why climate change makes more sense

[GS78]

Because even al gore can't use global warming when we see stories like this one...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100304/ap_ ... es_stuck_5

[zephyp]

Ya know I can buy the business of a warmer atmosphere holding more moisture due to evaporation over the ocean but please little liberals who want to save the planet - tell me:

How do you account for record low temperatures across the entire planet this past winter?

I'd honestly like to hear their answer for that one. Climate change dont get it...

[tursiops]

I think the point is that "warmer" does not mean everywhere, all the time. You can have a colder winter, everywhere if you wish, but that can be balanced out by a warmer summer. The climate-change models say the the first effects are greater extremes, and that the general, overall-average warming, is just the net effect of how the extremes play out. So you can't make the "is global warming true?" arguments on the basis of looking at any particular spot, even averaged over all the years, or looking at all the spots, over just a season. You've got to make the judgments based on full-earth averages, over many years. This means that the experiences of an individual (or a region, or even a planet) over just one season are just a data point that needs to be averaged with the data points of all other individuals, all other regions, all other seasons. Then, and only then, can you judge the truth of global warming. So that's what all the arguments are about: how do you take into account all places (like the ocean, from which there is little data), and all times (over how many years do you need to average?).

Does this help?

[zephyp]

I think the point is that "warmer" does not mean everywhere, all the time. You can have a colder winter, everywhere if you wish, but that can be balanced out by a warmer summer. The climate-change models say the the first effects are greater extremes, and that the general, overall-average warming, is just the net effect of how the extremes play out. So you can't make the "is global warming true?" arguments on the basis of looking at any particular spot, even averaged over all the years, or looking at all the spots, over just a season. You've got to make the judgments based on full-earth averages, over many years. This means that the experiences of an individual (or a region, or even a planet) over just one season are just a data point that needs to be averaged with the data points of all other individuals, all other regions, all other seasons. Then, and only then, can you judge the truth of global warming. So that's what all the arguments are about: how do you take into account all places (like the ocean, from which there is little data), and all times (over how many years do you need to average?).

Does this help?

Help me understand that global warming and climate change and whatever else liberal socialists want to call it is all based on junk science?

Indeed it does.

[zephyp]

I think the point is that "warmer" does not mean everywhere, all the time. You can have a colder winter, everywhere if you wish, but that can be balanced out by a warmer summer. The climate-change models say the the first effects are greater extremes, and that the general, overall-average warming, is just the net effect of how the extremes play out. So you can't make the "is global warming true?" arguments on the basis of looking at any particular spot, even averaged over all the years, or looking at all the spots, over just a season. You've got to make the judgments based on full-earth averages, over many years. This means that the experiences of an individual (or a region, or even a planet) over just one season are just a data point that needs to be averaged with the data points of all other individuals, all other regions, all other seasons. Then, and only then, can you judge the truth of global warming. So that's what all the arguments are about: how do you take into account all places (like the ocean, from which there is little data), and all times (over how many years do you need to average?).

Does this help?

Help me understand that global warming and climate change and whatever else liberal socialists want to call it is all based on junk science?

Indeed it does. But that wasnt the question.

[WildBill44]

What it all boils down to is this: a New World Order using questionable "science" arrived at by ignoring anything that disagrees with their "findings" and attempting to browbeat skeptics into silence. Their "solution" is to create a socialist world government that will stifle and kill those who produce anything by confiscating from them and giving to those who hasn't, don't or can't produce anything other than offspring to add to the world! People like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are some of the "illustrious" trash leading this group of international liars and cheats.

[coltman]

Isn't it positively Darwinian that the preponderance of those sold on the whole global warming climate change economic suicide pact are those who are least likely to own firearms? I wonder how many of them have any backup plan for a natural or 'man made' disaster, supplies, water, bug out/in bag? I live in rural VA, and I've got secure back up locations/contigencies. My refuge of last resort is a government shelter. Remember the Dome in N Orleans? I'll take my chances in the woods first.

[tursiops]

Sorry, Zephyr, I clearly misunderstood your question. When you asked:
"How do you account for record low temperatures across the entire planet this past winter?
I'd honestly like to hear their answer for that one."

I thought you were asking a real question so I provided a real answer.
But you weren't asking a real question, were you?

I'll stick with gun issues on this forum. At least, if any ever get posted. The whole forum has become an Obama-hating clique that would rather rant than enjoy guns and shooting. Sad.

[Leonidis]

What it all boils down to is this: a New World Order using questionable "science" arrived at by ignoring anything that disagrees with their "findings" and attempting to browbeat skeptics into silence. Their "solution" is to create a socialist world government that will stifle and kill those who produce anything by confiscating from them and giving to those who hasn't, don't or can't produce anything other than offspring to add to the world! People like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are some of the "illustrious" trash leading this group of international liars and cheats.

Are you serious? New World Order? Socialist World Government? International liars and cheats? Someone's been wearing their foil hat a little too tight.

[WildBill44]

I must ask, do you buy the whole Obama/Gore BS about "global warming" as presented by this upstanding, honest and self proclaimed "transparent" regime in DC at the moment? If you do, I'll stand by my "tin-foil hat", and you can continue to wear you blinders as you follow that yellow brick to the land of make believe.

[Leonidis]

I must ask, do you buy the whole Obama/Gore BS about "global warming" as presented by this upstanding, honest and self proclaimed "transparent" regime in DC at the moment? If you do, I'll stand by my "tin-foil hat", and you can continue to wear you blinders as you follow that yellow brick to the land of make believe.

Actually, I do. And I base this on the science at hand and not on who is in the White House at the moment or--like you appear to be. I suggest you read some of the scientific literature that exists on the basis for the conclusions that GW is indeed happening rather than the unsubstantiated or premeditated conclusions put out by the conservative media. Take a look at the article below, which lays out the scientic consensus that exists for global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

As for blinders, don't think so. I've read both pro and con on GW and it seems the con side of the argument has the blinders on. And what this has to do with firearms, I don't know. This board is getting looney.

[zephyp]

Well, take a look around you at all the so called global warming experts. Botched reports, behind the scenes e-mails, resignations, threats of suicide. Dont sound like experts to me.

When I was in grad school a botched report was unacceptable. It earned you an F.

[zephyp]

Sorry, Zephyr, I clearly misunderstood your question. When you asked:
"How do you account for record low temperatures across the entire planet this past winter?
I'd honestly like to hear their answer for that one."

I thought you were asking a real question so I provided a real answer.
But you weren't asking a real question, were you?

I'll stick with gun issues on this forum. At least, if any ever get posted. The whole forum has become an Obama-hating clique that would rather rant than enjoy guns and shooting. Sad.

Plenty of gun stuff in other topics. Dont take this personally.

[Leonidis]

Well, take a look around you at all the so called global warming experts. Botched reports, behind the scenes e-mails, resignations, threats of suicide. Dont sound like experts to me.

When I was in grad school a botched report was unacceptable. It earned you an F.

And you can say the same about the global warming naysayers as well-. Some of their analyses have been incomplete, failing to provide data to back up their claims, or that they are "liberal" in the use of anecdotal data that isn't reflective of the preponderence of evidence (the "how bout those snowstorms in Washington, huh?, meanwhile ignoring the fact that in the southern hemisphere, they're undergoing one of their hottest summers on record. And how bout that lack of snow in Vancouver for the Olympics?).

[zephyp]

Well, take a look around you at all the so called global warming experts. Botched reports, behind the scenes e-mails, resignations, threats of suicide. Dont sound like experts to me.

When I was in grad school a botched report was unacceptable. It earned you an F.

And you can say the same about the global warming naysayers as well-. Some of their analyses have been incomplete, failing to provide data to back up their claims, or that they are "liberal" in the use of anecdotal data that isn't reflective of the preponderence of evidence (the "how bout those snowstorms in Washington, huh?, meanwhile ignoring the fact that in the southern hemisphere, they're undergoing one of their hottest summers on record. And how bout that lack of snow in Vancouver for the Olympics?).

Ok. So the point is there are disconnects on both sides. The impact of this economically to US citizens will be enormous if something like cap and trade is passed. I'm sure you're aware that as a nation we are already greatly suffering in that respect. To put more in the way of sharply escalated energy bills on the backs of Americans right now would be heinous. The current administration is harping about millions who cant afford health insurance. With cap and trade they surely wont be able to afford it, but wait - they'll be forced to buy it. How will they feed their families. I'm sure you have an answer - go get help from the government.

Which, my friend is exactly what they want. Make everyone so dependent on them that they have complete control.

Why do think the states have such a big problem with sovereignty?

Answer: they get so much federal "aid" it would cut off their nose to spite their face if they turned against the nanny state.

But back to global warming. As a Christian I truly believe God directs us to be good stewards of the planet and not make a big mess. I also believe He wants us to be able to take care of ourselves. And, as His creation we come first. To put ourselves at jeopardy to "save the planet" is not His will. Furthermore, only He can save the planet. Not us.

Lastly, obama recently stated that "we cant control nature." Ok, then how can he stand there and state matter of factly that we can "save the planet?"

Bottom line: lets get the economy on track. Get people back to work. Tackle the health care dilemma sensibly and then maybe we can afford to save the planet. If we dont help ourselves first it simply wont matter.

</rant>

[GS78]

They needed to c reate GW to usher in their "green jobs, crap and trade" bu**sh*t. Its just that simple. Al Gore, who also invented the internet, has made millions of dollars so far, just selling make believe "credits" to offset the effects of fossil fuels, that by the way, escape his gulfstream 5 at a rate so high it almost rivals the deficit numbers...


The fact is that europe has already nuetered itself with this ridiculous scheme, and now the socialists want to do the same to the USA. All this global warming crap is, is a tax on prosperity and a redistribution of wealth . See cloward piven , again....(only on a global initiative) even the original scientists who worked on this "theory" have abandoned it. John Coleman the founder of the weather channel....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ming-fraud

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... am-history

[wally626]

Good site for looking into the climate issues is http://wattsupwiththat.com/

It has been very snowy for the last decade, the northern hemisphere extent of snowfall is been highest for the last 10 years compared to the last 30 years (record is limited by how long we have had satellite measurements) The extent of sea ice, north and south pole, is also the highest it has been in 30 years, one again limited by satellites.

The biggest issue in climate science is that we have had decent records of worldwide temperature and snowfall and ice for only about 30 years, since many global climate trends appear to last longer than thirty years it is really impossible to say with any certainty at all whether the Earth is on a long term warming trend or not. There are a few long term instrument temperature records that suggest at least the North Atlantic region has been warming at a rate of about .25 deg C per century for the last 300 years or so. Of course this trends starts in the little ice age, which was suspected to be rather cold. You can make an estimate of temperature from various things like tree rings, oxygen isotopes etc. and these records suggest there has been a thousand year cycle of warming and cooling, Warm during the Roman period and around 1000 AD, cold around 500 AD and 1500 AD, warm again around 2000 AD, so are we in for a 500 year slide to colder temperatures?? The large climate models all missed the last 10 years of steady to cooling temperatures, so they are a bit suspect. In fact they all use very similar assumptions especially in regards to feedback mechanisms, recent science has shown evidence that these feedback mechanisms may be much weaker than the levels used in the models. thus the models may be way over predicting future temperature trends. Most everything else they have predicted such as more tornados, more hurricanes, etc. have also not happened. The ground based temperature records are very suspect due to issues of instrument placement, the urban heat island effect, and just unwarranted adjustments to the records.

One of the standard article at Watts Up With That is a look at particular temperature sensors used in climate modeling, a very large percent appear to be located next to barbecues and burn barrels. Some of those barrels may have been shot full of holes by people shooting guns.

Just to note, even though it has been a good snowy Jan and Feb in VA, the global satellite record has Jan and Feb as being well above average temperture world wide, this is mostly due to warm ocean waters in the pacific, good for CA, OR and WA but not so much for us.

[WildBill44]

As for the obvious dislike for Obama and his socialist regime, that fits quite well within this group if fact since he and his entire group of criminals are VERY anti-gun, anti-freedom and anti-American. I'd feel correct saying that the vast majority in this group either are or have been either military or law enforcement and as such have all taken at least one or more oaths to defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Seeing how Obama is doing all he can to destroy that document and our nation causes us to dislike him intensely. It ties in with this forum in particular because Obama has always been anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment and has filled his regime with like minded people with track records of being communists as well as anti-gun. Our dislike of him has nothing to do with race, it is because of his background (or lack thereof!), his positions and his actions. It would make no difference if he was green, if his actions and positions were those of Obama, I think most of us would be opposed to him. Simple as that, and it has EVERYTHING to do with guns as well!

[GS78]

They needed to c reate GW to usher in their "green jobs, crap and trade" bu**sh*t. Its just that simple. Al Gore, who also invented the internet, has made millions of dollars so far, just selling make believe "credits" to offset the effects of fossil fuels, that by the way, escape his gulfstream 5 at a rate so high it almost rivals the deficit numbers...


The fact is that europe has already nuetered itself with this ridiculous scheme, and now the socialists want to do the same to the USA. All this global warming crap is, is a tax on prosperity and a redistribution of wealth . See cloward piven , again....(only on a global initiative) even the original scientists who worked on this "theory" have abandoned it. John Coleman the founder of the weather channel....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ming-fraud

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... am-history

.......more today....

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrel ... broad.html


seems the majority of AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS from OBAMAS stimulus for "green jobs" is being diverted to foreign countries.

[GS78]

...maybe thats why the dems can claim they are creating and saving so many jobs........its just that the jobs are in China, not here. Well that would explain why with claims of several million jobs saved, our unemployment numbers continue to RISE not fall. At least we know Obama got something for selling out the USA, a very colorful MAO christmas tree ornament.