More evidence the Earth is cooling, i wonder how the alarmists will cover their backside with this one.
Been so hot an' dry here the crawdads comin' outta their holes, knockin' onna door for a glass o' water... US has hottest year since 1895, say scientists 9 July 2012 - The last year in the continental US has been the country's hottest since modern record-keeping began in 1895, say government scientists.
Dumb, think. It's been incredibly hot the last couple of years, and if your information is correct, then we're lucky, because we should be burning by now. But it's not. So don't worry, as far as I'm concerned, only your pants are on fire. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
If we didn't have the global cooling come global warming come climate change religion that is AGW. It would be just another record year of cool or warm weather. These guys are now claiming that CO2 manmade emissions can cause global warming or global cooling. I say its just the natural cycle of the Earth. Earth's is always experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE. Think back to when the Earth was formed what was it like. And think ahead as our sun ages and starts to turn into a red giant or how the moon is pulling away from the earth's gravity every year. Do you honestly think the Earth's climate has ever stood still? Mother nature is always active.
I don't care what you think. Me, I'm with you. But when 97% of all scientists say Global warming is occuring, then I'm going to put aside any reservations I might have and listen up.
It's not hotter now than years past, overall. Observation stations are located at airports and other urban areas, which have mostly expanded. Pavement/ roofs gets hot, so the temperatures at those stations has risen. But that's not indicative of the world at large.
He says, they say....all with vested interests. There is too much at stake to be a blind denialist, especially in the instance that most credible bodies are suggesting AGW. Dumb, you are driven by cynicism and conspiracies. Elvis is dead mate....let him rest!
So NASA is not credible now? LOL They have a vested interest? LOL Just having a bit of fun with you. but should actually consider your statements to the OP.
There is a long history of scientific opinion forming quick majorities based on incomplete data, and ending up being wrong. The community suffers strongly from peer image more then public image. To get funding or to get any collaborations they need to have what is considered a shared scientific belief/position. So once a trend appears to be dominant, most of the scientists will just agree to be seen as agreeing. The fact that a majority of scientists agree on something is meaningless unless they have all independantly researched what it is they are commenting on. The fact is magnetic fluctuations in the Earths core relate to the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere and the magnetic field is directly related to the activity of underground which is tied to volcano eruptions which have also been shown to have a direct correlation to global climate shifts. There is no evidence that anyone has found that indicates human carbon emissions will play any significant role beyond local climates when compared to the other global forces at play in global climate systems. The whole movement originated as a way for some scientists to make some money, and it worked. Silly people will throw there money away at silly things for as long as people live but I guess that is one of the differences between why some people are poor and some people are rich.
Judging by the lack of glaciers and wolly mammoths outside my window, I'd have to agree with the general global warming trend. Now, I think virtually all scientists (even deniers) believe that carbon emissions make the world generally hotter. Where opinions diverge is in how much of a difference they have made and will make. They diverge further when ascertaining if any given difference is a problem, and further still when discussing what to do about it. The study argues that the difference is small. It would also be easy to argue that, if you view international competition as a zero sum game, than the US stands to gain from some nasty global warming. I often wonder how many deniers are really deniers vs people that listened to a tirade on the effects of global warming and thought to themselves "So, what they're saying is all I have to do to nuke Iran is drive an SUV....hmmmmm"
A typically useless post from you again. I am starting to notice a trend from you truthvigilante. This is the old isolation trick; make me feel marginalised by associating a negative appraisal to being in accordance with 'everybody' else... its part of the suite of bullying tricks. Heck I even think online bullying is illegal or soon to be. Perhaps you'd be better served posting something of substance, like an opinion about the topic? Didnt know adults use that sort of thing, just shows you disagree and are trying to boost your ego by acting like a big man to your screen reflection. Come on, try harder please, one way or the other.
Hey colonel Show me evidence that the Earth has warmed up to any significant level from the past couple of hundred years and i might sit up and take notice. Show me some empirical evidence from history that suggests CO2 can cause major climate change and a runaway green house effect. Show me why the carbon sinks of the Earth can absorb the 97% of CO2 the ecosystems throw up into the atmosphere and why they can't absord the 3% manmade. When ,illions of years ago they absorbed thousands of ppm of CO2. Show us these things if you can? Show me these things and i will take notice. BTW if you refer me to the IPCC parametric computer models which are the only source of AGW due to man made pollution i will not accept it. You know what they say about the dumb computer sh!t in sh!t out. Now in the past we had CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere that reached 7000ppm compared to todays 390ppm. Why didn't we have a runaway greenhouse effects back then. The fact that NASA says the satelites have detected no warming in the last 15 years must have scared the sh!t out of the alarmists lest people believe the truth and these conmen lose their grants in the millions. many scientists that aren't part of the global warming religion say THE EARTH HAS NOT WARMED IN THE LAST TEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS.
Actually I think he was pretty spot on. What the heck does that phrase even mean? Where do you get the suite of bullying tricks? online?
Climate change is occurring and man is contributing to it, research is what is needed no mater where it takes us, I think this is good news, new information always is, we still have a long way to go to understanding man's role in earths climate .
Does it really matter? Do you or your family really care if the world is cooling, heating or turning loop de loops? Global warming is a great cause for the vast majority to rally behind and be encouraged to reduce their personal pollution. Fantastic. It doesn't matter what the rally cry is as long as the outcome is a reduction in pollution and hopefully a better world for our grand children and their children. If GW is not true or not man made or a vegetable doesn't really matter a (*)(*)(*)(*). What matters is the outcomes as a result of what we do to reduce our own consumption and pollution. Governments cannot do this for us. We need to do it ourselves.
The funny thing is, is that it is a never ending merry go round of conjecture. Unless you are an expert, then state your title. If not you have no credibility and are just supporting your bias. Really at what point are we able to ascertain who is telling the truth with what seems to be twist and turns linked to never ending theories of conspiracy. There is no end point! Either you believe in AGW or you don't based on objective and subjective means of your liking. If substantiated scientific data strongly suggests in favour of natural climate change, I'll have to go with it, if this is collectively the conclusion between scientists. But other evidence suggest differently http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Again you can carry on all you want, you will get the same response. By the way Roy spencer's articles require further consideration, their is a lot of doubt about his credibility, but you and others can find your own conclusions to that.
Just sayin. Has anyone noticed that the CCCC disciples never seem to address one of the biggest environmental threats of out time, over population? Have you noticed how they all want to pay for this carbon "threat" with other people`s money?
Yes Aussie I have. I believe that over population is our greatest threat, and both seem intrinsically linked.
