Warm Weather

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Boater

Well, yes.

Science has been corrupted by politics. I don't think we can believe any of them anymore.

Boater - I'm confused by your post.... normally you represent the "skeptic" end of the climate change article, but the article you quoted was about how members of the Bush administration tried to suppress the findings of NASA scientists showing that climate change was a real, major, and growing problem.

There was nothing in the article about the science being disreputable, only the government's attempt to silence the scientists was labeled disreputable.

Have you changed sides, are did you not read the article carefully?

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Have you changed sides, are did you not read the article carefully?

My "side" is the open mind side. My point was that NASA does distort the data for political purposes. There are many other accusations out there. Here's another: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=518890

Since politics seems to influence scientists we should be wary of their conclusions. ClimateGate showed that many scientists are willing to spin the data to achieve political goals. NASA isn't immune. That's all.

[ITD]

It is pretty warm today and I did drive much more than I usually do over the last week, maybe those guys from the UK didn't have to cook the data after all!

[corollaman]

Bring on Global Warming!

[trfour]

And Coming; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

There is no political election that could ever unseat her!

Terry
____________________

[Shedwannabe]

I don't really know how to introduce this...I'm embarrassed for all who jumped on the "skeptic bandwagon" because you wanted climate researchers to be wrong, without any evidence that there was anything wrong...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...imate.html?hpw

So much has been written about the "statistical trick", as if "trick" meant doing something deceitful. The "trick" was combining two previously unrelated databases and seeing they complemented one another.

I admit some of the scientists were crude in their contemptuous comments about skeptics. And I understand the pain and rage felt by those who felt contempt directed at them. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether the science was right or wrong, and EVERY peer-reviewed study supports and continues to support the evidence that climate change is caused by human activity and is making things worse.

Thomas Friedman of the NY Times had an interesting piece a month or so ago. His argument: If there was a 1% chance that Al Qaeda terrorists had discovered a new way to get a nuclear bomb, is that 1% chance enough to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. By the way, Dick Cheney, then VP of the US was the one who said that we should treat it that way.

Similarly, if there is a 1% chance that the earth will become uninhabitable by humans due to our affecting the climate, shouldn't we respond (for exactly the same reasons as Cheney gave)? Actually, the % is much higher than 1% that if humans do not make major changes in their behaviors affecting the climate that the ensuing climate change will disasterously affect the economy (and lives) of our grandchildren in a very negative way.

Well, enough of this...lets enjoy the sled dog races.

Oh,... in danger of being cancelled again due to lack of snow, for the 9th time in the last few decades, whereas they ran EVERY year earlier in the century (except for the hiatus around WW2)

[Boater]

Shed, don't be embarrassed for those of us that keep an open mind and have a healthy skepticism. We think those qualities embody true science. We think that science should be a relentless pursuer of the truth instead of a way to validate a political ideology. FACT: The only consensus on AGW is among liberals. I can find lots and lots of qualified scientists who completely disagree with your conclusions. Like the scientists at the University of East Anglia, you seem to be very comfortable ignoring them while only embracing scientists that share your personal beliefs.

Climategate showed that the Peer Review process has been seriously corrupted. When you have like-minded people reviewing each other while skeptics are intentionally shut out the whole process is worthless. Period.

Originally Posted by shedwannabe

EVERY peer-reviewed study supports and continues to support the evidence that climate change is caused by human activity

This quote is very revealing. EVERY peer-review supports your position? There is not a single opposing view among these scientists? Give me a break. I can't believe that any scientific hypothesis has ever had EVERY scientist in agreement. The very nature of science is challenging hypothesis. If this quote is true then it proves that the AGW scientists have systematically eliminated any opposition, because it surely exists.

The big problem for the AGW worshipers is that they have consistently lead with lies. Lie #1, the Polar Bears. They are thriving. They are not drowning. Their population is 400% larger than it was 40 years ago. If the earth does warm their population will grow even more. Constantly trying to scare people with images of Polar Bears falling from the sky does not help your case. Lie #2, the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and all coastal cities will be under water. Even the IPCC said the rise would be only 18 inches by the end of the century. The 20 foot figure was either totally made up or the result of some wacky computer model. Lie #3, using images and video from fictional movies during supposedly scientific presentations. This makes many proponents, like Algore, look really silly. Lie #4, much of An Inconvenient Truth.

As I've said before, the big problem with all this is the liberal solution: TAX, TAX, TAX. Even the EPA admits that Cap & Trade will do little to help the environment. It's only goal is a massive transfer of wealth. We'll heavily tax our already failing businesses and lose countless jobs (millions?) while emerging economies like China will do nothing that would slow down their economic expansion. They'll be laughing at us while we destroy what's left of our economy. So, I ask you Shed, do you support Cap & Trade as a solution?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Boater

Shed, don't be embarrassed for those of us that keep an open mind and have a healthy skepticism. We think those qualities embody true science. We think that science should be a relentless pursuer of the truth instead of a way to validate a political ideology. FACT: The only consensus on AGW is among liberals. I can find lots and lots of qualified scientists who completely disagree with your conclusions. Like the scientists at the University of East Anglia, you seem to be very comfortable ignoring them while only embracing scientists that share your personal beliefs.

Climategate showed that the Peer Review process has been seriously corrupted. When you have like-minded people reviewing each other while skeptics are intentionally shut out the whole process is worthless. Period.



This quote is very revealing. EVERY peer-review supports your position? There is not a single opposing view among these scientists? Give me a break. I can't believe that any scientific hypothesis has ever had EVERY scientist in agreement. The very nature of science is challenging hypothesis. If this quote is true then it proves that the AGW scientists have systematically eliminated any opposition, because it surely exists.

The big problem for the AGW worshipers is that they have consistently lead with lies. Lie #1, the Polar Bears. They are thriving. They are not drowning. Their population is 400% larger than it was 40 years ago. If the earth does warm their population will grow even more. Constantly trying to scare people with images of Polar Bears falling from the sky does not help your case. Lie #2, the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and all coastal cities will be under water. Even the IPCC said the rise would be only 18 inches by the end of the century. The 20 foot figure was either totally made up or the result of some wacky computer model. Lie #3, using images and video from fictional movies during supposedly scientific presentations. This makes many proponents, like Algore, look really silly. Lie #4, much of An Inconvenient Truth.

As I've said before, the big problem with all this is the liberal solution: TAX, TAX, TAX. Even the EPA admits that Cap & Trade will do little to help the environment. It's only goal is a massive transfer of wealth. We'll heavily tax our already failing businesses and lose countless jobs (millions?) while emerging economies like China will do nothing that would slow down their economic expansion. They'll be laughing at us while we destroy what's left of our economy. So, I ask you Shed, do you support Cap & Trade as a solution?

Just to answer Lie#2, you are correct about everything except that the 20 foot number comes from the volume of water held in current ice caps and other forms of ice that is currently over land only, the ice over water does not count as it displaces water currently. I just watched a program on that very subject this weekend. It will take thousands of years for the seas to rise to those levels. Anyway, I am seeing my current property coming closer and closer to being a water front home.

Other than that, very good information and I agree with your stance on those items. I hate to see those polar bear commercials, showing the bear and cub on a piece of ice that is floating away and they have to swim. Makes you wonder if overall folks do not know, that sea ice melts every year and that scene actually is a normal occurance.

[gtagrip]

How's that Global Climate Change working out for the Mid-Atlantic states!

[Shedwannabe]

Since you asked... it's what climate change theory predicts.

"Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

...Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture." (from NYTimes article)

Global warming leads to warmer temperatures so more moisture in air, which leads to larger storms.

Somehow people get the idea that global warming is only true if it never gets below 50°...

No, global warming is a complex global phenomenon, caused by human activity, which leads to a variety of "surprising" (to many) results, including more severest storms (including blizzards)

However, no single weather event - rather it be a snowstorm in the mid-Atlantic, or a 80° day in northern Norway for the first time in a lifetime, is in itself proof or disproof of a theory. "Both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change."

Its the preponderance of events, like arctic ice melting, or the fact that 3 of the world's warmest years have occurred in the last decade, or that the climate of New England is becoming more temperate and the seasons longer, that point to global warming. And its a second bit of evidence (referred to as a trick by a climate researcher and thus leading to accusations of lying when he meant trick to mean "putting two different data sets together") that connects human activity to climate change - for example - rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Read more on the debate here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/sc...ml?ref=science

[ITD]

They cooked the data, more examples of malfeasance come out every day. "More intense storms", more intense than what? Don't you find it a little suspicious that no matter what the event it points to global warming????? Mild winter = global warming, cold winter = global warming, too little snow = global warming, too much snow = global warming, cool summer = global warming, warm summer = global warming..............

[tis]

You are so right, ITD. Whatever it is, it is caused by global warming. They can twist it every way.

[Hughie]

I hope I haven't offended the hardcore folks. But I would like to offer an option other than the NY Times for climate change data. I was a student of meteorology and climatology and I believe our global climate patterns are controled by two things, the sun and the ocean. We couldn't change either one if we wanted. One of my professors, Joseph D'Aleo who now currently operates ICECAP, a group of world class scientists and meteorologists (http://icecap.us) is a great resource on this subject. ICECAP sorts out on a daily basis the truth and distortions about this topic. A great resource for anyone interested in climate change facts. The best thing is Joe D'Aleo isn't from New York or Washington, he lives here in NH. So enjoy the weather it's the only weather you got.

[trfour]

Winter 2010 at DFW Airport, Dallas TX. At over 8" on the ground, and the winter storm warning in effect with whiteout conditions for another 8 hours, today has been the snowiest calender day in History here!

I had been looking forward to flying up there to do some more snowmobiling. If this keeps up I may have to pick up my sled and ride it back down here!

Two sides in warming debate seize on storms to bolster arguments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343948...ew_york_times/

[hilltopper]

Originally Posted by Hughie

I was a student of meteorology and climatology and I believe our global climate patterns are controled by two things, the sun and the ocean.

I was wondering the other day whether we have a method of tracking the temperature of the sun. Anybody besides Shedwannabe know if this data exists? I don't want the numbers to get "fudged"...

[gtagrip]

I had heard a while back that the earth's temperature is based on the amount of sun spots on the sun at a certain time. Can't remember if the more sun spots the cooler the earth and vice versa for the fewr sun spots.

I don't think that the so called scientists that predicted stronger more intense storms were talking about the most snow fall in the mid-atlantic since the late 1800's. More snow there means colder here in NH as the "cold" air is pushing all these "stronger more intense" storms to our south.
Our temperatures in NH have been below normal for most of December and January. I guess this all has to do with global warming.

Also, I don't consider the NY Times as the most reliable source for anything political.

[SIKSUKR]

Amazing isn't it? Warmer weather trends mean man-made global warming. Cold weather with ALL TIME record snows in the snow also translate to man-made global warming. The ferocious hurricanes that were supposed to increase the last 3 years, forecasted by non other than the author of An Inconvienant Truth Al Gore, have done just the opposite. The people are not stupid about this crap being rammed down their throats from the liberal left and results are showing up everyway in the the recent elections. I see Mr Kennedy has just called it career in RI so he won't have to suffer the same fate. Time for the rest of the country to gets its head out of the snow drifts.

[Shedwannabe]

Where have all the winters gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the winters gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the winters gone?
People pretended nothing's changed
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

[ITD]

Ah, more irrefutable "settled" science.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

"...Time for the rest of the country to gets its head out of the snow drifts..."

In England, they just woke up to it today.

Al Gore, Michael Moore, and other "Global-Warmers" quoted the eminent Climatologist, Professor Phil Jones. A British newspaper quotes some of Professor Jones' admissions from this weekend:

"...conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon..."

"...And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming..."

"...admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information..."

"...he may have actually lost the relevant papers..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

The dog DID eat the homework!

This important development should resonate in US media as we speak.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Since you asked.
"Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

...Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

BUT.. there's the problem. These people tell the naysayers of global warming say that the colder weather and bigger snowstorms can not be considered as evidence for our case. HOWEVER, they use them to make their case telling us colder winters and larger snowstorms are the RESULT of global warming?
Oh please it is such nonsense. Look do I believe that the climate is changing, YES! Do I believe that man is the sole root cause NO! Unfortunately if you look at the big picture and I mean the huge picture over thousands and thousands of years the data supports this trend. Global Warming Scientist will only allow anyone to look at the data through their eyes. "Peer Review" you say ha ha ha, what peer? The Peer receiving millions of dollars in grant money as well?
Do I believe we need to conserve energy and be a bit more green YES YES YES! I want my children to have clean cheap energy. I just don't like the tsk tsk scientists LYING to us in order to guilt us all into driving a Prius (nice brakes by the way). Oh by the way this whole effort has been costing us billions all along the way.
Save it Washington, tell the truth, tell us what we already know.

[gtagrip]

i think the term "Global Climate Change" is a term that was come with because they the scientists got caught cooking the books for "Global Warming". Now they use this loose term of "Global Climate change" to prove their point like the big snow storms in the mi-atlantic. Of course, these would not be occuring if it were not for "Global Climate Change"!

The best part of it all is that the liberal looneys on "The View" blame Global Climate Change on the earthquake that occured in Haiti and volcanic eruptions around the world. Can't remember which one of them said it, but Howie Carr was playing the quote all day on the radio last week. Yeah, Global Climate change has a lot to do with earthquakes! Get a brain.

[Shedwannabe]

Interesting reaction to Thomas Friedman's article on "Global Weirding" in today's NY Times. He lays out an argument for getting climate scientists together and coming up with a clear joint statement on what is know about climate change (he admits that calling it global warming sets of the denialists whenever a snowstorm happens). His belief, as expressed in the article, is that if people just looked at the undisputed facts (of which there are many) they would realize that deniers are motivated to attack global climate change as unproved in order to protect their economic interests, and that the denial has nothing to do with science.

So people started commenting on the NY Times article. One of the comments (which attracted lots of recommendations) was to the effect that "Friedman - you are crazy to think that people will listen to reason - after all, a majority of Americans think (wrongly) that Saddam Hussien was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and 75% of Republicans believe Obama isn't American." While I don't know if her percentages are right, it certainly is true that many people hold onto patently false beliefs... for reasons I cannot comprehend. as another commenter notes, a large percentage of people don't even believe in evolution (which even the Catholic Church accepts as accurate)

A sample comment: "Sorry Tom, the fact of this matter are that no argument, no evidence, no persuasion will convince the folks tilted against the climate change (Global Warming) issue. They issue ridiculous statements and seemingly logical arguments against this issue and no evidence, no statement by experts will dislodge their stance. Those opposed to taking any action to moderate climate change are similar in mindset to the Creationist claiming fossils were placed on earth by the Devil to confuse mankind. This is a hopeless situation and as long as the United States is ruled by politicians willing to promulgate these arguments, to confuse voters, in support of their corporate bosses, we are lost."

So it seems we go down our separate paths - those who look at science - a process based on evidence, a self-correcting process, and those who look elsewhere - though for the life of me I cannot understand where they look, as it seems part denial of reality, part not wanting to face anything uncomfortable, and part not wanting to give up privilege that makes others pay for our extravagantly wasteful lifestyle.

When I first posted on Winnipesaukee.com I did not believe there were people who would admit to being climate deniers - those who would not accept the scientific evidence but instead refer to anecdotes (like "DC got a lot of snow - that means no global warming") or industry speaking pints that are not based on real evidence. I have learned a lot. I'm still amazed that people admit to rejecting science - its a sad comment on our country when science is denied and financial interests prevail. I have heard some posters say the issue of climate change/global warming is not settled science, and I appreciate skepticism (which is different than the more common extremist views regularly voiced here), but skepticism has to at least address the vast preponderance of evidence supporting global warming theories, and do something other than scream "its cold right here right now" to disprove global warming.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Interesting reaction to Thomas Friedman's article on "Global Weirding" in today's NY Times. He lays out an argument for getting climate scientists together and coming up with a clear joint statement on what is know about climate change (he admits that calling it global warming sets of the denialists whenever a snowstorm happens). His belief, as expressed in the article, is that if people just looked at the undisputed facts (of which there are many) they would realize that deniers are motivated to attack global climate change as unproved in order to protect their economic interests, and that the denial has nothing to do with science.

So people started commenting on the NY Times article. One of the comments (which attracted lots of recommendations) was to the effect that "Friedman - you are crazy to think that people will listen to reason - after all, a majority of Americans think (wrongly) that Saddam Hussien was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and 75% of Republicans believe Obama isn't American." While I don't know if her percentages are right, it certainly is true that many people hold onto patently false beliefs... for reasons I cannot comprehend. as another commenter notes, a large percentage of people don't even believe in evolution (which even the Catholic Church accepts as accurate)

A sample comment: "Sorry Tom, the fact of this matter are that no argument, no evidence, no persuasion will convince the folks tilted against the climate change (Global Warming) issue. They issue ridiculous statements and seemingly logical arguments against this issue and no evidence, no statement by experts will dislodge their stance. Those opposed to taking any action to moderate climate change are similar in mindset to the Creationist claiming fossils were placed on earth by the Devil to confuse mankind. This is a hopeless situation and as long as the United States is ruled by politicians willing to promulgate these arguments, to confuse voters, in support of their corporate bosses, we are lost."

So it seems we go down our separate paths - those who look at science - a process based on evidence, a self-correcting process, and those who look elsewhere - though for the life of me I cannot understand where they look, as it seems part denial of reality, part not wanting to face anything uncomfortable, and part not wanting to give up privilege that makes others pay for our extravagantly wasteful lifestyle.

When I first posted on Winnipesaukee.com I did not believe there were people who would admit to being climate deniers - those who would not accept the scientific evidence but instead refer to anecdotes (like "DC got a lot of snow - that means no global warming") or industry speaking pints that are not based on real evidence. I have learned a lot. I'm still amazed that people admit to rejecting science - its a sad comment on our country when science is denied and financial interests prevail. I have heard some posters say the issue of climate change/global warming is not settled science, and I appreciate skepticism (which is different than the more common extremist views regularly voiced here), but skepticism has to at least address the vast preponderance of evidence supporting global warming theories, and do something other than scream "its cold right here right now" to disprove global warming.

And its funny I am just as sad for you that you swallow every bit of "Science" jammed down your throat and take it as fact. You look down at everyone else who does not share your view. Global Warming is not a fact! No matter how many times you say it to yourself it just does not make it any more true. Part of being a learner, and educated person is to read and react to what you see and hear. You, unfortunately read and accept. There are literally THOUSANDS of contradictions in the Global Warming Science. There are thousands of scientists who dispute it. I am just as scared that there are people like you out there that follow the herd and file in line behind flawed science and no matter what refuse to question the authority on its findings. As I said before I believe in Climate Change. I believe these things to be cyclical over billions of years. I believe Dinosaurs probably emitted as much methane gas to cause climate change billions of years ago. I believe one volcano can have a profound affect on the environment. I believe that pollution is a problem. I just don't subscribe to the alarmist mentality that you so willingly accept, and blindly might I add. It is our right to question the science especially when the motivation lies heavily on the supporters of said theories, contrary to what you think. Billions in grant money is at stake here.
The saddest part is that once the government took a stake in this we all lost. There are lies on both sides of the issue that is for sure.

Shed, You turn your nose down and act all superior and that is fine but you are merely swallowing a political agenda yourself. Do not try and hide behind the Scientists and Peer Reviews. As we have seen they are on shaky ground and we are well within our rights to question them. You are not better than us. I am saddened by your opinion that you think you are.

Here is one of thousands of Scientists:
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

[jmen24]

Hazelnut, that is a very well written response.

The way Shed's information is presented sounds similar to others who have posted about other subjects (I do not think they are related), but they sure want to tell you how it is, when discussion is reduced to barking back and forth, all the true information is lost.

Keeping an open mind on this subject could do both sides a favor.

[hazelnut]

jMen,

I have hundreds and hundreds of articles from well respected scientists, and reviews that raise questions on the issue.

My stance is one of open mindedness. I believe things should be greener. I believe in recycling and energy efficient vehicles. I believe we owe it to our children to hand them a cleaner planet than the one we inherited. I also believe we have made and are making great strides in that direction.

What I do not believe in is Global Warming as a scare tactic disguised as science. It is a political agenda end of story no argument. What is sad is people are led to this level of hysteria over global climate change by the agenda of these scientists who are sucking billions and billions of dollars out of the economy.

I read both sides, listen to both sides and make educated choices. Sadly, for Shed, I am not running out to get my Prius next weekend. However, once the hybrid or total electric vehicle becomes commonplace, efficient and affordable I'll be first in line. I lay out my recycling bin every week, I try to do my part. But NOT because I am scared of some cooked up global warming theory.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

jMen,

I have hundreds and hundreds of articles from well respected scientists, and reviews that raise questions on the issue.

My stance is one of open mindedness. I believe things should be greener. I believe in recycling and energy efficient vehicles. I believe we owe it to our children to hand them a cleaner planet than the one we inherited. I also believe we have made and are making great strides in that direction.

What I do not believe in is Global Warming as a scare tactic disguised as science. It is a political agenda end of story no argument. What is sad is people are led to this level of hysteria over global climate change by the agenda of these scientists who are sucking billions and billions of dollars out of the economy.

I read both sides, listen to both sides and make educated choices. Sadly, for Shed, I am not running out to get my Prius next weekend. However, once the hybrid or total electric vehicle becomes commonplace, efficient and affordable I'll be first in line. I lay out my recycling bin every week, I try to do my part. But NOT because I am scared of some cooked up global warming theory.

I was not referring to you, as the sounds similar analogy. I agree with your statement and my feeling are fairly similar.

[ITD]

Shed, I don't understand how you can be so steadfastly sure of your views as settled science when the foundation and core of AGW is crumbling around you. From the admission that the IPCC assertion, that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, is wrong. Turns out it was based on a fluff piece by an environmental advocacy group and is patently untrue. To the admission by Phil Jones that the climate may have been warmer in medieval times and that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the past 15 years. There is no such thing as "settled science". Any one who uses that term is just trying to take your money.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by ITD

Shed, I don't understand how you can be so steadfastly sure of your views as settled science when the foundation and core of AGW is crumbling around you. From the admission that the IPCC assertion, that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, is wrong. Turns out it was based on a fluff piece by an environmental advocacy group and is patently untrue. To the admission by Phil Jones that the climate may have been warmer in medieval times and that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the past 15 years. There is no such thing as "settled science". Any one who uses that term is just trying to take your money.

ITD, that's why I believe that the term"Global Climate Change" came about as no matter what happens around the world weather wise it can be contributed to "Global Climate Change" to support their arguement. Vague and loose terminology.

[jmen24]

Shed, you seem very determined to get your point accross and that is fine, I am not here to attack your stance on this matter.

But, constantly standing up and puffing out your chest, is not becoming.

Sooo, being that humans are the root cause of the issue, I am making the assumption that you are doing something about it, you have not said that directly, but I will assume that you are doing more than talking and telling.

Have you given up your car, fuel source for heating your home and water, stopped using electricity, stopped using anything made of plastic, metal, do not buy jewlery, no clothing, manufactered bodycare products, are you living under the stars (no blankets, thats cheating). Techinically anything since the beginning of man, can be directly attributed to the theory, think long and hard about that.

Before you jump all over me, I do in fact have the opinion that climate change is an issue, but you are not doing anyone any favors by acting the way you do about this subject. And no, I have not given up any of the items above. Simply state your information and allow folks to form their own opinions. I don't know if you have kids, but if you do, think about what it is like to get your child to eat a food that they do not want to try, you cannot cram it down their throats and expect them to start liking it.

The extremes in seasonal changes are very evident, but the one thing you seem to be missing is that most of the folks that think climate change is not true, are directly thinking that it means that New Hampshire is going to have North Carolina weather tomorrow, that is a minor side effect, the major side effect is weather not appearing "normal". (if you do not believe me, look back on all the threads related to this issue, then look at current comments regarding Global Warming (not just this site but anywhere), they are all related in that they talk of temperature, that is why it is not called Global Warming anymore, folks took it to be a literal statement) Folks are not looking at the Bi-polar effect of our weather as an issue related to Climate Change, they scratch theirs heads and just wonder why its happening, lots of snow one year, hardly any the next, lots of rain and no sun in the summer, then really hot temps in the fall, snow in Washington, Dallas, Disney and a multitude of other weather pattern changes that have gone way past normal in the last 5 years alone.

Climate change is very real and while it's rate is being affected by the side effects of human life, it is only going to be worst if we continue to try and mess with the way the earths climate changes. We will never reverse the human affect on the earth, even stopping everything tomorrow will not change anything in our families-families lifetimes.

Even though I stated my opinion above, I still listen to both sides. I still look at this issue with both eyes open and I suggest you do the same, otherwise you start argueing the wrong points and everyone stops listening.

Plus, its not worth getting all worked up about, life as we know it ends in 2 years anyway, so eat, drink and be merry, anything else will give you an ulser.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jmen24

"...life as we know it ends in 2 years anyway, so eat, drink and be merry, anything else will give you an ulcer..."

If you meant all life is to end in the year 2012—on the rock carving known as the "Mayan Calendar", an explanation has been produced recently...

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

If you meant all life is to end in the year 2012—on the rock carving known as the "Mayan Calendar", an explanation has been produced recently...

Well now I thought there had to be a good explanation.

APS got it but for anyone else, my tongue was pressed firmly in cheek on that one.

[ApS]

The below quote was written before ClimateGate.

"Steve M" is Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist who found the hidden data (archived in Russia) and challenged Mann, saying data was tossed that didn't fit the theory—endangering future government grants.

"This explains why they have been loathe to release their raw data and the methods they use on those data. They have been caught cheating. And once they have one lie out there, other lies must be fabricated to support it. And so we have the wholesale deletion of global rural surface temperature recording stations leaving an urban-biased network that reflects UHI in order to back up their earlier conclusions...(snip)...Most importantly, Steve M’s work shows NO 20th century temperature anomaly. And so again, people who in their hearts believe they want to do something good for their neighbors and future generations have been taken to the cleaners hook, line, and sinker and have been parted from considerable portion of their hard earned income.

"I sincerely feel that someone should go to prison for this. This wasn’t an accident. This was not a mistaken conclusion. This shows that the conclusion was “cooked” from the start. Billions and possibly trillions of dollars have been wasted on this nonsense globally.

"It’s pitchfork and torch time."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/2...stick-is-dead/

The many comments above came out in September of 2009.

Meanwhile, hackers exposed Climatologists' contemptuous 61Mb of e-mails—immediately termed "ClimateGate". In October, the BBC was presented with all of the hacked data for disclosure to the public; however, BBC merely sat on the information. (As has most of the US media).

Just weeks before the Copenhagen Conference, "ClimateGate" was disclosed world-wide on the Internet, assuring the failed conference there.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I don't really know how to introduce this...I'm embarrassed for all who jumped on the "skeptic bandwagon" because you wanted climate researchers to be wrong, without any evidence that there was anything wrong...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...imate.html?hpw

One paragraph from that article:

"The e-mail messages also contained suggestions that Dr. Mann had hidden or destroyed e-mail messages and other information relating to a United Nations climate change report to prevent other scientists from reviewing them. Dr. Mann produced the material in question, and the Pennsylvania State board cleared him of the charge".

Can someone explain how Mann was cleared of the charge of hiding data?

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...EVERY peer-reviewed study supports and continues to support the evidence that climate change is caused by human activity and is making things worse..."

A Brit ex-pat (at the same source as above) has stated my own view:

"What chance have schoolchildren got of forming their own considered opinions when they have this tosh forced down their throats without recourse to the alternative point of view and related science?"

BTW: "ClimateGate" released this e-mailed tidbit early-on, which intended to hide a seven-year decline (!) in world temperatures. (Something that eerily conforms to the much-damper and cooler temps around Lake Winnipesaukee's post-2002 seasons).

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...iles-released/

Sound like a Climate Scientist to you?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Oh,... in danger of being cancelled again due to lack of snow, for the 9th time in the last few decades, whereas they ran EVERY year earlier in the century (except for the hiatus around WW2)

OK so you're using the fact that NH has no snow as an argument to support Global Warming? Ummmmm ok, sooooo explain the 3 feet of snow in Washington DC a few hundred miles south of us? Curious?

I do believe that folks in the UK would argue with your conclusions Shed.

Here is some interesting reading for you:

http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/News...-18470402.html

Folks in India might take issue as well:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/110012...y_12041751.jsp

Another one close to home

http://www.katu.com/blogs/weather/81281412.html

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK so you're using the fact that NH has no snow as an argument to support Global Warming? Ummmmm ok, sooooo explain the 3 feet of snow in Washington DC a few hundred miles south of us? Curious?
I do believe that folks in the UK would argue with your conclusions Shed.
Here is some interesting reading for you:
http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/News...-18470402.html
Folks in India might take issue as well:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/110012...y_12041751.jsp
Another one close to home
http://www.katu.com/blogs/weather/81281412.html

I was going to ask the same thing.

[fpartri497]

Global warming??? how come my thermomenter hasent got over 31 deg. In a month? Where is your global warming now??

[birchhaven]

Out of all the atmospheric gases, what is the most abundant "green house gas"? I will give you a hint, #1 is nitrgen @ 78.08% and #2 is oxigen @ 20.95%, what is the next gas and it is the reason the earth retains heat and it makes up the vast majority of the remaining, .07%

(the percentage do vary depending on where you are in the globe)

[birchhaven]

Bueller???