Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.

~~~~~~~~~~THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

388
Harold Brown, an agricultural scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Georgia and author of "The Greening of Georgia: The Improvement of the Environment in the Twentieth Century," mocked global warming fears in 2007. "Global warming is a wonderful environmental disease," Brown said according to a December 7, 2007 article. "It has a thousand symptoms and a thousand cures and it has tens of thousands of practitioners with job security for decades to come unless the press and public opinion get tired of it." Brown also noted that many were worried about "global cooling" in the 1970s. According to the article, Brown "said some of the direst effects of a warming world, such as an increase in the number of deaths because of heat-related illnesses, might not be as bad as some feared, even if climate change were to continue." (LINK)

0 Replies

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the average and mean annual global temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F).

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:

389
Chief Meteorologist Mark Scirto of Texas TV's KLTV, a degreed Meteorologist who holds the Seals of Approval from both the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA), expressed climate skepticism in 2007 and predicted climate fears would eventually fade. "The late 1800s, early 1900s, we were so cold parts of Galveston Bay froze over," Scirto said on November 8, 2007. "In parts of the 20th century it was one of the warmest ever, then we cooled off again and then it was the drought." Scirto predicted the fears about man-made global warming will fade. "Eventually, what is going to happen 20, 30 years from now, this is all going to be gone because we will not be warming anymore," Scirto said. (LINK) & Click to watch video: (LINK)

0 Replies

Snowing in Colorado in July, undoubtedly due to global warming, ha ha, after all, everything is caused by global warming whether it is flooding or drought, heat waves or cold snaps.

1 Reply

I'll see your snow in Colorado and raise you 100 degrees up and down theEastern Seaboard plus the warmest January-May GLOBAL temperature on record.

0 Replies

Not to mention high 80s to low 90s in denver.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Not to mention high 80s to low 90s in denver.

Any dummy thats lived in Denver knows that is normal and common. I know because I lived there about 30 years ago, before all this global warming garbage came down the pike. In fact, the lib whackos back then were predicting we would all perish in an ice age.

Fact is, I looked it up and average high in Denver for July is about 88 F. So high 80's to low 90's there are hardly unusual at all, except I would guess for the slightly naive folks out there?

0 Replies

and snow in other parts of Colorado occurs in midsummer too, not often but it does (as long as you're looking things up, you can look that up too; it does). So what's your point? You still don't seem to realize the variability of weather, and the difference between weather and climate, okie, but then conservative whackos are good at denying facts that don't suit them.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MJ, the point that I make is the fact that although not extremely rare, snow in July is not very common or normal in Colorado, and certainly does not indicate that the earth is warming up. You just don't like it because it pulls your sensitive chain, it defies what you want to believe. You don't have much of a sense of humor when somebody pokes fun or posts information that does not support your global warming sacred cow. I also rightly point out that 80's and 90's in Denver is pretty normal highs for mid-summer, so your posting of that information was essentially meaningless in regard to global warming, so you didn't like it when I pointed out the truth about that as well.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Snowing in Colorado in July, undoubtedly due to global warming, ha ha, after all, everything is caused by global warming whether it is flooding or drought, heat waves or cold snaps.

well it's all weather we've seen before.
it just seems to be the patterns in which they come.

if it's extra warm somewhere, then the result will be different, but caused from the original heat. that front goes somewhere else, gathers at a mountain area, comes down as rain somewhere else etc.. that's a very rough picture but overall, it's a cause - affect cycle that spirals off.

here in michigan we've had 3 major tornados come through in about a month.

that's very very uncharacteristic.

on top of that, seismic activity in the world is really seeming to increase.
chile, china, iceland.

we even had an earthquake here and in canada!

nobody has the crystal ball. unfortunately the media has too much to gain from doomsday'ing.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

CarbonSystem wrote:

here in michigan we've had 3 major tornados come through in about a month.

on top of that, seismic activity in the world is really seeming to increase.
chile, china, iceland.

we even had an earthquake here and in canada!

Is that all due to global warming too?

0 Replies

This is an interesting little story

http://www.startribune.com/local/99072699.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Quote:

Climate discussion heats up on the Web

A St. Thomas professor's response to a British climate change skeptic has bloggers and others all fired up.

By BILL McAULIFFE, Star Tribune

A University of St. Thomas professor's online rebuttal to a well-known British climate change skeptic has touched off a cyberspace heat storm and activated the university's legal team.

Googling Monckton and Abraham will get you to some of the online chatter. Here are links to some of the materials.

Quote:

These materials are at the heart of a heated online exchange about climate change:
Lord Monckton power point:

www.tinyurl.com/yzw79j2
Monckton presentation at Bethel University:

www.tinyurl.com/yz9mom8
Prof. John Armstrong's You Tube rebuttal:

www.tinyurl.com/2w8yh9j
Related Content

The general feeling seems to be that Abraham smacked down Monckton and Monckton has responded by threatening the school with a libel suit. The school's lawyers basically told Monckton to shut up and go away. They stood behind that smack down.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

This is an interesting little story

Not very interesting or pertinent as this one, which illustrates how fraudulant data may have helped create the global warming sky is falling crap:

1 Reply

Quote:

http://master-in-global-environmental-change.ie.edu/index.php?gclid=CMTEyPTXh6MCFd1_5QodOQx7KA
Global environmental change is characterized by complex interactions between processes with different impacts between geographical areas. This complexity calls for professionals with a broad outlook and strong analytical skills, trained to translate data into understanding, and communicate with decision makers.

0 Replies

@okie,

You mean different locations have different temperatures okie? Wow.. That is hardly news but it doesn't prove that data is fraudulant. [sic] The only thing it might prove is that you have a hard time coming up with a valid argument.

In order for you to be able to argue this okie, you would need to show that the site for the temperature has been moved over time to force the data to show an increase that isn't really there. You can't do that. You can only show one instance and then claim one instance proves the data is fraudulent. In reality, it doesn't prove anything other than you are the one trying to manipulate data to make a case.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You mean different locations have different temperatures okie? Wow.. That is hardly news but it doesn't prove that data is fraudulant. [sic] The only thing it might prove is that you have a hard time coming up with a valid argument.

Only a mental midget or extreme partisan would argue that a skewed temp reading in a parking lot that is 5 degrees hotter than it should be is not fraudulant. But I know you well enough now that you are a liberal apologist, no matter the evidence, Parados, so no worry, go on about your business, we can agree to disagree. If you think parking lot temps are valid, fine, but why not put a barbecue there as well and take the temps during an evening cookout, you could really prove global warming and get everyone worked up into a frenzy over the world coming to an end.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Only a mental midget or extreme partisan would argue that a skewed temp reading in a parking lot that is 5 degrees hotter than it should be is not fraudulant

So.. if the temperature is ALWAYS taken in the parking lot, why would we see any increase over time?
You can't answer that question, can you okie?

2 Replies

@parados,

Good grief, Parados, you can't figure out that a parking lot is not a stable environment to take readings? You actually think the error will be straight line, just crank in a 5 degree correction factor or something? No wonder you are one mixed up dude in regard to this subject. Just a little common sense is needed in regard to this issue.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Good grief, Parados, you can't figure out that a parking lot is not a stable environment to take readings?

Tell us why it would vary over time?
Why would one sunny day act differently from another? Why would cloudy days act differently? What evidence do you have that the number of cloudy days has increased or decreased over the entire US over the last 3 decades?

Quote:

ust a little common sense is needed in regard to this issue.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to use actual science.

I challenge you to provide evidence that is scientific in nature that would show temperatures taken in a parking lot would show a different trend from readings taken 1/2 mile away. Common sense tells me while the parking lot may provide different temperatures it won't provide a different trend. But then my common sense is based on real life. Yours seems to be based on RW mythology.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Only a mental midget or extreme partisan would argue that a skewed temp reading in a parking lot that is 5 degrees hotter than it should be is not fraudulant

So.. if the temperature is ALWAYS taken in the parking lot, why would we see any increase over time?
You can't answer that question, can you okie?

But you didn't answer my question OKIE. Hmm.. I said you wouldn't and I was right.

I bet you still won't answer it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Come on, Parados, are you that dense? There are a myriad of reasons why it could increase over time, that may not be determined by actual climate. Periodic resurfacing of the parking lot which might involve differing quality of surface and so forth might affect the degree of heat retention or amount of error produced by the very bad siting of the climate station. Numbers and types of vehicles parked there could also change with time, depending upon changing usage of the building served by the parking lot, which could of course alter the amount of error with time. And since parking lots are also often near lawns, there is the potential of differing watering times and patterns of watering that might affect the temperature monitoring there.

There are in fact so many scenarios for why such a corrupted climate monitoring station might not be a straight line error, Parados, that frankly I find your reasoning power and logic to be in more serious question than I have ever thought of you before. This has to be one of your worst moments in terms of logic, and you have had some pretty bad ones already on this forum.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know