for the models, and there is no "central" model. They do, however, seem prepared to provide “best estimates” and “likely ranges” .which are no more than guesswork. One early example of such a “best estimate” was decided by “a show of hands” by model providers.
Dr. Gray's research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page "U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"

yep, it's almost uncanny how closely the predictions and results match isn't it? (sarcasm)

 

Nice how you have to go to another direction and not address what i showed.

As for food the Global warming community is making us use corn for fuel and taking away farm land for wind turbines that produce very little of our needed electricity.

Sea level increase has been minimal at best

 

You seem to know little about grants and why scientists only look at man's influence on Global Warming and are not concerned about looking at natural causes.

 

No warming has almost stopped and sea level is not where it was predicted to be.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/ocean-warming

 

I am assuming that you haven't actually read the article.

ENSO is known to be a variable that will temporarily mask longer term climate variability, and heat transfer to deeper levels is not indicative of climate change not occuring - it may even have far reaching consequences that will most likely be discussed in the journal article referred to.

anyone who is interested in climate change is aware of this.

 

Well congratulations!

you have found one the scientists who genuinely believes that prostituting themselves is the way to do science!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vincent_Gray#Related_SourceWatch_articles

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

That would be the ones kowtowing to the governments that pay there grants, not those who speak the truth about the climate change hoax.

 

so ... people who knowingly receive funding from the same institute that has received funding to tell lies on behalf of the tobacco lobby are more reliable than people who get other grants?

interesting perspective.

 

Nice spin. GW propagandists always have something they can't prove as an out. Nice how that is your excuse. My articles are bad but yours are good I see. Yet when I show deception and corruption you change the conversation

 

Unlike the ones that work for governments to keep their grants coming

 

You can't seem to stay on topic. We are talking Global Warming not tobacco

 

the fact that they deliberately lied about the tobacco industry IS relevant.

you are talking about liars, after all.

 

and where is the evidence of lies due to these grants?

 

lols - go and look up ENSO.

I first heard about El Nino back in the seventies, and knew back then (before Carl Sagan talked about "the Greenhouse Effect) that is was a cyclical event associated with different weather conditions.

if you don't know what it is - what are you doing pretending you know anything about global warming?