The clear and present danger of climate change
Harry Hope
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climate-change-1.514236
October 14, 2009
The clear and present danger of climate change
Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
confined to the halls of conferences.
It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
the world.
Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
with a blueprint of a global plan to ease climate change � the Kyoto
Protocol.
However, it was rejected by the United States.
In December, the planet will have a second chance.
Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
binding targets to limit carbon emission � activists and scientists
hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
year 2050.
_________________________________________________
Harry
Beam Me Up Scotty
> http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climate-change-1.514236
>
> October 14, 2009
>
> The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> the world.
>
> Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
It has been a long *COLD* 12 years.
Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
Now that it's a cooling trend will you predict Ice age again like you
did in the 1970's, Yes I was a young man and listened to you nuts then
and look where we are now. You still make predictions and have NO clue
of what is happening.
A Doctoral Degree in climatology is tantamount to becoming a Witch Doctor.
> with a blueprint of a global plan to ease climate change � the Kyoto
> Protocol.
>
> However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> In December, the planet will have a second chance.
Waste you own money.
> Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
Copenhagen = Socialism Central
Anything that has "Copenhagen" in it needs to be suspect as a socialist
NUTCASE propaganda piece of crap.
> to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> binding targets to limit carbon emission � activists and scientists
> hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> year 2050.
>
What do activist know? Scientists tell us their job is skepticism. If
they tell you that they have all the answers, they aren't scientists.
They may have a degree from some Liberal/Socialist college and they may
be a Socialist-Scientist.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Harry
hellicopter
> Harry Hope wrote:
>> http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-
climate-change-1.514236
>>
>> October 14, 2009
>>
>> The clear and present danger of climate change
>>
>> Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
>> confined to the halls of conferences.
>>
>> It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
>> the world.
>>
>> Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
>> recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>>
>> According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
>> planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
>> degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>>
>> Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
>> this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>>
>> It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
>
> It has been a long *COLD* 12 years.
>
> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>
> Now that it's a cooling trend will you predict Ice age again like you
> did in the 1970's, Yes I was a young man and listened to you nuts then
> and look where we are now. You still make predictions and have NO clue
> of what is happening.
>
> A Doctoral Degree in climatology is tantamount to becoming a Witch Doctor.
They believe that the Oceans go through periods where they cool
and where they warm. Probably related to the Sun spots cycles.
This means that when we end the carbon age things are likely to
go back to normal. But the atmosphere is much easier to kick
around, much like Republicans nowadays, and so as CO2 levels
rise (slower thanks to Republicans who stuffed up the economy)
but with China continue to pump all CO2 ahead (thanks to
Republicans who open trade with the commies!) that we will
still have massive climate upheaval, acidification of oceans,
but here's the thing, we won't get such high sea levels as
were predicted. That's just my guess, not being a witch Doctor
of climatology.
>
>
>
>> with a blueprint of a global plan to ease climate change — the Kyoto
>> Protocol.
>>
>> However, it was rejected by the United States.
>>
>> In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> Waste you own money.
>
>
>> Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
>
> Copenhagen = Socialism Central
>
>
> Anything that has "Copenhagen" in it needs to be suspect as a socialist
> NUTCASE propaganda piece of crap.
>
>> to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
>> binding targets to limit carbon emission — activists and scientists
Jye...@giganews.com
That was the only way Bush could try to keep financing his wars.
The Chinese cashed our checks. They, and the Saudis, pretty much
own us now.
Igor
>
> > October 14, 2009
>
> > The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > the world.
>
> > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
>
> It has been a long *COLD* 12 years.
>
> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>
> Now that it's a cooling trend will you predict Ice age again like you
> did in the 1970's, Yes I was a young man and listened to you nuts then
> and look where we are now. You still make predictions and have NO clue
> of what is happening.
>
> A Doctoral Degree in climatology is tantamount to becoming a Witch Doctor.
>
> > Protocol.
>
> > However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> > In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> Waste you own money.
>
> > Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
>
> Copenhagen = Socialism Central
>
> Anything that has "Copenhagen" in it needs to be suspect as a socialist
> NUTCASE propaganda piece of crap.
>
> > to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> > hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> > year 2050.
>
> What do activist know? Scientists tell us their job is skepticism. If
> they tell you that they have all the answers, they aren't scientists.
> They may have a degree from some Liberal/Socialist college and they may
> be a Socialist-Scientist.
>
>
Do you have any cites from real science journals to back up all your
nonsense? I didn't think so. Just because you felt cold the last 12
years doesn't mean the world is cooling down.
buzz
> http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climate-change-1.514236
>
> October 14, 2009
>
> The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> the world.
>
> Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
> Protocol.
>
> However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
> to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> year 2050.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Heavy snows expected in PA
Chicago record breaking cold continues
Montana records fall
Forecast blown...09 hurricane season quietest in decade
Oceans are actually cooling
Average global temps have been cooling over the last 11 years
Yep, more of that global warming
Nice try Hairy.
Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Red Cloud
dog.com> wrote:
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-...
>
>
> > The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > the world.
>
> > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
>
> It has been a long *COLD* 12 years.
>
Nonsense. If you live in Southern CA, you won't get any change in
climate
change while your brain was stucked with garbage movie from
Hollywood....
> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>
It calls "Climate Change" while you monkey brain American-born
addicted to
Zionist talkshow like Michael Savage....
> Now that it's a cooling trend will you predict Ice age again like you
> did in the 1970's, Yes I was a young man and listened to you nuts then
> and look where we are now. You still make predictions and have NO clue
> of what is happening.
>
See American-born dumb ass only believes this is all about temperature
change...
They have no idea climate change is more than about temperature....Try
China
how their climate (wind, raining, temperature, sand storm, dust storm)
have been
unpredictable... You don't get that inform from nut-cracker American
shitty ass....
> A Doctoral Degree in climatology is tantamount to becoming a Witch Doctor.
>
Try Zionist Michael Savage rambling on global warming...He is all
safe from Chinese dust storm activist and you..
> > with a blueprint of a global plan to ease climate change — the Kyoto
> > Protocol.
>
> > However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> > In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> Waste you own money.
>
> > Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
>
> Copenhagen = Socialism Central
>
Wall-Street = Socialism headquarters.
Red Cloud
His American-born ass only knows temp thing...Climate Change is more
than
about temp... Global warming is NOTright term...It should call
climate change.
Don't say global warming to American-born shitty ass
somefools
news:6c5c86f1-bcaa-49c7...@p4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Maybe he has a B-vitamin deficiency or poor circulation...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>
>http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climate-change-1.514236
>
>October 14, 2009
>
>The clear and present danger of climate change
<snip>
As a Floridian, I love the way climate change has reduced the number
of hurricanes over the last few years. It seems pretty clear that our
planet is in the process of evolution and becoming more habitable to
humans. Tundra that was previously covered with permafrost that made
farming and living difficult if not all out impossible is now
revealing itself to a more densely populated world in just the nick of
time.
It's a shame that the same people that embrace evolution as a religion
fail to recognize when it's happening, and work to interfere with its
process.
And while I'm at it, one of these days our planet will be hit by a
huge meteorite. Seeing that this is an all natural occurrence, I
imagine that you would be on my side and say that we shouldn't use our
horrible weapons or other technology to interfere with the natural
order of things...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
mr.smartypants
"what...@twixtntween.com" <Jye...@giganews.com> wrote:
and there is always the possibility that the humans will alter the
climate so much that it will no longer support the species.
Yes, we're talking extinction. It happened to many critters before.
Humans have pushed the envelope and the piper must be paid.
Hint; Enjoy the moment.
--
money; what a concept!
John Q Public
Notice the left uses anything and everything as examples of their correctness
in their misguided science.
Its cold because of global warming, its hot because of global warming, its dry
because of global warming, its wet because of global warming!
Regardless of hard science correlating solar activity to C02 levels they ignore
that so they can push through their tax increases
The Wandering Poet
>
> > October 14, 2009
>
> > The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > the world.
>
> > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
> > Protocol.
>
> > However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> > In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> > Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
> > to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> > hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> > year 2050.
>
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Harry
>
> Heavy snows expected in PA
> Chicago record breaking cold continues
> Montana records fall
> Forecast blown...09 hurricane season quietest in decade
> Oceans are actually cooling
> Average global temps have been cooling over the last 11 years
>
> Yep, more of that global warming
>
> Nice try Hairy.
>
> Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
>
> Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
Simple-minded fool that equates global climate trends with local
weather patterns. Somehow you can't understand that a local
temperature swing does not correlate to the global trends.
Tater Gumfries
dog.com> wrote:
> Harry Hope wrote:
> >http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-...
>
>
> > The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > the world.
>
> > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
>
> It has been a long *COLD* 12 years.
>
> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
Temperatures don't cool. Objects can cool, but temperatures get lower
or higher.
Tater
Jye...@giganews.com
Absolutely. In toto, I don't think our species is worth a damn.
>Hint; Enjoy the moment.
How? You got any heroin you could send me?
Poetic Justice
The planet has cooled.... the temperature of the planet has been
cooling..... The "average" world temperature units have been getting
cooler on the thermal spectrum.
Neolibertarian
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climat
What a horrid fraud you and your dying movement truly are.
--
Neolibertarian
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress
discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
� ---Alexis de Tocqueville
hellicopter
No. Not quite. All species reach the limit of their niche
eventually, over populate, reach resource limits, shit in
their own food, water, supply. Now those who survive,
become new species are those on the edge, fringe members
of the dominate species, they either go up the trees or
into the garbage (rats, or monkeys), they either take to
the air or into the garbage (flies, cockroaches). Basically
there is a bifurcation, the conservatives members stick
with stupid and stay where they are, in their own garbage.
The liberals change what they are doing and discover new
horizons to scale. America was built by those who left
old safeties aboard and started new in the Americas.
So the great wheel turns, conservatives are the shit eaters
of the future.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4AD5F10B...@Talk-n-dog.com...
> Harry Hope wrote:
>> http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-of-climate-change-1.514236
>>
>> October 14, 2009
>>
>
No - it's been the warmest decade on record.
It;s stopped getting warmer so fast as it did for a similar period in the
50's for various reasons that you wouldn't even listen to if I could be
bothered to explain it - but to say it's been 'cold' is ridiculous.
> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>
> Now that it's a cooling trend will you predict Ice age again like you
> did in the 1970's, Yes I was a young man and listened to you nuts then
> and look where we are now.
Except that they didn't of course. Never happened.
Another rightard straw man.
The overwheming majority of climatologists in the 70's expected no change in
the climate.
Only 8% thought it would get colder and - to be fair - even less thought it
would ger warmer.
Get your facts right - I was there too.
Newsweek's articles were just headline grabbers for a year or so.
Meanwhile ships begin sailiing across the Arctic Ocean.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"John Q Public" <my2c...@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009101415161750073-my2cents@mecom...
Notice how junk science junkies are all stupid rightards.
Never mind - we'll clear up your shit for you as usual.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"The Wandering Poet" <mstr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b0d0116-44fd-4984...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Simple-minded fool that equates global climate trends with local
weather patterns. Somehow you can't understand that a local
temperature swing does not correlate to the global trends.
You're wasting your breath on these idiots.
They have their agenda and they are sticking to it regardless.
As you say they think local weather relates to climate change.
Says it all really.
Meanwhile ships begin sailing across the Arctic.
The Wandering Poet
> In article <narbd5ptqmihp0lg4pn2rj7ugu8fbfl...@4ax.com>,
> Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091015/sc_afp/britaincanadaarcticclimateenvironmentscience
>
> "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress
> discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
> ---Alexis de Tocqueville- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Wandering Poet
> "The Wandering Poet" <mstry...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:8b0d0116-44fd-4984...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Simple-minded fool that equates global climate trends with local
> weather patterns. Somehow you can't understand that a local
> temperature swing does not correlate to the global trends.
>
> You're wasting your breath on these idiots.
> They have their agenda and they are sticking to it regardless.
> As you say they think local weather relates to climate change.
> Says it all really.
>
> Meanwhile ships begin sailing across the Arctic.
I know, I just posted the link. The fabled "northwest passage" will
no longer be a fable.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Meanwhile you try to use your hoax to raise taxes.....
The jig is up.
Your pretend science is exposed, and you are known as the liars you are.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Obama wants a health care system run with the efficiency of the post
office, the competence of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS.
Neolibertarian
<cc567be4-e84b-45b6...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
The Wandering Poet <mstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:42�ｿｽpm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <narbd5ptqmihp0lg4pn2rj7ugu8fbfl...@4ax.com>,
> > �ｿｽHarry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-...
> > > e-change-1.514236
> >
> > > October 14, 2009
> >
> > > The clear and present danger of climate change
> >
> > > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > > confined to the halls of conferences.
> >
> > > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > > the world.
> >
> > > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
> >
> > > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
> >
> > > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
> >
> > > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
> > > with a blueprint of a global plan to ease climate change �ｿｽ the Kyoto
> > > Protocol.
> >
> > > However, it was rejected by the United States.
> >
> > > In December, the planet will have a second chance.
> >
> > > Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
> > > to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> > > binding targets to limit carbon emission �ｿｽ activists and scientists
> > > hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> > > year 2050.
> >
> > What a horrid fraud you and your dying movement truly are.
> >
> > --
> > Neolibertarian
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091015/sc_afp/britaincanadaarcticclimateenvironm
> entscience
>
Recent and Current Sea Ice Extent:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
2009 sea ice exceeds 2005, according to IARC-JAXA.
The poles are not melting. None of the "scientists" from your article
bother to explain upon what they base their idiotic predictions (the
implication in the article is, 1) they're associated with "Britain's
prestigious Cambridge University," and 2) that they may have found some
thinner patches in some ice along their tiny route).
To tell the truth, the article is so poorly written, I'm not even sure
they (the "scientists"), are in fact making the predictions found in the
article. Perhaps they are, but do you know why leading questions aren't
allowed in a court of law? That's right, because it makes it far more
likely you'll get the answer you wanted...rather than the truth.
At any rate, 6,000 measurements over a 450 km route may sound
comprehensive, but it's not. Actually, it's futile and microscopic in
comparison to what they purport to be studying.
Their predictions (whatever "their" may represent) can't be based upon
measured sea ice extents; instead they must be based on, for instance,
the faulty predictions of the faulty models used by IPCC.
If you'd chart out the averaged global temperatures over the last 250
years, in one degree C increments, your graph would look something like
this:
---------------------------------------------------->
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
If you extended that same chart, in one degree C increments, over the
entire Holocene, it would look like this:
--------------
| |
| |
| |
----| |------------------------>
/
/
11,000 YBP 6,000 YBP 1,000 YBP Present
The poles may not be melting, but it's a sure thing the polls are
heating up. Especially since the neo-marxists and their allies, the
enviro-marxists, have tipped their hand and reached for all our chips.
Unwisely so, since this is also a time when there's a pause in "global
warming." Actually a slight cooling.
(Cooling, btw, is far and away much more dangerous to mankind than a
warming--even a slight cooling could cause huge disasters, and such have
done so in the past.)
And, of course, all this coincides with a period of extremely low
sunspot activity.
The sun was predicted to have far more activity this year than last, but
it still hasn't materialized, and the year is drawing to an end.
The climate, too, was predicted to be much warmer. This prediction
failed as well.
None of the climate models utilized by IPCC work. The international
panel even admits this, right on their website.
Not to be deterred, what they do is average out a range of models (16
IIRC), and they use that average of models that don't work to predict
the disasters that, despite their best efforts, keep failing to
materialize.
The average of faulty models fails in prediction just as do all the
models singly, unsurprisingly. Some German and British climate
scientists have amended their models to account for the pause. Recently,
a NASA climatologist has publicly acknowledged the pause.
We can't really blame IPCC for all the confusion, even though they're
the fountainhead of all the confusion.
You see, they aren't a scientific body, they're actually an
international lobbying group.
Warming isn't expected to resume for about 20 more years. Again, there
is no foundational explanation given for the pause, nor why warming is
presumed to pick up again in a couple of decades. Obviously, there's a
sine curve involved. But, oddly enough, there's no sine curve in the
tiny increase in Carbon Dioxide, Amen, in the troposphere that will be
occurring all along.
The funniest line in the article you cited is this:
"This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world's
population..."
Besides the fact that sea ice is increasing...have you ever observed
what happens when an ice cube melts in an already full glass of water?
That's right.
--
Neolibertarian
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress
discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
�ｿｽ ---Alexis de Tocqueville
Neolibertarian
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:42:54 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What a horrid fraud you and your dying movement truly are
>
> And being a loonytarian (in any way, shape or form"
> isn't?
No, as a matter of fact, it's not.
>
> Didn't you read any History?
Of what?
>
> Loontarian "principles" were all FAILURES.
Holy Cow! When did THAT happen?
The Wandering Poet
> The Wandering Poet <mstry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:42 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <narbd5ptqmihp0lg4pn2rj7ugu8fbfl...@4ax.com>,
>
> > > >http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/the-clear-and-present-danger-...
> > > > e-change-1.514236
>
> > > > October 14, 2009
>
> > > > The clear and present danger of climate change
>
> > > > Climate change is no longer the talk of the intellectuals nor is it
> > > > confined to the halls of conferences.
>
> > > > It is a clear and present danger and its impact is being felt across
> > > > the world.
>
> > > > Scientists say the recent floods and natural calamities that hit Asia
> > > > recently are the result of the unchecked global warming.
>
> > > > According to a World Bank report, released in Dubai on Monday, the
> > > > planet will be faced with devastating effects when temperature rises 5
> > > > degrees Celsius above pre-industrial warming period.
>
> > > > Currently, the temperature is already 2 degrees Celsius above, and
> > > > this is already "a real problem", according to the report.
>
> > > > It has been long 12 years since world leaders met in Japan and came up
> > > > Protocol.
>
> > > > However, it was rejected by the United States.
>
> > > > In December, the planet will have a second chance.
>
> > > > Heads of states are expected to meet in Copenhagen in a second attempt
> > > > to reach a deal, which would build on Kyoto and set internationally
> > > > hope the leaders would agree on a reduction of 40-50 per cent by the
> > > > year 2050.
>
> > > What a horrid fraud you and your dying movement truly are.
>
> > > --
> > > Neolibertarian
>
> > entscience
>
> Recent and Current Sea Ice Extent:
>
> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
>
> 2009 sea ice exceeds 2005, according to IARC-JAXA.
Actually it looks like the thinnest measured in 2009 is thinner than
the thinnest in 2005. And the average is still closer to 2007
(thinnest) than to 2002 (thickest).
>
> The poles are not melting. None of the "scientists" from your article
> bother to explain upon what they base their idiotic predictions (the
> implication in the article is, 1) they're associated with "Britain's
> prestigious Cambridge University," and 2) that they may have found some
> thinner patches in some ice along their tiny route).
>
> To tell the truth, the article is so poorly written, I'm not even sure
> they (the "scientists"), are in fact making the predictions found in the
> article. Perhaps they are, but do you know why leading questions aren't
> allowed in a court of law? That's right, because it makes it far more
> likely you'll get the answer you wanted...rather than the truth.
Articles found on the general webservices are meant for a general
audience and as such written on a 6th grade level. I never claimed it
was a "scientific" article, merely that there were findings that may
contradict your blanket statement. And are you saying that reporters
have a bias and sometimes don't understand what they're writing
about? I'm SHOCKED! And also sadly in agreement. Being in local
government I have first-hand experience with it.
>
> At any rate, 6,000 measurements over a 450 km route may sound
> comprehensive, but it's not. Actually, it's futile and microscopic in
> comparison to what they purport to be studying.
And yet, Benjamin Franklin took less measurements with less precision
than that when he measured the Gulf Stream and postulated theories on
that that have turned out remarkably accurate. I agree there is a
danger in not gathering enough data to make a valid assumption.
>
> Their predictions (whatever "their" may represent) can't be based upon
> measured sea ice extents; instead they must be based on, for instance,
> the faulty predictions of the faulty models used by IPCC.
Are you sure or are you making an unknown assumption?
>
> If you'd chart out the averaged global temperatures over the last 250
> years, in one degree C increments, your graph would look something like
> this:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------->
>
> 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
>
> If you extended that same chart, in one degree C increments, over the
> entire Holocene, it would look like this:
>
> --------------
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ----| |------------------------>
> /
> /
>
> 11,000 YBP 6,000 YBP 1,000 YBP Present
>
> The poles may not be melting, but it's a sure thing the polls are
> heating up. Especially since the neo-marxists and their allies, the
> enviro-marxists, have tipped their hand and reached for all our chips.
Showing a bias perhaps? Be careful you don't discount information
just because you don't agree with it. I can find information showing
both sides are absolutely correct.
>
> Unwisely so, since this is also a time when there's a pause in "global
> warming." Actually a slight cooling.
>
> (Cooling, btw, is far and away much more dangerous to mankind than a
> warming--even a slight cooling could cause huge disasters, and such have
> done so in the past.)
Neither are good.
Water displaces water at an equal rate. However, the water/ice coming
off Greenland and Antartica would certainly cause an increase in ocean
levels placing many coastal areas at risk. It would also reduce the
salinity of the Oceans with devastating effects on sea life.
>
> --
> Neolibertarian
>
> "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress
> discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> Tater Gumfries wrote:
> >> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
> >> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>
> > Temperatures don't cool. Objects can cool, but temperatures get lower
> > or higher.
>
> > Tater
>
> The planet has cooled.... the temperature of the planet has been
> cooling.....
No, once again, temperatures do not cool. They rise or fall. Cooling
is a process undergone by a physical object.
> The "average" world temperature units have been getting
> cooler on the thermal spectrum.
Units do not cool either. Units are basic fixed quantities, like
calories or meters or joules. If you can't even get the language
right, how can anyone have confidence in your ability to understand
and interpret scientific findings?
So, why do you think you have the ability to distinguish good from bad
science? Why do you have confidence in the statements you made, which
were obviously taken from somewhere else before you misinterpreted
them?
Tater
Poetic Justice
> On Oct 14, 7:58 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>> Tater Gumfries wrote:
>
>>>> Temperatures are cooling and 12 years is a trend as the YO-YO's that
>>>> believe in Global Warming have been telling me.
>>> Temperatures don't cool. Objects can cool, but temperatures get lower
>>> or higher.
>>> Tater
>> The planet has cooled.... the temperature of the planet has been
>> cooling.....
>
> No, once again, temperatures do not cool. They rise or fall. Cooling
> is a process undergone by a physical object.
And refrigerators don't "run", and there are no "Hot water heaters"
because you don't need to heat the water that is already hot....
You... my snobish link to idiocy, are not worth the trouble you are like
a 12 years old little girl and her friends, calling people with phone
pranks.
Tater Gumfries
No, Tater is serious. If you use inexact language lie this, it is
quite probable that you do not have the scientific background to make
a value judgment on which research is likely to be correct.
Tater
Poetic Justice
As if it takes a Phd in Physics to predict the sun will be in the sky
tomorrow....
You are so stupid is ceases to be funny.
Neolibertarian
<442e0fc1-f9e9-43ed...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Neolibertarian
> >
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091015/sc_afp/britaincanadaarcticclimat...
> > > entscience
> >
> > Recent and Current Sea Ice Extent:
> >
> > http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
> >
> > 2009 sea ice exceeds 2005, according to IARC-JAXA.
>
> Actually it looks like the thinnest measured in 2009 is thinner than
> the thinnest in 2005. And the average is still closer to 2007
> (thinnest) than to 2002 (thickest).
The thinner ice isn't due to "global warming," of course, though that's
only counter-intuitive to people who believe this is a major warming.
Either way, the poles aren't melting. Sea ice is not disappearing.
You should not encourage the idiots who're only trying to scare the
little kiddies.
> >
> > The poles are not melting. None of the "scientists" from your article
> > bother to explain upon what they base their idiotic predictions (the
> > implication in the article is, 1) they're associated with "Britain's
> > prestigious Cambridge University," and 2) that they may have found some
> > thinner patches in some ice along their tiny route).
> >
> > To tell the truth, the article is so poorly written, I'm not even sure
> > they (the "scientists"), are in fact making the predictions found in the
> > article. Perhaps they are, but do you know why leading questions aren't
> > allowed in a court of law? That's right, because it makes it far more
> > likely you'll get the answer you wanted...rather than the truth.
>
> Articles found on the general webservices are meant for a general
> audience and as such written on a 6th grade level. I never claimed it
> was a "scientific" article, merely that there were findings that may
> contradict your blanket statement.
The criticism of the article had nothing to do with it not being a
scientific paper.
The article is needlessly confusing.
> And are you saying that reporters
> have a bias and sometimes don't understand what they're writing
> about? I'm SHOCKED! And also sadly in agreement. Being in local
> government I have first-hand experience with it.
Ever see "Casablanca?" You hint above that you have.
UGARTE: You despise me, don't you?
RICK (indifferently): If I gave you any thought, I probably would.
UGARTE: But why? Oh, you object to the kind of business I do, huh? But
think of all those poor refugees who must rot in this place if I didn't
help them. That's not so bad. Through ways of my own I provide them with
an exit visa.
RICK: For a price, Ugarte, for a price.
UGARTE: But think of all the poor devils who cannot meet Renault's
price. I get it for them for half. Is that so parasitic?
RICK: I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.
> > At any rate, 6,000 measurements over a 450 km route may sound
> > comprehensive, but it's not. Actually, it's futile and microscopic in
> > comparison to what they purport to be studying.
>
> And yet, Benjamin Franklin took less measurements with less precision
> than that when he measured the Gulf Stream and postulated theories on
> that that have turned out remarkably accurate. I agree there is a
> danger in not gathering enough data to make a valid assumption.
>
In this case, the induction and theory isn't holding up to objections.
Which is why none of the computer models have proved predictive.
Maybe climate science is lacking a Franklin.
> >
> > Their predictions (whatever "their" may represent) can't be based upon
> > measured sea ice extents; instead they must be based on, for instance,
> > the faulty predictions of the faulty models used by IPCC.
>
> Are you sure or are you making an unknown assumption?
I'm forced to make the assumption, since the article is so poorly
written.
>
> >
> > If you'd chart out the averaged global temperatures over the last 250
> > years, in one degree C increments, your graph would look something like
> > this:
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------->
> >
> > 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
> >
> > If you extended that same chart, in one degree C increments, over the
> > entire Holocene, it would look like this:
> >
> > --------------
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > ----| |------------------------>
> > /
> > /
> >
> > 11,000 YBP 6,000 YBP 1,000 YBP Present
> >
> > The poles may not be melting, but it's a sure thing the polls are
> > heating up. Especially since the neo-marxists and their allies, the
> > enviro-marxists, have tipped their hand and reached for all our chips.
>
> Showing a bias perhaps? Be careful you don't discount information
> just because you don't agree with it. I can find information showing
> both sides are absolutely correct.
Science doesn't have sides.
What you find is people on both sides of a political issue who can
"prove" absolutely nothing.
These questions about the climate being discussed are largely
indeterminate.
IPCC hasn't succeeded in making these questions determinate, though it
claims to.
We can't blame IPCC, because it's not a scientific body. It's just an
international lobbying group (as they freely admit on their website).
They've carried out their mission admirably. If people think that that
mission is science, that's their fault--not IPCC's.
>
> >
> > Unwisely so, since this is also a time when there's a pause in "global
> > warming." Actually a slight cooling.
> >
> > (Cooling, btw, is far and away much more dangerous to mankind than a
> > warming--even a slight cooling could cause huge disasters, and such have
> > done so in the past.)
>
> Neither are good.
A small warming could be extremely beneficial to mankind, whereas a
small cooling could be an absolute disaster.
Nothing like that is happening. The Antarctic has actually gained ice
mass--due largely to the small warming.
Greenland would need at least a 3-8C increased average to fulfill your
scenario, and as I tried to previously demonstrate, the warming has not
even increased the averaged temps 1C.
---------------------------------------------------->
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
There is no data supporting climate disaster. Only the models "support"
climate disasters.
And the models aren't predictive. They are being amended to account for
current data right now.
Evidently, Aesop lived in vain.
Man-made environmental disasters are a real danger for mankind as he
approaches a "Type 1" civilization.
Mismanaging the information, as they have willfully done, will only hurt
the credibility of climatologists, and /destroy/ the credibility of
environmentalists.
Which puts us all in a far greater danger should a real man-made
environmental disaster manifest itself in the future.
Who will listen then?
Tater Gumfries
It's Ph.D. or PhD. Everyone knows the sun rises in the east. What
ain't so obvious is how the climate changes. They's a lot of smart
people workin on figurin out how that works. Ain't nothin wrong with
havin an opinion, but if you don't have any idea how science works,
your opinion ain't worth shit.
> You are so stupid is ceases to be funny.
You kin think so if it makes you feel better. Don't bother ol Tater,
because Tater is right.
Tater
Poetic Justice
Explain to me the steps in the scientific process.
show me your geneuss.
You have a Phd no dought.
>> You are so stupid is ceases to be funny.
>
> You kin think so if it makes you feel better. Don't bother ol Tater,
> because Tater is right.
>
> Tater
You may be educated(I doubt it) but it's fun to watch you get excited
about it.
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> show me your geneuss.
Tater
Poetic Justice
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
No, Tater's solidly grounded. It's part of his geneuss.
Tater