Right, and have we seen more or less radiance from the sun in the last decade? And if CO2 at that altitude is such a problem, do you seriously think that less than 1% of the total in greeenhouse CO2 is ultimately the problem?

I think you don't like the analysis because what he's saying is upsetting to your belief in this stuff. The fact that we've seen different weather patterns than what we've been told it should be like with increased CO2 is already devastating enough.

"Tapper falsely suggested Bill Clinton proposed "slow[ing] down our economy" to fight climate change"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310009


Typical see what you want to see and if you dont make it up.

OK. I didn't see this. In fairness to Mr. Clinton, I concede this point. The guy who wrote this one obviously took Mr. Clinton's words out of context completely. Yes, it totally takes on a whole new meaning once you post his whole statement. :-? I'd still like to know how Mr. Clinton would intend to "get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics" though. When everything proposed so far has been nothing but slowing or punishing economic growth. Mr. Clinton does alot of vague speaking there.

You are not the first person to fall victim to bad info in a blog. Take at look at what happened to this guy. ;)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133039

Post 5

In reference to Bill being vague, You have a limited time when speaking to get your point across without losing the audience. So, in a way, I would have to agree he was vague. Maybe when giving a speech, you should reference yourself by providing seperate detailed info in printed form for the audience to look at later.

All the notable scientist and notable organizations are wrong and you are right?
Forgive me while I fall on the floor laughing. Not even a nice try. Try someone who knows something or at isn't paid for by big oil.
This from someone who thinks a one degree shift is no big deal. Whats the difference between freeze and thaw? Whats been happening to the ice? You've shown your area of expertise in credentialing or experience in research. I'll take the word of actual scientists not a wannabe.
I'll tell you what pull out a temperature graph from anywhere and see if there is a steadily growing spike in temperature above normal deviations.
For the sake of argument earth does not work that fast. Simple as that. Nowhere that I've read mentions that much of a temperature difference in such a short amount of time. Mother Nature works in fractions over long term. Take the ice melt over 17 years. Thats not even an eye blink. Lets look at respiratory disease for example. It can't be argued that respiratory disease has skyrocketed due to carbon monoxide levels being the main cause. You claim man made Co2 is not at high levels when matched with natural Co2 yet that small amount is having a major affect on our respiratory system. If it's doing that to us what makes you think it's not affecting GW. To think it does not affect the earth is so ................... These examples show what unnatural small amounts can do. One degree can cause ice shelves to melt and a little man made Co2/carbon monoxide is causing harm to living creatures. Of course it's going to affect the planet and any fool can see that by adding two and two together.
Dude, I've not changed one thing in any of my positions from day one. You are the only one on this board that supposedly knows what Gore says because you are the only person that brings him up. I will say this however it could be called Co2, man made gases, laughing gas or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't change a thing. Man is causing unnatural change.

Oh, it's not just me. I'm not alone in seeing how fraudulent these so called "scientists" are. There are alot of credible scientists out there who disagree with these nuts. I guess you forgot about that US Senate report. I'm not even sure that all these people you trust so much are credible scientists at all. Especially how they treat their own data, and the innacuracies of their predictions. It's not that they're just wrong in their predictions, it's that they never seem to correct themselves when their results differ from their premises. Anybody who has done any research can see these people don't operate like scientists. More like paid politicians. I also find it funny and a disservice to their own names that they make it a routine to eliminate anybody within their ranks that disagree with them. That's the only way they could get their so called "consensus" we kept hearing about last year from them.

Yeah, except that when your're at 40 below zero, 1 degree isn't even noticeable. I guess you think it hovers around 32-33 degrees up in the arctic ice? I notice you can't even answer the questions about whether or not any ice loss or gains may be natural and normal. As far as who's word you take, you seek internet articles to feed your beliefs, and do no thinking on your part. You can't even see how mathematically challenged some of these theories are. Like I said, I question some of these people whoi claim to be "scientists". If they are scientists, they're either lazy, or they simply expound theories without mathematics. As far as your temperature graph, at what point will the curve trend down? Right now, the indicators show cooling, despite CO2 levels increasing steadily. Your like a cultist because you haven't even noticed the recent cooling. We've just had one of the coldest winters when your organizations were telling us to prepare for a warm winter. They were completely wrong. They don't have a clue. In other words, what you're saying here is junk.

Well, you get one thing right here. It takes a while to see things happen in climate patterns. In that regard, your assuredness that global warming in general is a certainty cannot be so readily ascertained. Seeing that, I guess you don't realize that throughout Earth's history, it has warmed, cooled, warmed again, cooled again, ad nauseum. If CO2 was that harmful to the balance of the planet, Earth would have BBQ'd long ago. Well that is unless you believe that natural CO2 levels are static and unchanging decade after decade. There have also been periods of increased solar radiation that have been contributing factors in atmospheric warming. And the main thing you will not discuss is the warming we have seen in the solar system on other planets including the melting on the martian ice cap that happened around the same time as Earth's period of warming. Gee, facts are stubborn things, aren't they? ;)


Wrong again. The argument has always been that the CO2 coming out of the back end of your car, factories, and people exhaling is killing the planet. You have supported that in three major threads. It's the whole reason the argument exists. Don't try to backpeddle because now you understand just how little humanity outputs compared to the whole. It does matter what the gas in this argument is. It's what warming advocates have been talking about for the past few years as the gas of doom. Man simply doesn't produce enough to affect that much change. The current cooling proves it. If the assertions of man-made warming advocates, and "scientists" were correct, we'd be cooking. And we're not. These people who get funding got lots of splainin' to do.

lol

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

This is what has happened to the global warming movement. What are they so afraid of? :

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

One of bradclark's scientists. :lol:

Mr. Suzuki said that politicians should be held legally accountable for ignoring the science. In fact, he went as far to say that it is an "intergenerational crime." And then the back pedaling began. A spokesman has now said that the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally. Uh huh. Yeah, right. Ya know, the same could be said about their nuttiness over global warming. Here's the exact quote. from Suzuki,

Basically, if you look into this nonsense, you'll see that the whole global warming scam is all about pushing junk science to weaken Western capitalist economies and slow free enterprise. That seems to be the way the so called "fixes" are set up as. These are major contributors to this fraud. You know something smells rotten when you want to arrest people for not believing in your causes. When your arguments can stand on their merits, and your theories can stand on the evidence, there's no need for such insanity. This is what the warming movement has become...desperate.

@joegrundman-----Funny

Well it's not the first time I've had to retract either. I will always happily retract when incorrect. I should have sourced that article a little better. They totally minced Clinton's word unfairly. It was after all from a personal blog. Nice catch. Oops. :oops:

SD

What current cooling are you talking about?

Has the average global temperature dropped below 14.0 c while I was having dinner and I missed it?

All time high:

:sunny: 14.76 c set in 2005

Last year of record:

14.73 c in 2007

Previous highs:

14.71 c in 1998

14.49 c in 1990

14.42 c in 1988

14.40 c in 1981

14.27 c in 1980

Last time temp was below 14.0 c

:cool: 13.79 c in 1976

Since 1880 the avg temp has closed below 14.0 c 15 times.

We have not seen below 14 in 31 years! :damn:

The longest period above 14 before this was 5 years set in the 1940s.

So my thoughts are what cooling trend do you speak of?

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato...ata.htm#table1

Interesting date range choices. How come carbon numbers go back to medieval times but temperatrure only to 1880? Could previous temp calculations (assuming they're accurate) not reflect the Earth Policy Institutes line of argument?

Carbon content of the atmosphere can be measured from core samples of ice. Accurate temperature readings have only been taken from relatively recently, prior to that they would not be precise. These tables show projections back 200 years and 1000 years respectively. 10 Different sources are included in each table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7...urecomprs9.png

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7...urecompyw9.png

If they're projections they're pretty much useless i'd think Mr Beast.

Funny, I haven't heard of any credible scientists let alone lots. In regards the Senate report it said 450 scientists showed up. It doesn't say anything about them being all anti-GW. There is nothing that says they were anti-GW. No anti-GW site has crowed about that report at all let alone being anti-GW. I would think that if any notable scientists had been there that would have been news worthy itself. What makes the whole report forgettable is that news organizations did not take any notice of it. I'm sure that if it was that anti at least fox would have run the story. They didn't and I don't take just a bunch of scientist just showing up as testament to anything.
What I am attempting to do is show you what a one degree shift is capable of. That seems to be lost on you. A 30% loss of ice in seventeen years certainly seems lost on you.
There is nothing that says 2007 has been one of the coldest winters. Hell, even this February has been the wettest month in Connecticut recorded history. It is usually our month with the most snow this year it was with the most rain.
The 25 square mile Ayles Shelf breaking off in 07 and the 160 square mile ice shelf collapsing this year from the Wilkins Ice shelf doesn't happen from being a record cold year it's from thaw. That one degree you so easily want to ignore. The regions that did experience colder temps were because of the Nina winds as I showed a few comments back. If it will make you feel better they say 08 will be cooler. That will fall under the weather variance not a shift to beginnings of colder temperatures.
It's comments like this that show where you come from as well as the one below.
Look let me try and make this simpler for you. Hell, I can't make it simpler than I already have so I'll say it again. The solar system is warming thats a given that we both can agree on. What is wrong on this planet is the speed with which we are warming. A good thing you can check is the rate of melt of the Martian ice cap melt if you want. Obviously there are temp differences so I would say at a comparable rate. I bet it won't be close to the ice melt earth has experienced over the last 17 years. If it is I'll shut up about global warming from now on. If thats not an incentive......................
What are we arguing about? I don't care what you think I've said or what Gore said. Take it as man made gases in whatever terms suits you. Co2 however is the major pollutant. Does it change anything? Not at all. So whats the argument?
You haven't mentioned why such small quantities of whatever you want to call it has caused respiratory diseases at epidemic proportions yet you don't think it affects the planet.