Cold winter doesn't mean the end of global warming
Roger Coppock
2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
BY DAVID ROSMAN
“So, how’s your snow? I read you had over eight inches last week. It
was 48 degrees here in Miami tonight. How’s that for global warming?”
My dad is not usually sarcastic, but this global climate change thing
has had him going since Al Gore was elected president. You remember;
that was the election where the loser won the contest. But that’s
another column.
The problem is that many climate change opponents only look at the
short term, what is happening this week — not this century. They are
looking at the immediate, what is going on in their visible world, and
not at the entire planet. The glaciers melting in Glacier National
Park, Greenland and Europe do not exist because we have no glaciers in
the middle of Middle America. Or, in my dad’s case, southeast Florida.
Scientific American has also discussed this. Quoting Eoin O’Carroll of
the Christian Science Monitor, it reported, “You can’t tell much about
the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid
day, or season, or year, even.”
Science looks at the big picture, at least 30 years.
[ . . . ]
andyomp
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:844428cc-a936-4716...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Cold winter doesn't mean the end of global warming
short term, what is happening this week — not this century.
ROTFLMAO
Maybe they learnt to do that from you warmie whackos!
“There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is
nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with
spring because so much is flowering so early year to year. It’s hard to plan
attractions as the marketing has to be planned. You do that relying on
things happening at certain times.”
“Like most “scientists”, I’m fairly convinced that climate change is down to
man’s reckless use of fossil fuels and destruction of natural habitats.”
Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator Kew Gardens, 2008
These Whackos Predicted LESS Snow
12 Feb 2010
Watch this compilation of whacko Democrats in the US Senate, all moaning
about the lack of snow due to mythical manmade warming.
- Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Amy Klobuchar and Jay Inslee
- all blaming global warming for a lack of snow!!
More snow, less snow - it’s all global warming to these frauds.
http://www.blip.tv/file/3199262
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
Bret Cahill
Early last week it was 89 F, an all time record for the lower 48
states that early in the year.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Not a single climate scientist said a word about this new record.
It seems to stay above the mid 70s here even with a strong North wind.
Bret Cahill
andyomp
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:fe5e80d9-828b-48ed...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
======================================
Is that a record low or a record high?
And what's your point?
Bret Cahill
Let's assume it is a record low . . . what would be my ac bill in
August?
> And what's your point?
"Alarmists" aren't.
Bret Cahill
k...@kymhorsell.com
>> > Cold winter doesn't mean the end of global warming
>>
>> > 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
>> > BY DAVID ROSMAN
>> Early last week it was 89 F, an all time record for the lower 48
>> states that early in the year.
> Not a single climate scientist said a word about this new record.
> It seems to stay above the mid 70s here even with a strong North wind.
Unless it's a record that was previously broken just a few years
before, a new "all time record" is a one-off.
I.e. it is not part of a trend.
I.e. it is not much to do with climate science.
--
[Topic: estimating model parameters]
If you had studied math you would know that calculus and statistics
are separate courses: two completely different disciplines.
-- "Trawley Trash"[@jeeves.gnet.net], 20 Jan 2011 20:53 -0800
Bret Cahill
>
> >> > 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
> >> > BY DAVID ROSMAN
> ...
> >> Early last week it was 89 F, an all time record for the lower 48
> >> states that early in the year.
> > Not a single climate scientist said a word about this new record.
> > It seems to stay above the mid 70s here even with a strong North wind.
> Unless it's a record that was previously broken just a few years
> before, a new "all time record" is a one-off.
Depends on how fast the climate is changing.
Judging by the way the climate scientists are always a decade late and
data short all kinds of ancient records will soon be falling.
Bret Cahill
Roger Coppock
> [ . . . ] all kinds of ancient records will soon be falling.
Scientists don't look at records, they use regression analysis. One
can't find a trend by looking at extrema. However, for those who
insist on looking at trends . . .
We're less than one K from a several million year high.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Climate change is about trends and patterns. Rare events (like
records broken every 200 years) are not evidence of a trend or pattern,
albeit this is an idea that prevalent on the "skeptical" side of the CC
discourse.
So, again, "ancient records falling" are not particularly relevant to climate
change. They indicate an event has happened perhaps for the
2nd known time in a very long time. I.e. rare.
The "ancient data" itself may fit into a pattern or trend (e.g. temps from
200 years ago may be generally cooler than today by X deg C), but that doesn't
necessarily mean a record is broken or even looked for.
OTOH, if the "world's warmest year since records began" keeps falling every
few years *then* there is an indication of a trend. If there were
no trend we'd normally expect records to fall less and less often.
If we can see the opposite happening, then we have evidence for a change
or trend. And trends are relevant to climate science.
--
Ah yes, a very strong brand of anecdotal evidence. Climate science will
be proud. The science remains settled, the consensus unshaken.
-- Mickey Langan, Sun 2 Jan 2011 10:00 am
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Scientific American has also discussed this. Quoting Eoin O’Carroll of
> the Christian Science Monitor, it reported, “You can’t tell much about
> the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid
> day, or season, or year, even.”
>
> Science looks at the big picture, at least 30 years.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
tunderbar
Hot summer doesn't prove global warming. LOL.
george
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Climate change is about trends and patterns. Rare events (like
> records broken every 200 years) are not evidence of a trend or pattern,
> albeit this is an idea that prevalent on the "skeptical" side of the CC
> discourse.
Scientists of all kinds, including climate scientists, take courses in
statistics as part of their training. They know that one can not
diagnose a trend by looking at extrema. Indeed, many common
statistical procedures typically start by removing 'flukes" data
points more than a three or four standard deviations from the mean or
trendline.
Bret Cahill
> >> >> > 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
> >> >> > BY DAVID ROSMAN
> >> ...
> >> >> Early last week it was 89 F, an all time record for the lower 48
> >> >> states that early in the year.
> >> > Not a single climate scientist said a word about this new record.
> >> > It seems to stay above the mid 70s here even with a strong North wind.
> >> Unless it's a record that was previously broken just a few years
> >> before, a new "all time record" is a one-off.
> > Depends on how fast the climate is changing.
> > Judging by the way the climate scientists are always a decade late and
> > data short all kinds of ancient records will soon be falling.
>
> Climate change is about trends and patterns.
I haven't started using ac (like some of the local wimps) so
everything is OK.
Bret Cahill
k...@kymhorsell.com
I was puzzled at first when certain parties were emphasising
"150 year record broken".
The formal training has taken such deep root by now I didn't realize
there is (apparently) a common-sense notion that a rare event is
especially meaningful. Whereas, as you've said, extrema (provided
"small" in numbers) -- like coins landing on their edge -- are normally
ignored as spurious.
--
You are now in the killfile.
[2 weeks later:]
Oh come on now. That little post should not have upset you so. I
only meant for you to ponder the future.
...
Lying? You can point out where I was lying? Then do so.
-- John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net> (AKA A Moose In Love
<parkstre...@gmail.com>), 21 Dec 2010 22:33:45 -0800
James
news:844428cc-a936-4716...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com
>
> 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
> BY DAVID ROSMAN
>
> was 48 degrees here in Miami tonight. How�s that for global warming?�
>
> My dad is not usually sarcastic, but this global climate change thing
> has had him going since Al Gore was elected president. You remember;
> another column.
>
> The problem is that many climate change opponents only look at the
> looking at the immediate, what is going on in their visible world, and
> not at the entire planet. The glaciers melting in Glacier National
> Park, Greenland and Europe do not exist because we have no glaciers in
>
> Scientific American has also discussed this. Quoting Eoin O�Carroll of
> the Christian Science Monitor, it reported, �You can�t tell much about
> the climate or where it�s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid
> day, or season, or year, even.�
>
> Science looks at the big picture, at least 30 years.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/01/26/david-rosman-dont-all-cold-blame-global-warming/
Seems I remember the nasty results of global warming were due 100-200
years out according to this board. That was quite a while back but it
quickly went to 50 years away. Then 30 years and then 10. Then, by gum,
it was now already causing havoc everywhere.
That first claim of 100 years out was yours Roger.
Bret Cahill
Just in case I've been practicing sleeping above 35 C. 10 degrees
higher than that will kill bed bugs.
Bret Cahill
k...@kymhorsell.com
> Just in case I've been practicing sleeping above 35 C. 10 degrees
> higher than that will kill bed bugs.
Welcome to "BONZO" world! CO2 levels to make running impossible
and sealevel temps around 40 C worldwide.
It may kill kissing bugs, but the downside is fleas are the size of
a nice lobster.
--
[Pushing the button:]
You are now in the killfile.
-- John J Stafford <jo...@stafford.net>, 09 Dec 2010 19:21:27 -0600
Bret Cahill
> > higher than that will kill bed bugs.
>
> Welcome to "BONZO" world! CO2 levels to make running impossible
> and sealevel temps around 40 C worldwide.
I can swim a mile in 32 minutes in 35C water.
There are some basic heat transfer problems with swimming in 40C
water, namely a reverse gradient. That's why it's not in the
Olympics.
> It may kill kissing bugs, but the downside is fleas are the size of
> a nice lobster.
I bet big fleas wouldn't be bad w/ enough habanero sauce.
Bret Cahill
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:844428cc-a936-4716...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cold winter doesn't mean the end of global warming
>
> > 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
> > BY DAVID ROSMAN
>
> > was 48 degrees here in Miami tonight. How s that for global warming?
>
> > has had him going since Al Gore was elected president. You remember;
> > another column.
>
> > The problem is that many climate change opponents only look at the
> > looking at the immediate, what is going on in their visible world, and
> > not at the entire planet. The glaciers melting in Glacier National
> > Park, Greenland and Europe do not exist because we have no glaciers in
>
> > Scientific American has also discussed this. Quoting Eoin O Carroll of
> > the Christian Science Monitor, it reported, You can t tell much about
> > the climate or where it s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid
> > day, or season, or year, even.
>
>
> > [ . . . ]
>
>
> Seems I remember the nasty results of global warming were due 100-200
> years out according to this board. That was quite a while back but it
> quickly went to 50 years away. Then 30 years and then 10. Then, by gum,
> it was now already causing havoc everywhere.
>
> That first claim of 100 years out was yours Roger.
Yes, it was.
Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> water, namely a reverse gradient. That's why it's not in the
> Olympics.
LOL. You puny mammal!
--
[Before the flood:]
The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.
Instead it has all run out to sea!
Crazy anti-dam greenies!
-- "BONZO"@27.32.240.172 [79 nyms and counting], 12 Nov 2010 14:05 +1100
Bret Cahill
> > water, namely a reverse gradient. That's why it's not in the
> > Olympics.
>
> ...
>
> LOL. You puny mammal!
Back in Tucson a church group brought over some Kenyans. They had
"free" ac included in their rent but they'd never bother with it, even
if it got over 110 F.
I thought that was soooo cool. Even I would run up my electric bill
$5 with ac in August in Tucson.
I'd like to know if Obama is macho enough to take hot weather. That
might impress a lot of folk.
Bret Cahill
Well Done
>
Woger, the vewy idea that 30 yeaws constitutes "the big pictuwe" tells
us all we need to know about you. And your AGW buds. Woger and Out.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
andyomp
On Jan 26, 8:22 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
Especially during the fastest warming rate in the 18th century eh Woger?
The 18th Century Wins For The Fastest Warming Trend In England, And Most
Likely The World, From 1659
The early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends
over the "sufficient" 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most
recent 30 years.
By the way, the most recent 1980-2009 tri-decade didn't get to the top 10
results at all; if you care, it was at the 13th place.
3 Jan 2010
Because the Hadley Center has released the final temperatures in Central
England for 2009, I decided to calculate a few things. Although I have also
played with the monthly data, this text will be purely about the 1659-2009
annual data.
It's 351 years in total.
A related link: The counterpart of this article for the world's second
oldest weather station appears in the article Czech ClimateGate: Prague's
Klementinum censored
The average of the 351 numbers is 9.217 °C. The Pythagorean average of the
deviation of the annual data from this average is 0.659 °C.
The global warming advocates like to emphasize the warming trend in the last
30 years.
How does the warming trend in the last 30 years - and in all other 30-year
periods since 1659 - look like in Central England?
Click to zoom in: the y-axis is the warming trend in °C per century, the
x-axis is time from 1659-1688 to 1980-2009.
In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer
period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is
nothing exceptional about the recent era. Because I don't want to waste time
with the creation of confusing descriptions of the x-axis, let me list the
ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends:
1691 - 1720, 5.039 °C/century
1978 - 2007, 5.038 °C/century
1977 - 2006, 4.95 °C/century
1690 - 1719, 4.754 °C/century
1979 - 2008, 4.705 °C/century
1688 - 1717, 4.7 °C/century
1692 - 1721, 4.642 °C/century
1694 - 1723, 4.524 °C/century
1689 - 1718, 4.446 °C/century
1687 - 1716, 4.333 °C/century
The early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends
over the "sufficient" 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most
recent 30 years.
By the way, the most recent 1980-2009 tri-decade didn't get to the top 10
results at all; if you care, it was at the 13th place.
You can also see that the local trends are substantially faster than the
global trends: that's because the global variations are reduced by the
averaging over the globe. For the sake of completeness, these were the most
intense 30-year cooling trends:
1727 - 1756, -3.962 °C/century
1863 - 1892, -3.956 °C/century
1729 - 1758, -3.723 °C/century
1728 - 1757, -3.719 °C/century
1726 - 1755, -3.649 °C/century
1862 - 1891, -3.413 °C/century
1666 - 1695, -3.315 °C/century
1730 - 1759, -3.203 °C/century
1861 - 1890, -3.021 °C/century
1865 - 1894, -2.952 °C/century
An obvious question is what happens if you consider 10-year, 15-year, or
50-year trends. With my Mathematica code, it's easy to find: you just change
one number.
As you may expect, if you use the 10-year or 15-year trends, the current era
won't get anywhere close to the winners.
For example, these are the 10-year trends:
There is nothing special whatsoever in the recent epoch. I won't even try to
show you the list of winners because the recent decades would obviously be
somewhere in the middle. The fastest warming trend extracted from 1 decade
is by +18.6 °C per century in 1694-1703; the fastest cooling trend was
by -23.9 °C per century in 1733-1742.
Yes, these are huge numbers and they're true. The superfast cooling is
related to the excessively low temperatures recorded in England sometime in
the early 1740s. Most people don't understand the "random walk" character of
the temperatures: the shorter periods you consider, the faster trends you
obtain: the trends approximately scale like 1/sqrt(time) - and in this case,
the records were scaling even faster than that, as 1/time. Of course, none
of these trends can be extrapolated to a century.
At the beginning, I chose the 30-year trend because it really had the
highest chance to produce a recent "man-made" signal. It didn't. It's much
more hopeless if you consider e.g. the 50-year warming trends:
Again, the recent era on the right side of the picture has no chance to
compete with the late 17th and early 18th century: the 1960-2009 period with
the +2.65 °C per century ends up outside the top ten. The winner is
1688-1737 with the trend +3.83 °C per century. The fastest cooling was in
1722-1771, by -1.69 °C per century. These 50-year trends can't quite be
extrapolated to a century, either. But they're much closer to that than the
10-year or 15-year trends.
Finally, our generation teamed up with our parents, grandparents, and great
grandparents can marginally win if we consider 100-year intervals:
But the warming trend in 1909-2008 (the fastest "modern" 100-year trend) was
+0.87 °C per century. The warming trend in 1663-1762 was +0.86 °C per
century which is not excessively different. ;-) The fastest cooling,
1718-1817, was by -0.59 °C per century. Note that there are no quotas: the
positive and negative trends don't have to agree. In most cases, the maximum
warming trends were faster than the fastest cooling trends. In some cases,
namely the 10-year intervals, it was the other way around. Nothing should
shock you here. They're pretty much random numbers.
Conclusions
The Central England data show nothing unusual about the evolution of current
temperatures. And because there is really nothing special about Central
England, it's reasonable to expect that no place in the world is
experiencing anything unusual in the modern era, in comparison with other
epochs since 1659.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
ø LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in
more than 1600 years.
We are now in the final stage of the 1500 year
trend to reglatiation. Yes Roger reglaciation will
commence sometime after 2020.
Of course it will take as much 10,000 years before
it gets to the 55th parrallel.
ø But over the next 10+ years we can expect more
blizzards, floods, hot hot summers and cold cold
winters.
ø Well Dodger baby, when are you going to explain
how CO2 rises to the clouds and stays there for
100 years. Enlighten us! We have been awaiting
enlightenment.
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all!
bw
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bef6e76-7f55-4ed1...@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
� LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in
more than 1600 years.
===============================
About 10000 years ago the global ocean reached its current levels.
Temps have been essentially stable for the last 6000 years.
Current temps show slight cooling since the Roman Warm Period about 2000
years ago based on the Cuffy 1997 graph.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Lieberman-Kerry_bill_predicated_on_a_lie.htm
Falcon
What utter garbage.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Dawlish
They already are. Note the extreme lack of cold records being set.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=0
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> They already are. Note the extreme lack of cold records being set.
> http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=0
As a public service to "skeptics" the following places are "to watch"
for cold records.
According the the data so far, all of them have a cooling trend
of better than 1 deg C per century (chosen because it's the opposite
of the overall average trend).
There are 6,039 stations in the database.
name lat lng elev trend (deg C per year)
OSTROV RUSSKIY 77.18 96.58 9 -0.0107545
OSTROV DIKSON 73.5 80.4 -999 -0.0118831
OSTROV VRANGELJA 70.97 -178.53 -999 -0.0111372
LENSK 60.72 114.88 -999 -0.0146718
ILIRNEJ 67.33 168.23 -999 -0.0147924
GORBICA 53.1 119.22 -999 -0.13066
ST.LAWRENCE,NFLD. 46.92 -55.38 46 -0.0110882
BLANC SABLON, QUE. 51.45 -57.18 30 -0.0287874
ST.ANTHONY,NFLD. 51.37 -55.63 106 -0.0969015
CAPE DORSET, N.W.T. 64.22 -76.53 51 -0.0105217
ISACHSEN 78.8 -103.5 25 -0.0102351
CREE LAKE, SASK. 57.35 -107.13 497 -0.0137432
BAKER LAKE, N.W.T. 64.3 -96.08 18 -0.0124981
CAPE YOUNG, N.W.T. 68.93 -116.92 18 -0.0229001
TUKTOYAKTUK,N.W.T. 69.45 -133 18 -0.0267157
NAIMAKKA 68.68 21.53 403 -0.015677
AKRABERG 61.4 -6.67 95 -0.0220172
AMUNDSEN-SCOTT -90 0 -999 -0.0247218
GENERAL BELGRANO II B.E. -77.87 -34.62 -999 -0.0112319
GENERAL BELGRANO -78 -38.8 -999 -0.0102878
BYRD STATION -80.02 -119.53 -999 -0.0146866
VOSTOK - 78.45 106.87 -999 -0.0279161
MCMURDO -77.85 166.67 -999 -0.0111509
SCOTT BASE -77.85 166.75 -999 -0.0128739
--
Generally, an empty answer. Try again.
-- John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net>, 08 Dec 2010 10:16:59 -0600
k...@kymhorsell.com
[...]
I would have posted the list of details for those locations
that are warming by 1C per century or more, but it's too long. 1570.
--
>> Sure. It was also once normal to not have humans, mammals or even chordates
>> on the planet. LOL.
>Those things are gone.
...
[Rewriting history 15 m later with the aid of judicious editing:]
I said, "Those times are gone." In other words, the time of "not having
humans", "not having mammals", etc. are GONE!
-- John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com>, 21 Dec 2010 22:23:15 -0800
James
That's a problem. Predicting an event when the cause of the event is in
question.
So in just a few years, your 100 year estimation went all the way to
zero. Amazing.
oriel36
I am an astronomer so judging the issue from this viewpoint amounts to
nothing more than the consequences of errant empirical agenda which is
high on speculation but very poor when it comes to interpretation and
assigning cause and effect,if the world wants to give itself an
enormous headache over nothing then carbon dioxide as a global
thermostat will do exactly that.Because I am familiar with the core
issues as they exist at the juncture of the late 17th century when
most of the damage was done the main problem at the moment is not the
hyperfuss surrounding atmospheric gases and the idea that the Earth is
a greenhouse,the main problem is more thorny and has more to do with
human nature than any technical issue.
The education system is owned by those most likely to propagate that
rubbish of human control over global temperatures by insinuating that
we are responsible for the recent rise in temperatures and time is on
their side.For instance, the reputation once built on space travel and
innovation is now used as a point of departure from 'global warming'
advocacy so no student will stand a chance of competing with an
organization now adapted to put guilt on the inhabitants of the Earth
for any temperature fluctuations -
Again,when you own the education system all the common sense in the
world cannot prevail when the next generation will simply be
indoctrinated into the belief that there were such people who denied
humans cause global warming and denied that humans have control over
global temperature.
Empiricists don't know what 'fair' is,when the king of England forced
Royal Society empiricists to accept the work of John Harrison they
refused and it took a reluctant government to grant him his reward for
his invention,the equivalent today would be the President of America
refusing to mention climate change and receiving accolades for not
doing so as he would have known derision for trying to promote it yet
the education system is still under the guidance of carbon dioxide
proponents and these people take the long view of things.
Until the arguments fall along proper lines matters will get much
worse and unfortunately few have the necessary familiarity with the
core arguments to bring the true battle on to a stage where it can be
dealt with effectively.
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
Desertphile
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> Cold winter doesn't mean the end of global warming
>
> 2:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011
> BY DAVID ROSMAN
>
> �So, how�s your snow? I read you had over eight inches last week. It
> was 48 degrees here in Miami tonight. How�s that for global warming?�
It's certainly a common enough belief: most people really don't
know why winters are still cold while Earth has been warming; but
then a bloody hell of a lot of Americans don't even know why
winter is cold.
> My dad is not usually sarcastic, but this global climate change thing
> has had him going since Al Gore was elected president. You remember;
> that was the election where the loser won the contest. But that�s
> another column.
I also remember the USA Legislature holding hearings regarding the
balloting fraud, where three employees of Diebold and ES&S
testified under oath to having reprogrammed voting machines to
only accept votes for Bush2.
> The problem is that many climate change opponents only look at the
> short term, what is happening this week � not this century.
... by looking out their windows.
> They are
> looking at the immediate, what is going on in their visible world, and
> not at the entire planet. The glaciers melting in Glacier National
> Park, Greenland and Europe do not exist because we have no glaciers in
> the middle of Middle America. Or, in my dad�s case, southeast Florida.
>
> Scientific American has also discussed this. Quoting Eoin O�Carroll of
> the Christian Science Monitor, it reported, �You can�t tell much about
> the climate or where it�s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid
> day, or season, or year, even.�
>
> Science looks at the big picture, at least 30 years.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Hot summer doesn't prove global warming.
Nobody claimed one does.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
>> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
>
>ø LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in
> more than 1600 years.
You're a crackpot denier.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Desertphile
wrote:
> leona...@gmail.com <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 11:50�pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Arrhenius said 1000 years. �From that first 1896 model, there has been
> >> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
> > LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in more than 1600 years.
LOL! Alarmists can't even keep their own cult members parroting
the party line consistently.
> You're a crackpot denier.
Yep.
leona...@gmail.com
> leonard7...@gmail.com <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >> Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
> >> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
>
> >ø LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in
> > more than 1600 years.
>
> You're a crackpot denier.
ø Fisch Balls is expert at slander
Let's us see you prove it.
Of course you won't.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 29, 2:51 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> leonard7...@gmail.com <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 26, 11:50 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Arrhenius said 1000 years. From that first 1896 model, there has been
>> >> a consistent underestimation of the speed of global warming.
>>
>> >ø LOL There has been NO GLOBAL WARMING in
>> > more than 1600 years.
>>
>> You're a crackpot denier.
>
>ø Fisch Balls is expert at slander
The crackpot denier "forgets" that just a couple of days ago
he was insisting that tides don't exist.