<<<< This is not about "global warming." Rather, it is about taxation and wealth distribution, period.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly
released... and here is the chart to prove it. The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until
August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted
for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to
1996.
 |
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t
find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since
a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with
your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since
1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the
globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures
released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the
aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has
been flat. . . . . . . . . . if I have your attention, you might want to read the full article at Daily
Mail,co.uk
___________________________ Check out these sites. You will not find quotes from the NYTimes as proof of global warming - only science.
Warming Info
WattsUp - award winning conservative site
World Climate Report - the Internet's longest running climate change blog
Niche Modeling - the power of numeracy/ A great climate change blog albeit technical.
|
It's a pattern. It's a mindset. The inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over one political party. As the evidence for a warming planet becomes ever stronger — and ever scarier — the G.O.P. has buried deeper into denial, into assertions that the whole thing is a hoax concocted by a vast conspiracy of scientists. And this denial has been accompanied by frantic efforts to silence and punish anyone reporting the inconvenient facts.
ReplyDeleteBut the same phenomenon is visible in many other fields. The most recent demonstration came in the matter of election polls. Coming into the recent election, state-level polling clearly pointed to an Obama victory — yet more or less the whole Republican Party refused to acknowledge this reality. Instead, pundits and politicians alike fiercely denied the numbers and personally attacked anyone pointing out the obvious; the demonizing of The Times’s Nate Silver, in particular, was remarkable to behold.
Modern American conservatism is highly correlated with authoritarian inclinations — and authoritarians are strongly inclined to reject any evidence contradicting their prior beliefs. Today’s Republicans cocoon themselves in an alternate reality defined by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and only on rare occasions — like on election night — encounter any hint that what they believe might not be true.
We are, after all, living in an era when science plays a crucial economic role. How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6.000 years old? How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?
--NYT editorial
... exactly
David Rose, the writer of Smithson's cited article, is a perfect example of why Smithson is in denial, misinformed and pig ignorant.
ReplyDeleteLook at his track record.
Consistently wrong, deceptive.
Soooo, its hot in the Dakotas but not in Montana and Idaho, and that is global warming. It snows in record amounts in Colorado but the winter is perfectly normal in California, and that is global warming. Spain records record heat a few years back when all of its neighbors had normal years, and the clowns on the Left call that "global warming." The North Cap loses nearly all of its ice, every freaking year, and, from time to time, you all call that "global warming."
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that the Warming Left is same bunch that gave us "shovel ready jobs" and told the world that if we would just air up our tires, we would not need MidEast oil "no more." This is the same bunch that thinks Bush blew up the Twin Towers and considers Maxine Waters an intellectual icon. Then there is Al Gore telling us the world was coming to an end in 2013, that we could expect 20 feet of water in New York City as a matter of course -- laughable. Over my life time, your side has come up with one disaster theme after another. We had the ice age of the mid-70's; the acid rain crisis; the Ozone death crisis. You banned DDT and 40 million African's have died because of malaria. Let's not forget Paul Erhlich and his population explosion nonsense. Heck, we were all going to starve to death 15 years ago. And what about post-Katrina and all those hurricanes and flood disaster that were about to happen . . . . . . . nothing. Now, we all have to listen to fairy tales and post-Sandy doomsday scenarios. You all are a joke and you are pissed because those of us who can think and walk upright have heard it all before, time and time again and no longer believe your crap.
Conspiracy theories, fear, and hidden agendas are a mainstay of irrational science denying conservatives. What is really remarkable is how clearly the ignorance and denial is virtually confined to one political party. What side of the aisle do all the creationist bills come from?
ReplyDeleteIt's really nice to be on the side of facts, evidence ... the smart people. Science has no agenda. Ignorant people with political agendas certainly do. It's a very clear dichotomy
You've got to be kidding. "Fear" is what you people do best. The central theme of "global warming" is this: "We are all going to die." You built your 2012 campaign on fear, not fact. "A vote for Romney is a vote for segregation and the end to feminism" is nothing short of a campaign built on fear.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, nothing I wrote in my first response [above] was untrue or off point. What did you do with my response? You ignored it and came up with nothing but Marxist talking points. What about Erhlich and his idiotic claims? What about Fat Al Gore and his end of the world, time dated, scenarios? What ever happened to the death grip of acid rain or the failing ozone layer? Why not a single major hurricane for years, following Katrina?
Conspiracies? You have your idiot claim that the Koch Brothers control the Tea Party Movement. You have those who believe Bush blew up the Twin Towers - how nuts is that? How much of a conspiracy theory is that? Bush "lied to America about Iraq" is another idiot conspiracy, especially when we all know that Clinton's CIA told Bush about the WMD and Bill Clinton confirmed their existence, as did Saddam Hussein, himself.
You are still whining about the Gore loss in Florida, but ignore the fact he lost all eight recounts, and the Florida Supreme Court was largely appointed by Democrats. More than that, be sure to forget that Florida would not have mattered if Fat Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee.
Why not do this, do the readership a favor and defeat my comments with facts. Give it try, for once in your pathetic life.
Smithson's David Rose's (serial liar) article debunked with FACTS.
ReplyDeleteHere you go 'smart guy'...
"Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum. However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect..."
"Perhaps most importantly, focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet "
Read more in the article ... of course Smithson will attack the messenger instead of the facts presented.
This is how people like Sithson operate. Like creationists who are so desperate to bolster their faith-based ideas that they'll find any kernal of information they can to reject science over faith, Smithson and pig ignorant conservatives do the same with climate change science... As creationists somehow believe every biology textbook in the world is part of some 'atheist conspiracy', Smithson and his ilk think climate scienctists are similarly on a path to wealth redistribution and leftist political agenda. It's really almost a mental disorder, but really just ignorance brazenly pushed.
This graphic sums up Smithson's shortsighted and pig ignorant article.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself, why do the majority of science deniers come from one side of the political aisle? Here's why.
It's clearly an intellectual/educational gap.
Your president talks and writes at an 8th grade level and, still, you cling to this fantasy that intelligence is measured on a partisan divide. Once again, you have decided to go ad hom in refusing to debate on subject matter. That is how you won the election, and that is clearly what you are trying to do, here.
ReplyDeleteYou have nothing, so you offer nothing.
My response(s) awaits your reply. My self esteem is not challenged by your childish proclamation, "I am smarter than you, so there" attacks. But, hey, that is how your president rolls, so why not the Minion Class?
Oh, as to your chart posted just above, go here, for a scientific and alternative opinion.
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#more-74819
Of five "steps" in the "escalator" .. your denialist website takes issue with just one. Te single kernal of doubt doesn't erase the big picture.
ReplyDeleteScience has no agenda.
Paranoid right wing lunatics do. (Smithson)
Like creations quote "christian" scientists... Smithson quotes people like Watts, a TV weatherman, not a climate scientist.
|Doesn't take much to convince Smithson he's right. It's a mindset. Lack of critical thinking, ignorance and simple minded.
1. "Your denialist website takes issue with just one." Hmmm, last time I looked, is the point is spot on, and it is, one point is all it takes to disprove a theory. Look, Watts is a certified meteorologist -- aka "a scientist."
DeleteIn a letter written in 2008 and using a chart similar to that of Watts, we have Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, we have this: "We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Icecore data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically." Go to http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf and you find a listing of scientists challenging the claim that CO2 effects temperature rise.
2. "Science has no agenda." It was science that supported Erhlich in his proposition that increasing populations would find us all dead by 20 years ago if we did not allow for "central controls" and sensible world governance. It was science that spoke of dozens of major hurricanes following the 2005 Katrina . . . agenda up wazuuu.
By way of reminder, you cannot debate any of the following and the several points are, in fact, reasons - in and of themselves - for advertising the failure of critical thinking on the part of those who are "scientists" in your camp. Here are those points, again:
Soooo, its hot in the Dakotas but not in Montana and Idaho, and that is global warming. It snows in record amounts in Colorado but the winter is perfectly normal in California, and that is global warming. Spain records record heat a few years back when all of its neighbors had normal years, and the clowns on the Left call that "global warming." The North Cap loses nearly all of its ice, every freaking year, and, from time to time, you all call that "global warming."
Understand that the Warming Left is same bunch that gave us "shovel ready jobs" and told the world that if we would just air up our tires, we would not need MidEast oil "no more." This is the same bunch that thinks Bush blew up the Twin Towers and considers Maxine Waters an intellectual icon. Then there is Al Gore telling us the world was coming to an end in 2013, that we could expect 20 feet of water in New York City as a matter of course -- laughable. Over my life time, your side has come up with one disaster theme after another. We had the ice age of the mid-70's; the acid rain crisis; the Ozone death crisis. You banned DDT and 40 million African's have died because of malaria. Let's not forget Paul Erhlich and his population explosion nonsense. Heck, we were all going to starve to death 15 years ago. And what about post-Katrina and all those hurricanes and flood disaster that were about to happen . . . . . . . nothing. Now, we all have to listen to fairy tales and post-Sandy doomsday scenarios. You all are a joke and you are pissed because those of us who can think and walk upright have heard it all before, time and time again and no longer believe your crap.
What's really funny is that conservatives are really big on funding NASA and the military, yet they ignore the findings of both regarding climate change.
ReplyDeleteNASA Climate page
US Navy Climate Change policy page
These morns select their blindspots on the basis of political dogma, not a PREPONDERANCE of FACTS and EVIDENCE. They look for any little naysayer and that they build their world view on. How pathetic.
From http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ipcc_letter_14april08.pdf,
ReplyDeleteWe have this: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.
"Science has no agenda" is refuted by Lindzen, when he wrote
"Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change
Exactly like I said ... Lindzen, your pet denialist... a guy in the twilight of his career - completely discredited by the scientific community - but good enough for Smithson to hang his hat on. All it takes is one contrarian denier out of 100 concurent climate scientists, who does Smithson believe? The one or he 99? The one who reinforces his ignorance.
ReplyDelete"mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper - rejected it."
Temp locations sites and the upperward trend in co2 have no linkage. While the location sites were challenged by Lindzen and Watts, the relationship between tempt and co2 was not.
DeleteLindzen's rejection letter for research presented to the National Academy of Sciences
ReplyDeletehttp://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf
But Smithson will believe everything he says... uncritically, because that is how conservatives operate. They operate on superficial information, touted by their pet non-reality media sources. An alternate universe of ignorance in which Smithson and many like him live in. It is sad, pathetic, but soon their kind will die off and the flat earthers will be a memory.
How about these names: Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth
ReplyDeleteSciences, University of Ottawa, Canada 219
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert
reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and
Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.
and another 650 scientists objecting to the global warming hype.
The reader can find their names and the 200plus page study they support here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
While you want to poke fun at Watts and Lindzen, some of your authorities are more than laughable, look at -- Erlich, Fat Al Gore, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi. What about the scientists who came up with the ozone scare, and the acid rain scare, and the mini-ice age scare and the post-Katrina hurricane scare? All such nonsense has been proven wrong, historically. What is funny is this: global warming disaster(s) only occur in your warming models. It NEVER translates into reality.
Ian Clark works for the Exxon Funded Fraser Institute.
ReplyDeleteRichard S. Courtney is the Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry. It is unclear whether he has bonefide degrees in any science field.
Willem de Lange has been thoroughly debunked
David Deming is not a climate scientist, a geologist.
WE've seen your LISTS before.
Reality
Sooo, are you going to review and condemn each of the 650 names on the list? You want us to believe that none of them are intellectually responsible in their opinions? You are laughable in this claim. By the way, apparently only with "climate change" do you demand "qualified people." Up until now, you did not care about qualifications.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this list:
Rachel Carson, 1962 http://www.examiner.com/article/famous-health-scares-the-great-ddt-scare-of-1962, fully unqualified to drive the discussion against DDT, nevertheless became an icon in the environmentalist movement and hundreds of million have died because of her nonsense. Verdict: unqualified and wrong.
Michael Moore: the Left’s version of a global warming expert. Besides being ugly fat, he is grossly unqualified and wrong.
Al Gore: another donut eater who flunked out of seminary and now puts himself forward as an expert on global warming. Verdict – unqualified and wrong.
Stephen Schneider helped father the new ice age scare. See Science Digest, February 1973. He was wrong on the ice age thingy, so he changed his tune and went with global warming. He is not a climatologist, and his theories have been proven wrong.
Robert Watson, On 22nd October 1991, cochairman of a panel of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), gave a press conference orchestrated by a paid media consultant. Watson issued dire warnings in relation to the thinning of the ozone layer, claiming the executive summary he presented were the findings contained in a 300-page report to be released by the UNEP. However, that report does not exist, according to UNEP spokesmen. Watson was proven to be unqualified and wrong.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/NORTON05.txt
There is the Rowland and Molina Theory which told us that spray cans were going to destroy the protective layer in the atmosphere. We were all going to die from ultraviolet exposure. These two forget tell us that CFC’s (the bad stuff in those spray cans) rose no higher into the atmosphere than 40 kilometers. We spent billions on this hoax - another unqualified failure from the Left.
Ed Bradley, a Left-wing journalist appearing on CBS TVs "60 Minutes" on February 26, 1989 said:
"The most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples to keep them on the trees longer and make them look better. That's the conclusion of a number of scientific experts, and who is most at risk? Children who may someday develop cancer." Meryl Streep and other qualified Lefties began a scare campaign that bankrupted thousands of apply growers, all over something that patently false.
In the late 1989, we had the Alar scare. Three years after baby food manufacturers had stopped us this ingredient What followed was a campaign of fear and deceit by the Lefties In the book Fear of Food (Free Enterprise Press, 1990), Andrea Arnold characterized NRDC's Alar scare as "a deliberately misleading environmentalist fund-raising campaign."
False equivalency arguments are classic fare with paranoid conservative conspiracy theorists, particularly ignorant science deniers, creationists, etc...
ReplyDeleteLadies and gentlemen, the liberal representative in this debate has ended his effort at relevant debate with a return to name calling and ad hom nonsense.
ReplyDeleteCase closed.
Case closed. Who you gonna believe?
ReplyDelete1) The US military, NASA, the consensus of the world climate modeling labs?
[Editor’s notes: NASA stresses the rise of co2 - but does not argue for temperature increase as a result of co2 levels. THAT is the big question -- do increases in co2 level add to climate temperature changes and the clear answer is no. I have shown ample evidence and hundreds of pages of testimony in support of this point ]
or
2) A small handful of deniers, very few are respected and currently peer reviewed climate scientists.
[Editor: While Anonymous stresses “peer reviewed” opinion, of which there is amble on both sides of the equation, he forgets that all “peer reviewed” conclusions in the past have been wrong. New York is dry despite claims that it have 20 feet of water in its streets, by now. There was NO increase in catastrophic climate activity following Katrine AS ALL PEER REVIEWED CLIMATE MODELS indicated. And hundreds of qualified folks reject man caused temperature change].
The choice is:
You either believe
1) accepted science based on facts and evidence, or
2) all the consensus of all climate science labs in the world are part of a liberal conspiracy to redistribute wealth.
[Editor: Indeed, modern day global warming hoax is all about wealth redistribution, period. Look how it works. A factory over pollutes. Does it have to stop polluting? Hell no !!!!!!!!!!!! It simple goes to a plant that is not over polluting and buys “credits.” It, then, keeps on polluting - even increasing its polluting emissions. And that bit of idiocy is how the Left “solves” man made pollution.]
Let your readers decide... which is most plausible? Only an idiot could not see the truth
[Editor: I am ending this discussion. Thanks for your comments. I think the discussion is a good one, fully representative of the comments and tactics of the Left, on this issue].
Notice how the denier erased my links to NASA Climate Change and US Navy Climate Change observations.
ReplyDeleteThat should tell you something.
The linkage deletions were not intentional, dilwad. Re-post them but without comment. We are done with this debate.
ReplyDelete“Climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. …A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing…. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations world- wide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.”
ReplyDelete– US NAVY: Roadmap on Global Climate Change
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
And Smithson thinks the US Navy is part of the "liberal conspiracy"
Indeed, I do believe the military is now in the Progress/Yellow Dog for Courage Camp. If Obama, the Commander and Chief, tells the military at all levels, to support global warming fantasies, of course it will. So this source means absolutely nothing, precisely because it is not an independent opinion.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that the men and women who serve are not the problem, but those that are their leaders are very much the problem. In due time, women will be fighting on the front lines. If that includes battlefield/hand to hand combat, the idea is beyond stupid. The rules for engagement, have proven to be a curse to our soldiers, yet their commanders and generals continue to blindly surrender their command forces to this treasonous circumstance. Navy Seal Team Six was exposed by the blowhard, Joe Biden, and within 90 days, 17 members of that force were killed by the Taliban. The Administration should be put on trial for this crap, along with the battlefield commanders who have gone along with the Biden Betrayal. And look to Libya. Patraeus is screwing around (literally) while issuing statements that support the Commander on the Libyan rape and murders, and, a statement that has been proven false. In fact, Patraeus has denied his own lying testimony. We have the Afghan commander, Maj Gen John Allen, busy writing 30,000 pages of emails to some slut. Whether he was pocking her or not. how long does it take to write 30,000 of emails. I assume he read an equal amount in response. This country, at the levels described above, is an embarrassment to anyone with a brain and backbone.
Please note: I do not want to continue this thread. It is much too long, as it is. All other comments will be deleted in full.