There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[wmw999 2,121]

There probably isn't one single cause of GW. I'm perfectly willing to believe that man is one of them, and that it's accelerating faster than it might otherwise. I've seen charts that I'm very comfortable believing, especially given the source and presenter.

I also believe that it's easier for us to take smaller steps earlier to make GW happen slower regardless, and to become accustomed to its effects. Because it will have an effect on how we live. Canada's beachfront property will become a whole lot more valuable if it gets warm enough .

The fact that it might not happen in our lifetime is irrelevant. I have a child, and I prefer that his world also be comfortable.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

There probably isn't one single cause of GW. I'm perfectly willing to believe that man is one of them, and that it's accelerating faster than it might otherwise. I've seen charts that I'm very comfortable believing, especially given the source and presenter.

I also believe that it's easier for us to take smaller steps earlier to make GW happen slower regardless, and to become accustomed to its effects. Because it will have an effect on how we live. Canada's beachfront property will become a whole lot more valuable if it gets warm enough .

The fact that it might not happen in our lifetime is irrelevant. I have a child, and I prefer that his world also be comfortable.

Wendy W.

I believe any warming we may be seeing is from natural causes for the most part. If man has any effect it is nearly un-measurable. Geopalentologists are stepping up saying fossil records indicate to them periods of higher temps, higher CO and speak to the relationship of the two to each other.

I, as you do not want to wreck the planet (which is the acusation usually thrown at those that disagree with GW alarmists) but I do believe that GW proponents are after large amounts of money from developed countries. Doing that will not fix anything

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

> but I do believe that GW proponents are after large amounts
> of money from developed countries.

Again, how does that happen? Let's say a scientist does some work and shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (as many have done.) Let's say some politician then requires a reduction in CO2 in the US. Who mails the scientist a big fat check? Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to climatologists?

On the opposite side, we know that people can make money through denial. The smoking industry was hit hard by relevations that smoking can cause cancer. They started a huge PR campaign to discredit those results, and saw the results of that campaign in their bottom line. They invested a few million in PR and got tens of millions in increased sales. So oil and coal companies have a strong incentive to muddy the waters and pay groups to conclude that:

-there's no such thing as global warming
-there is global warming but it's natural
-maybe we are the cause after all but it's good for us (that's the position of the group you linked to BTW)

I would think these simultaneous claims would do more to discredit them than anything an outsider could say about them. Sort of like the suspect who says "I wasn't there, and even if I was there I didn't steal the money, and even if I stole it I didn't hurt anyone!" Should we consider him a credible guy?

Michael Crichton wrote a book in which the climate-change advocate was as bad as any James Bond villain, and wanted to destroy the world (or at least the US.) As I am sure you are aware, the real world doesn't work like that.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This last December in Chicago was warmer than any other since records began. Record warm temperatures in the northeast, too.

Means absolutly nothing. But fun to post ?

If the stuff you posted was in a peer reviewed scientific journal it would be worth reading, but it's not, so it isn't any more meaningful than my post.

Ah, but it is peer reviewed

Looked like a web site rant to me.

You looked wrong.

I think NOT.


From its own mission statement:

It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials.

Neither an editorial, nor a "mini review", are peer reviewed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> but I do believe that GW proponents are after large amounts
> of money from developed countries.

Again, how does that happen? Let's say a scientist does some work and shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (as many have done.) Let's say some politician then requires a reduction in CO2 in the US. Who mails the scientist a big fat check? Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to climatologists?

I guess this same kind of rationale could be applied to all research. Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to researchers.LOL

Quote

On the opposite side, we know that people can make money through denial. The smoking industry was hit hard by relevations that smoking can cause cancer. They started a huge PR campaign to discredit those results, and saw the results of that campaign in their bottom line. They invested a few million in PR and got tens of millions in increased sales.

Funny how those studies that conclude things like "impact of secondhand smoke is neglibible" gwt attacked as big tobacco propaganda and/or get stiffled by organizations like the W.H.O..

[billvon 2,400]

>Funny how those studies that conclude things like "impact of secondhand smoke is neglibible" . . .

I'm living proof that it isn't.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Funny how those studies that conclude things like "impact of secondhand smoke is neglibible" . . .

I'm living proof that it isn't.

But the W.H.O says second hand smoke has little or know affect??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>Funny how those studies that conclude things like "impact of secondhand smoke is neglibible" . . .

I'm living proof that it isn't.

But the W.H.O says second hand smoke has little or know affect??

Not true.

www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/8_1ets.pdf

www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/index.html

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2053840.stm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

No, they didn't. The WHO study you are referring to showed a slight increase in the risk of lung cancer for people who worked with/lived with smokers. The pro-smoking lobby says the increase is statistically insignificant. It does not cover emphysema, COPD or asthma (which me and my sisters have from living with two parents that smoked when we were young.)

[billvon 2,400]

>Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to researchers.

?? I'm not the one claiming that climate researchers are being "paid off" by the "pro-global-warming" lobby. Most climate researchers continue to be paid by the same universities that have been paying them for decades to research everything from the Higgs boson to continental drift.

>and/or get stiffled by organizations like the W.H.O..

I'd hate to get stiffled! That just sounds unpleasant.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'd hate to get stiffled! That just sounds unpleasant.

Hey to each their own... some times a stiff one just fits so nicely.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

> but I do believe that GW proponents are after large amounts
> of money from developed countries.

Again, how does that happen? Let's say a scientist does some work and shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (as many have done.) Let's say some politician then requires a reduction in CO2 in the US. Who mails the scientist a big fat check? Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to climatologists?

I guess this same kind of rationale could be applied to all research. Where is the secret vault that contains all the money to be sent to researchers.LOL

Quote

On the opposite side, we know that people can make money through denial. The smoking industry was hit hard by relevations that smoking can cause cancer. They started a huge PR campaign to discredit those results, and saw the results of that campaign in their bottom line. They invested a few million in PR and got tens of millions in increased sales.

Funny how those studies that conclude things like "impact of secondhand smoke is neglibible" gwt attacked as big tobacco propaganda and/or get stiffled by organizations like the W.H.O..

As one who did research in a university for more than 25 years before becoming an administrator, I'd like to know where that money vault is too. My income was totally uncorrelated with my research results or who sponsored the research.

The ONLY organization I ever knew to "stifle" research results was the US Government, for security reasons. I can't imagine any faculty ever going along with a research cover up - it would lead to an instant vote of censure on the university administration if they tried to pull that one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e43fe006-a58b-11db-a4e0-0000779e2340.html[/url][url]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Oh DO PAY ATTENTION, rushmc!

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2624785#2624785

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Since I already responded in the other thread, you CLEARLY were not paying attention

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Since I already responded in the other thread, you CLEARLY were not paying attention

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

12 years after RushMC posted the article that made this claim I thought we'd check back in to see how climate change has been progressing.

Temperatures since then attached and highlighted.

[kallend 1,623]

billvon

12 years after RushMC posted the article that made this claim I thought we'd check back in to see how climate change has been progressing.

Temperatures since then attached and highlighted.

But, but, 2017 was cooler than 2016! Ice age coming.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

12 years after RushMC posted the article that made this claim I thought we'd check back in to see how climate change has been progressing.

Temperatures since then attached and highlighted.

Nothing near as disastrous as predicted even though they're using manipulated data.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

***12 years after RushMC posted the article that made this claim I thought we'd check back in to see how climate change has been progressing.

Temperatures since then attached and highlighted.

Nothing near as disastrous as predicted even though they're using manipulated data.

But you said it had stopped. Did Breitbart lie to you when you copied this over?

[billvon 2,400]

From Inside Climate News:
=======================
Climate Change Is Happening Faster Than Expected, and It’s More Extreme

New research suggests human-caused emissions will lead to bigger impacts on heat and extreme weather, and sooner than the IPCC warned just three years ago.

BY BOB BERWYN

In the past year, the scientific consensus shifted toward a grimmer and less uncertain picture of the risks posed by climate change.

When the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its 5th Climate Assessment in 2014, it formally declared that observed warming was "extremely likely" to be mostly caused by human activity.

This year, a major scientific update from the United States Global Change Research Program put it more bluntly: "There is no convincing alternative explanation."

Other scientific authorities have issued similar assessments:

The Royal Society published a compendium of how the science has advanced, warning that it seems likelier that we've been underestimating the risks of warming than overestimating them.

The American Meteorological Society issued its annual study of extreme weather events and said that many of those it studied this year would not have been possible without the influence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said recent melting of the Arctic was not moderating and was more intense than at any time in recorded history.
While 2017 may not have hit a global temperature record, it is running in second or third place, and on the heels of records set in 2015 and 2016. Talk of some kind of "hiatus" seems as old as disco music.
====================

[billvon 2,400]

Iago

Nice Powerpoint.
I like Powerpoint.
Powerpoint is cool.

It's not Powerpoint. It's . . .

(sshh, don't stop him, he's on a roll.)

[kallend 1,623]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/26/a-huge-stretch-of-the-arctic-ocean-is-turning-into-the-atlantic-right-before-our-eyes/?utm_term=.e4cd7ce111bc&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
"A huge stretch of the Arctic Ocean is rapidly turning into the Atlantic."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.