Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Global Warming Is Running Out of Hot Air
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The coldest winter in a decade in many places, with snow in unlikely cities such as New Orleans, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming. And a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming.

Nevertheless, according to Al Gore and the mainstream media, "the debate is over" proving that global warming exists, that humans are causing it and that "science is settled."

But 680 of the world's leading scientists, economists and policy analysts, who met March 8-10 in New York City for the second Heartland International Conference, beg to differ. The title of the conference expressed their doubts: "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?"

These authorities assert that scientists worldwide do not agree that global warming is human induced (in scientific lingo, anthropogenic). They do not even agree that the Earth is still warming.

Many scientists and other observers have come to realize that global warming is no longer a question of science but is all about politics and money. Their slogan, cap-and-trade, was best explained by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, as "a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch."

President Obama is being pressured by James McCarthy, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to rush his carbon tax through Congress before the American people discover the lie in Obama's promise that "95 percent of working families" will not see their taxes rise by "a single dime." In fact, his own budget shows that taxes will rise for 100 percent of Americans for the sake of global warming.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change plans to use a treaty to reduce America's use of energy and therefore our standard of living, while forcing us to subsidize energy production in other countries and close our eyes to the omission of China and India from any obligation.

There has been virtually no overall global warming since 2001. Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, reminded the conference that temperatures "have been plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie."

Eagle Forum's observer at the Heartland Conference, Pat Carlson of Dallas, reported that its most interesting speaker was Czech Republic President and rotating President of the European Union Vaclav Klaus, who has taken a bold position against the prevailing propaganda about global warming. He described talking to global warming advocates as similar to trying to make "well prepared arguments" using "relevant data" to former East European Communist bureaucrats: "It all fell into emptiness ... they did not listen ... they did not argue back ... they considered you uninformed ... a complainer."

Klaus has written a book called "Blue Planet in Green Shackles -- What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" He had previously carried his politically incorrect views to the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he reminded the countries promoting the global warming agenda that they "had not fulfilled even the relatively modest Kyoto Protocol obligations."

As a resident of St. Louis, which boasts a world-class zoo noted especially for its bears housed in their natural habitats, I've been concerned because of the many television spots warning that global warming may make polar bears extinct. I can now stop worrying; the Senate's expert on global warming, James Inhofe, R-Okla., has discovered that polar bears are actually more plentiful than they were 40 years ago.

This was confirmed at the Heartland Conference by Ph.D. polar bear biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor. He said polar bears are definitely not disappearing; their numbers are holding steady at about 24,000.

At the Heartland Conference, the science of global warming was actually discussed and debated. That was very different from the United Nations conferences Carlson previously attended, where global warming caused by humans was accepted as fact without debate.

The advocates of a U.N. treaty to force the United States to reduce our use of energy are extraordinarily shy about debating the science of the issue. We've yet to hear any of them explain or apologize for their hysterical support of the false assumption of the 1960s that millions of people would starve to death in the 1980s because of overpopulation, or of the 1970s theory that global cooling would kill our agriculture.

Christopher Horner's new book, called "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed," gives many, many examples of how they not only refuse to debate, but are malicious against anyone who dares to contradict their view.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

More Ignorant Propoganda

[yawn] Ms. Schlafly is merely repeating the tired and oft-refuted denialist nonsense spouted by the professional liars of the right. A few facts to keep in mind:

Fact 1: Nearly every scientific organization in the world supports the anthropocentric global warming hypothesis

Fact 2: Not a single one denies it

Fact 3: A gathering of cranks and nonscientists saying otherwise doesn't carry near the credibility of Facts 1 and 2. You can get such a small number of people to sign onto just about any crank issue you care to name: evolution denial, holocaust denial, etc. That so many of them are far outside their field should embarrass everyone pushing these lists. Economists challenging climate science? What's next, a lawyer and a mathematician challenging evolution?
Oh, tried that one too, didja? How'd that work out in Dover?

Just bury your heads in the sand and go Ohmmmmmmmmm. It's clear you people simply dismiss whatever science threatens your religious or political sensibilities.

To Science Avenger
To paraphrase, "Science Avenger is merely repeating the tired and oft-refuted unsubstantiated nonsense spouted by the professional liars of the left"

science revisionism by science avenger
Mr avenger here is ,yawwwn as he puts, it boring. Look at his total refute of the mystery of global warming, which has yet to show its head! Amazing that that this winter has had record cold temperatures and winter is still blasting in the Midwest. I wonder if Science avenger sees this, or is too busy drooling over his lover sycophant Mr. Al Gore, who basically wants attention.

Fact 1. I could call myself a climatologist and make up anything and get money saying its for global warming.

Fact 2. Not a single one denies it.

Fact 3. You get such a small number of people to sign onto just about any crank issue you care to name: Comon sense, humor, a heart. Whats next, liberals thinking they have brains? Oh tried that one didja? How did that work out in every state?

Science Avenger, after watching an inconvenient truth surrounded by some hand cream and Kleenex, gets his kicks wondering why can't we tax people over something that is only happening in the mind of mythological creatures and mindless followers. Oh man... Why can't those mean conservatives believe in something made up?

Science Avenger
What are your qualifications to judge anything scientific? Do you have a degree in Chemistry, Biology, Physics or any science?

I have a B. S. in Chemistry and I don't believe any of the hysteria about Global Warming. Just 35 years ago the headlines on Time and/or Newsweek was read "The Coming Ice Age". Has the climate changed so drastically in 35 years that we have gone for cooling to warming and the warming is a crisis just like the coming ice age was. I also remember when we were going to ALL die of starvation due to overpopulation. That was in the 50's and 60's and the world's population has doubled and we are no worse off than we were then.

Evolution has been scientifically proven to be false according to Darwin's own statement.
He said if it could be proved that "irreducible complexity" existed then evolution is wrong. Read Dr James P. Gill's book "Darwinism under the Microscope" for the scientific proof.

One Minor Point, TruthToBeTold
My scientific education was an awfully long time ago but I'm sure T remember being told by my professors that science NEVER proves anything. Scientists can only describe the universe and indicate that a particular explanation is likely to be true (or untrue) based on currently available evidence. Granted, in some fields like chemistry, the probability of a prediction being correct approaches 100% but the wise scientist always leaves himself some wiggle room.

what a hoax
You have to be stupid to believe anything that Dems ever say. They should put a 90% tax on all the profits hoaxer al gore ever made inconveniencing us about the untruth.

Science Avenger
You may want to update your rhetoric and parroted talking points. The loons and scam artists are no longer calling it “global warming”. Turns out the planet is actually cooling, which has becoming a little embarrassing for your fellow idiots and doom mongers. The snake oil salesmen and their sheeple have now changed the term to “climate change”. How ingenious – regardless of the weather, it can now all be blamed on evil western civilization.

Here’s a little advice genius, research the Gleissberg Cycle of Solar Activity and Climate Change - a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Icedog
Your post to Science Avenger is spot on. This idiot is named after his third grade science project, and has delusions of intelligence.

Failure to understand poltical rhetoric and scientific facts make the boy a lock on the science moron of the year award.

Scince Avenger, the 2008 recipient of the Darwin award for most likely to be replaced in natural selection.

Still swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.

True
Anderson, thank you

Joel, good point - and something that used to be obvious. Unfortunately, the libs started shredding our Constitution in the 1960s. It is only to be referenced as 'law of the land' when it benefits liberal causes - however, it's simply "flexible (but outdated) guidelines" when discussing conservative issues.

Joel-De Opressor Liber
Good morning.

There are quite a few powerful natural cyclical systems which affect global temperatures. The precession of the earth's axis, the shape of the earths orbit(which is altered by gravitic influences of the other planets), sun spots, and techtonic shifts which alter ocean currents and influence heat transfers involving enormous amounts of energy. We have exactly zero control of any of these.

But even if AGW was a fact, it would be suicide to try to fix it ourselves. Nobody else is doing anything. We would be merely ruining our economy for nothing in a battle we couldn't win.

Hey Stupid Avenger
If your side is so positive that man-made global warming is a fact, why won't it debate anyone from the anti-global warming crowd?

A Perfect Storm
Science Avenger sounds like someone ripped out of the comic books. In fact this whole Global Warming fraud clearly originated from comic book-style catastrophic melodramatics.

What I've learned from a long life is that always beware of the do-gooders because they end up destroying human beings and civilizations. Raging environmentalists should be deported to an island in the Pacific where they won't harm millions of innocent human beings.

Folks, we are facing the Perfect Storm here unless we get the children out of D.C. Inflating the currency, taxing the rich and spreading the wealth, and then taxing everyone for decades to eliminate CO2 from the environment are a sure recipe for the total collapse of the USA.

It doesn't take a faux "scientist" from the comic book world to grasp that conclusion. The adults have to take charge in D.C. before these fanatical Obama cultists reduce us to the status of Zimbabwe.

China can just sit back and it will inherit the Big Dog crown in the world without lifting a finger or using its millions of armed forces. The only good thing about that eventuality is that the Chinese will really put rabid environmentalists on a future Alcatraz island.


Remember the 31 THOUSAND?
That's the number of REAL scientists, not grant grubbers, who have signed a petition to the U.N. renouncing the AGW scam. Against all THAT Algore has 1,121 clowns with degrees chasing grants. Any questions?

For extra credit Google: Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

I SO want it to be true!!
That's the argument as it's come down now for those supporting AGW. Like everything else on the left, it's a wish, a hope, a fantasy. Reality, fact, investigation and un-biased science don't enter the mind-set nor will informed discrimination ever be part of the lefts deducement of events. They're like terriers with a ball, never giving up their chase until the ball is taken away. But how do we take the ball away if pure science, reason and logic can't remove it? Easy, give them a new fantasy. Tell them that for abortion to be truly effective, any and all who support this form of murder must also submit to being put to death in order to maintain balance in the world. Make it their new obligation to save the planet. If sold properly, I feel we could solve many problems and faux crisis foisted upon the world by the fantasy dwelling left.

Jerseyvet
"...beware of the do-gooders because they end up destroying human beings and civilizations."

You are correct, and this has been demonstrated countless times. Literally MILLIONS of people have died needlessly from malaria due to the DDT scare and the “Silent Spring” scam. I remember watching one of the scientists who created DDT actually eat a spoonful of the stuff during a press conference to prove it wasn’t deadly – not ice cream, but far from “the instant killer of all birds and animals”.

A guess a few million dead Africans is a small price to pay in order for liberals to "feel" good about themselves.

from New Orleans
We just had one of the warmest winters on record. For 2 hours in December, some snow fell before it was rained away. It was a hot winter in New Orleans, not "the coldest winter in a decade".


ASTROIDS NOT CO2
There is no question that we have experienced a warming trend, a cyclical manifestation exacerbated by environmental factors of human and industrial growth.

As stated, the sun's radiation is a major factor effecting the trend. We may be facing a cooling trend, but CO2 emmisions are a problem along with pollution of the oceans.

I had a college professor who traced historic weather and economic cycles over thousands of years of time. The world is in climatic trouble. Look to the emerging industralization of Asia as the major culprit -- especially China!

We are stewards of our environment yet it is the Inspired prophesy the world as we know it will be destroyed:

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” (2Peter 3:10)

One astroid may do it! Not CO2 emissions.

Where Are My Glaciers!
Back in the last 70's my teachers promised me a mile-high wall of ice that would swallow up Chicago and New York.

Well?!?

I want my glaciers.

When do-gooders LIE.....
Watch out for your purses and pocket books. Their "goodness" is EVIL! The purpose is to control.

When the lie is constantly perpetrated on the children, the tail starts wagging the dog. That's because there are far too many children walking around in adult bodies, who have no critical thinking skills no basic knowledge of science or History.

Globull Warming Theory is a HUGE, stinking pile of excement. A scam to make Algore richer.

This Sat, just as we did last year during Earth Hour, my wife and I will have every light, appliance, AC, power tools, anything which uses electricity or gas RUNNING between 8-9 PM. Our hope is to cause a brown out here in Tucson and illustrate just hope stupid this whole movement is.

Scam! Scam! Scam!
That's all that needs to be said!

Even it were true,
the benefits to mankind would far outweigh the supposed consequences.

For one, more moderate temperatures in historically colder climates with increased cultivation and longer growing seasons, less use of energy just to keep warm..... But it isn't happening. I even moved to AZ from WY because I got tired of waiting for the promise of warmer winters. I was exposed to extreme cold so much, hunting, fishing, working and playing, now when it gets under 50 degrees, I'm FREEZING!

And I don't care how many names you call me, it doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Remember Erlich's "The Population Bomb?" How'd that work out for you, foolish hippies?

When I was young, I also was foolish. But when I got older I figured out just how foolish I was. I haven't voted dhimmicrat since Carter, nor weepublican since Dole. I am a rock-ribbed conservative and definitely smarter than most of our current crop of congress creeps, plus our Supreme Leader.

Now that's evolution you can believe in.

Rising water level
Phooey!! A bunch of liars! For one thing,if those idiots would read the bible,they would find that Al Gore is only in this for money,and that his so called facts are FLAT OUT lies!! But the new versions of the scriptures,you might CAN for they aren't the true WORD either.Get a KJV
study bible.

Informed voter
You may have had a warm winter. Look at where you are!! I've been around for some time and I can tell you,weather works in cycles! Back in the 30's there was a dust bowl here in Kansas; I've seen flooding here many times and good ole cold spells!
Don't be fooled by those Quacks! It's all about MONEY!

We need global warming, not Gorebullwar
The reason that so much of this planet has had drought for so many centuries is that we’ve been in an ice age, and the water needed for normal condensation has been frozen into glaciers. Glaciers are frozen water needed as condensation for barren and frozen lands of this planet, causing drought and flooding. When glaciers melt, some water runs into the oceans. Some water thaws the ground below where the glacier was, and soaks into the ground. Some water evaporates into the upper atmosphere where it becomes normal rainfall for the whole world.

The heat of the sun, clean air, and the absence of cold from glaciers and sea ice would cause more water to be evaporated from the oceans, lakes, and rivers into the upper atmosphere than there presently is; and the winds would blow it evenly around the world, providing normal rainfall world-wide, even where there presently is drought, and barren and frozen land, preventing flooding.

The worldwide rainfall would cause long-dormant seeds in barren lands to sprout and grow into new plants: The best way to go green. The new plants would inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which we breathe. There would be so many new plants, that we might have to increase the amount of carbon dioxide we generate, to provide enough for all of them

If the glacier in Greenland would melt, the codfish would return, and the land could be farmed, as it was when originally colonized by Vikings, millennia ago.

Many parts of the world have record amounts of snow and ice. Arctic ice is as thick as it was in the 1970’s when an ice age was predicted. Polar bears, which had thrived during the previous decade, are heading south to escape the severe cold. We’re entering another ice age in 2014. We must drill and pump all our own oil, shale oil, natural gas, and mine our coal as soon as possible to have them available for use.

You've Fallen for the Feint!
Arguing about whether there is global warming or whether it is man made are the two issues the Liberals want you engaged in. I don't for a minute think either is proven, but the real issue you should be discussing is the proposed Liberal solutions. The solutions are a thinly disguised means of raising your taxes, since direct tax increases are hard for folks to stomach any more, even in places like California. Remember, Liberals need tax increases like dope addicts need ever larger fixes.

The real point is that solutions like cap and trade have extremely high costs, but near zero impact on worldwide greenhouse gases. These costs are in both money and regulation.

Think about it! If the US currently contributes 20% plus of the world's greenhouse gases, and we reduce our numbers by 50% in the name of saving mother earth, we will have reduced world gases by 10% plus! Big Whup, except for the high cost to the US economy. China, Indonesia, India, and others will increase by that much in the next few years and we will be back to where we were. And if you think you can control those countries, you are truly naive.

And, if the advocates of wind and solar get their wildest wishes to come true, these will never produce more than 10% to 20% of our energy needs. Meanwhile, nuclear, more drilling, clean coal, and natural gas are ignored or given short shrift. These are the only near term (30 year) solutions to energy independence.

The real question you should be discussing is why the US would voluntarily subject its citizens to high cost/benefit ratio actions that have minuscule impact on greenhouse gases. The answer: Watch this hand while I pick your pocket with the other one.

THE CO2 HOUSE OF CARDS
THE CO2 HOUSE OF CARDS

The "scientific theory" of man-made global warming, requiring cap & trade, and other "green" measures is that increasing percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature. If this is not true then this "scientific theory" collapses like a house of cards.

More & more data indicates that CO2 is not the cause of man-made global warming so all these "cures" are based on a house of cards.

Otis
What are you going to do about volcano's? One eruption puts out more than mankind could do in a thousand years! No doubt the world will be destroyed,But I won't be here!
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV that is!

TruthToBeTold #4
...and we are no worse off than we were then.
Except that now we have Obamba and the Obambac-rats.

Jerseyvet #13: Global warming hoaxers should be put at the noteh and south poles where they can keep checking the ice thickness, with no way to tell anyone.


Otis, the asteroid
In January 2009, The Obamessiah became President of the United States. HIS first action in office was to destroy all nuclear weapons; the second to eliminate all fossil fuel sources. Behold, nuclear weapons and fossil fuels no longer existed on Earth.
Behold, the planet was covered with solar-panel fields, and windmill forests, which don’t produce electricity when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

After ten years, there was only peace and harmony on the planet, because, for five years, the noises and vibrations from the windmills drove many people to suicide, and the solar panels killed most food plants. The 2014 Ice Age froze the people who hadn’t starved, because there wasn’t any heat for their homes, and destroyed the windmills and solar-panels. Everybody died except for The Obamessiah, Algore, and 12 other liberals living in the hydroponic garden in the bunker below Mount Rushmore.

One day, the Mount Palomar Observatory said that “The Asteroid”, an outer space rock the size of The Alps, was on a collision course with Earth, as a 2008 NOVA documentary warned.

One liberal got out the file on “The Asteroid” to find out what to do. The instructions were to launch six, 20-megaton nuclear missiles and land them on “The Asteroid”, and then detonate them one-by-one, three seconds apart. The phased explosions should divert “The Asteroid” from hitting Earth.

Then one liberal said, “We can’t do this! HE beholded the missiles and fuel out of existence! We don’t have missiles to launch and fuel to launch them.”

Then they said, “HE can behold “The Asteroid” not to hit the earth.”

After telling HIM about “The Asteroid”, the liberals realized that HE was actually the Twelfth Imam, THE ONE that, back in 2007, Muslim terrorists said would destroy the world in two years. Two years after 2007, was when The Obamessiah “beholded” the missiles and fuel out of existence.


Such a shame
there are no "lifeguards" at the "gene pool" !!! Jim

Phyllis
very good column. I am reminded of my HAZMAT classes. The instructer asked us what is the purpose the lungs? No one in this class got the answer right. Answer- To remove CO2. The world runs on CO2, all life is based on it. I just wish more people were aware of this fact. CO2 makes up less then 1% of our atmosphere, and no life on this planet can survive with out it. Strange that there are green shirts that want to remove it in the name of sci.
Kirk

Hee Hee
So a scientist is pushing for dealing with the crisis of global warming. A small gathering of people, most of whom are politicians and political activists, are complaining that the debate has become politicized. And the irony challenged think that this suggests that the scientists are politicizing the topic rather than the politicians playing at scientist.

Meanwhile Schafely somehow believes that predictions of global warming are inconsistent with late winter/early spring snow.

She could have just begun her column "I have no idea of the science I am discussing, but in my view global warming isn't happening."

Global warming denialism tends to be pretty feeble. But this column is still impressive in its level of feebleness.

ONLY FOOLS BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM

.....But we have fools in abundance ...ergo OBAMBI voters and LON of PA .....COLOSSUS

Political Science
If global warming isn't a completely political exercise, then why is nothing being done to stop it? And before you start whining about industry, Republicans, neo-cons, etc., that's not the nothing I'm talking about. Why are any "solutions" to the problem ignoring the biggest poluters (China and India)? Why are African nations being encouraged to continue buring fossil fuels? Why are the European nations that are pushing Kyoto not being slapped because THEY aren't even following it? Why is it that the ONLY country being taken to task over greenhouse gasses is the United States? And why is it that EVERY SINGLE natural phenomenon (including hot wether, cold weather, heavy rain, drought, mild winter, cold and snowy winter, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, individual hurricanes, the paths of hurricanes (Katrina, for example), and the 2004 tsunami) is attributed to Global Warming?

If it's really a problem EVERYONE needs to fix it, not just us. Cap and Trade, Carbon Credits, ecological footprints, that's all just cover stories for "Tax the Rich" and "Blame America." If China, India, Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, and Southeast Asia don't have to follow the same rules we do and drastically reduce their energy usage, all this talk is just that, talk. Nothing will be solved except the reduction of America's standing in the world economy.

Lon
Which scientist would that be? Al Gore? Kofi Annan? The IPCC? No, none of them are political, not at all.

The Foolishness of "the Enlightened'
Roadmaster, I sympathize with you. I grew up in Northeastern Vermont, one of the coldest spots in New England. When you can go around in your shirtsleeves and shorts in March in Vermont--that's when I'll believe in Global Warming!

(It's 29 degrees up there as I write this.)

Americans under surveillance
Hope that no one is Anti-Abortion, a war protester, a Ron Paul supporter, a member of a third party, or a member of the Campaign for Liberty. If you are you may be "on the radar" of the U.S. Government.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/fus ion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

Here is a link to the report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-Movem entMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

Happy Jack
Sorry, I assumed that people reading the comments would have read the article that the comments were about. The scientist mentioned in the article is James McCarthy, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Unfortunately
Until the Boaracle pushes up stinkweed, the AGW movement will not run out of hot air.

Cons, please leave science to others
I just read the article and comments, and it amazes me that Cons still use the same old debunked "retorts" to real science. Every time someone like Schlafly writes about how cold it is in Pokunk (thus the Earth is cooling... right?) I take a look at weather.com. Why doesn't she write when heat waves hit?

Even though the US is about 2% of the surface of the Earth, Cons continue to use a few cold snaps in a few states as evidence of cooling. Never mind that Global means "entire globe" and that short-term conditions in 2% of the globe are almost irrelevant.

Go ahead Phyllis, take a look at weather.com. Click "Current Weather" and then "US departure from Normal_Highs" and lows. Almost EVERY time you write your non-science views the US has more "above" areas than "below". Interesting. I wish I had the same map for the globe.

No really non-science Cons, take a look. The last TH idiocy article touting how cold it was in NY took place when the US was above normals in almost every state BUT NY. This proves nothing to anyone but a Con.

Note to Cons: the Earth is much bigger than the US. Trends are not determined by a few cold days in the US 48. Polar ice caps are melting. The warmest years are all recent. The warmest decade is the last...

It's laughable . . .
how many "scientists" will scoff at any observation made by a "layman" and non professional scientists. A good example of this are the "killer waves" that have been reported by seafarers for CENTURIES. Until a couple of years ago, they were dismissed as "products of a vivid imagination". Utilizing staellite imaging technology, it turns out that they are REAL; these mariners were not spouting fantasy. I have yet to hear even ONE scientist admit that they were wrong to dismiss the reports from "non scientists".
Another example is the bacteriological basis for some stomach ulcers. Upon careful study, an Australian doctor came up with this in 1966. It was dismissed as not being worth pursuing by the so-called "scientific community". It wasn't till the 1980s when his work was recognized as having a valid scientific basis. So much for the quest for TRUTH in science. If you want to find the true charlatans, just FOLLOW THE MONEY.

tj
"If you want to find the true charlatans, just FOLLOW THE MONEY."

Philip Cooney.

NOAA: Ninth Warmest February for Globe
====

The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for February 2009 was the ninth warmest since records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Arctic sea ice coverage during February 2009 was at its fourth lowest February extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during February was 5.7 million square miles (14.8 million square kilometers). The Arctic sea ice pack usually expands during the cold season, reaching a maximum in March, then contracts during the warm season, reaching a minimum in September.

Temperature Highlights – February

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for February was 54.80 degrees F, 0.90 degree F above the 20th century mean of 53.9 degrees F, ranking as the ninth warmest on record.

* Separately, the global land surface temperature was 39.38 degrees F, 1.58 degrees F above the 20th century mean of 37.8 degrees F.

* The global ocean surface temperature of 61.25 degrees F ranked as eighth warmest on record and was 0.65 degree F above the 20th century mean of 60.6 degrees F.


Temperature Highlights – Boreal (Meteorological) Winter

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for boreal winter (December-February) was 54.72 degrees F, 0.92 degree F above the 20th century mean of 53.8 degrees F and ranking eighth warmest.

* Separately, the global land surface temperature was 39.31 degrees F, 1.51 degrees F above the 20th century mean of 37.8 degrees F, ranking as ninth warmest on record.

* The global ocean surface temperature of 61.20 degrees F ranked as seventh warmest on record and was 0.70 degree F above the 20th century mean of 60.5 degrees F.


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090313_february. html

====

inthemajority
I did what you suggested. I went to weather.com and half the states in the U.S. currently show temperatures below normal. They range from -2 degrees to -16 degrees below normal.

Of course, that's only in the U.S. There is no map on weather.com showing world-wide departures from normal. I wonder why?

tj
"If you want to find the true charlatans, just FOLLOW THE MONEY."

Ok. The major contributor to James Inhofe ("the Senate's expert on global warming" according to Ms. Schlafly) was the oil and gas industry with $444,650 in contributions from 2003-2008. (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582&cycle=2008)


Global Warming Activists
I just have one question for you: do you actually believe that since man was able to accurately record temperature that the weather would magically stay constant from that point forward to the end of time?

Man-made global warming sounds a lot like a religion to me.

MS Kelly
don't forget that the UK is reporting it's coldest winter in 15 years, or the 2nd snow ever recorded in the UAE this January!
Man, I wish global warming were true!

Ice is melting somewhere
It must be global climate change.

NOAA: 08 Global Temp Ties as 8th Warmest
====

The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.

Global Highlights for 2008

* The United States recorded a preliminary total of 1,690 tornadoes during 2008, which is well above the 10-year average of 1,270 and ranks as the second highest annual total since reliable records began in 1953. The high number of tornado-related fatalities during the first half of the year made 2008 the 10th deadliest with a 2008 total of 125 deaths.

* Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in December was 16.95 million square miles (43.91 million square kilometers). This was 0.17 million square miles (0.43 million square kilometers) above the 1966-2008 December average. Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was below average for most of 2008.

* Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 reached its second lowest melt season extent on record in September. The minimum of 1.80 million square miles (4.67 million square kilometers) was 0.80 million square miles (2.09 million square kilometers) below the 1979-2000 average minimum extent.


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats .html

====

My Western redbud proves it
No snow in Southern California, but we had a colder than average winter this year. How do I know? Because my native Western redbud usually doesn't bloom in the spring here 2 miles from the beach, but this spring it's blooming like crazy because it was significantly colder than usual.

Eric
You and me both!

We had one heat bill this year that was over $800!! And that was with extensive insulation added. Thanks a lot Obama. So glad you are here to help the "working people".

I'm sure you have read that Greenland use to be so warm there was once abundant agriculture there. Wouldn't that be great?! I have always thought it sad that such a big country was so barren and unproductive.

The trouble with people like inthemajority is that they complain we are only looking at temperatures in the U.S. (2% of the earth’s surface) yet they look at statistics from only the last 100 years as evidence that the world’s temperature is changing. Remind me. How old is the earth?

Guess what?! The world has been changing since it first appeared. It will continue to change. This is no crisis. It’s called Nature.

Liberals hate this ONLY because they can’t control it. They think their reason for being is to control EVERYTHING. I guess their inability to control the weather makes them feel powerless.

Poor libs.

Science students everywhere laugh
Allen sez: Ice is melting somewhere. It must be global climate change.

Except that the ice caps have melted much faster than originally warned by scientists (while most Cons mocked the prediction). And still Allen does not understand why this is important.

Eric sez: don't forget that the UK is reporting it's coldest winter in 15 years, or the 2nd snow ever recorded in the UAE this January!

So the UK (0.04% of the globe) has one of the warmest winters in 100 years and this sways a Con how? UAE is less than 0.02% of the globe. Does a rare snow somehow skew global temperatures?

intheminority is a logical fallacy
Give over yourself. I'm not going to waste a lot of time with you because you are evidently a mental midget.

Let's stipulate the nonsense you posted about the warmest years and ice melting the fastest...bla, bla, bla....is true.

What does any of that say about the cause of the warming? Any source of warming will cause the things you described.

You Warmists claim that CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect that absorbs radiation and builds up latent heat in the system. The real world provides no collaboration of the signals that would indicate this is happening.

All you do is appeal to authority, call names, and argue from the specific to the general.

Go read Anthony Watts "Surface Stations" or "Whats Up With That" website and educate yourself on the problems with surface temperature metrics...the very things used by NOAA and GISS to come up with your 2008 as the whatever warmest year in the last whatever.

Satellites show its not even the 15 warmest in the last 30.

Get lost.

MikeH . . .
oil bad--green good?
If the greenies would LEAD BY EXAMPLE and get rid of their "oil burning" cars and "coal burning" electrical power they might have some room to talk. Most greenies have no concept of REAL science, basic physics and engineering concepts. They try to be visionary in their concepts but would destroy the greatest of uplifting sources of humankind--technology. They tend to say "we can do with wind and solar what we do with oil and coal today" but offer no technological solutions. Since most greenies gravitate to the social sciences rather than to technology fields, their grasp of science is extremely limited.
They tend to believe in hoaxes such as the 100 mph "carburetor" that was supposedly bought out by the oil companies or automobile companies. Don't you think that this technology would have been promoted rather than (chuckle) conspiratorily suppressed?
Basic physics dictates the property of materials. greenies fail to grasp that you cannot get more energy out of a conversion than what you put in to it. As a matter of fact, efficiencies are much lower.
Best regards,

tj
I'm just following the money like you asked.

Kudos Phyllis
We must demand that our local, state, and federal politicians, local and national journalists, news anchors etc be objective and have an open-mind to what the “real” data tells us versus computer generated scare mongering that does not even account for, nor include a holistic representation of our highly complex climate system.

A steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments have challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus."

Peer-reviewed studies predict a continued lack of warming

Continued failed attempts to revive the shattered and discredited “Hockey Stick” graph

Sea ice extent in the Arctic is back in line with the 30 year average

Antarctic sea ice extent reached record highs in late 2007

The 24 month running sum of monthly energy levels from all hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones hit 30 years lows in October 2008

An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”

More than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

The 650+ dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers

watermelon crowd
Global warming has always been a hoax.It has been used as the boogieman dujour so as to limit our liberties and to steal our money.It's just another environmental fad,only this one will be quite expensive if implemented.

Phyllis Schlafly:

I'm with you on the homosexual thing; I remember you getting heat about that in the past. (Pardon some of us for pointing out the obvious: That the wheel works best when it's round!)

But as far as the state of our planet, you should pay attention to your own words:

"Snow in unlikely cities, such as New Orleans."

The facts that it now snows where it's not supposed to snow, that tornadoes now occur where they didn't use to (California), and that three hurricanes were SIMULTANEOUSLY headed toward states on the East Coast last October, instead of just one hurricane at a time...these facts are not signs that everything is honky-dory with the planet. They are telling signs that we are DEEPLY INTERFERING WITH EARTH'S SELF-REGULATING SYSTEMS.

Is it warm in here?
I believe Ayn Rand said something like "If gov't. has no major crisis to "protect the people from" then tey will create a crisis to justify their existence"
I was walking out of a Dan Hicks concert here in Chicago last January and it was 17 below zero outside. I thought"Where's Algore when I need him?"

A look at one
season's snowfall is an ignorant way to form an opinion about climate change. Let's leave the matter to the scientists to debate and figure out. But if the scientists are correct, and the world is developing a CO2 shell that holds man-made heat in, the planet is in for some big changes! How on earth (ha ha) did this issue become a political one? Isn't it a scientific one?

Jeffrey
As usual, just follow the money and you'll see how it became political.

Cynthia
Or maybe it's the end of the world! Or maybe the last unicorn died! Or maybe the cheeseburger fairy doesn't like chicken burgers!

YOUR Ignorant Propoganda
Avenger, there is ONLY 1 fact I have and that is that there has been NO debate on this issue. Like virtually everything with the left, thier objective is to jam a program down Anericas throat with nothing more than media hype to spend billions on thier own special interests.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

There are NO facts to support this and Al Gore wouldnt even agree to debate ME on it. He's locked down in TN at his mansion that wastes more energy than a msall city.

PV
FINALLY, some caustic PV agrees that the Earth is warming. Finally! One science-challenged Con down, many to go.

PV calls me a mental midget, then says "All you do is appeal to authority, call names, and argue from the specific to the general."

Sounds like a real smart feller, that PV does.

It is really interesting to follow the thread of the science-lacking Cons. It goes something like this:

• The Earth is not warming.

• OK, it is warming, but not much.

• OK, so it is warming a lot, but we aren't the cause. Temps fluctuate, don't-cha-know?

• So the temps are fluctuating in a way we've never seen before. So? What does that prove?

• Alright, so we're part of the cause, but not too much...

• OK, OK, stop badgering me with all that science stuff. So we're part of the cause, but it would be too expensive to do anything about it.

• China pollutes! Al Gore flies and drives, so THERE!

Get with the program, MM PV. Cons on this site don't think the Earth is warming. Phyllis doesn't think so, as well as most posters here. Once you open the floodgates to reality there might be some Googling and reading going on, and then your "man has nothing to do with it" argument floats away. It appears the Con challenge to avoid those Liberal bastions we like to call college and universities is starting to show.

This is getting hilarious!
Some time ago I saw a couple of Internet headlines that should have been sent to Jay Leno. The first one said, "Deadly winter storms rip across the U.S." The second said, "Gore urges action on global warming."

I didn't think anyone could top that until I read this line in Ms. Schlafly's column: "...a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming."

And people wonder if God has a sense of humor? Leno and Letterman would double their writers' salaries if they could come up with stuff like this!

inthemajority (so you think)
"Cons on this site don't think the Earth is warming."

Neither do many scientists. In my opinion, the proponents of global warming are the true cons (not conservatives; just cons).

Decreasing temps?
So, what I get from this article is that Gore's film was the height of hot-air induced global warming and since it was released temperatures have started to decline?

Schlafly writes:
"The coldest winter in a decade in many places, with snow in unlikely cities such as New Orleans, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming. And a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming."
------------------------------------------------------
Anytime someone starts an article like this with an anecdote about the local weather, you can immediately dismiss the rest since they obviously don't understand the concept of "global" in global warming.

Mrs. Schlafly would probably also argue that the murder rate in her home town of St. Louis was down last year because no one on her street was killed, despite murders jumping from 138 in 2007 to 167 last year.

Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me
I haven't been convinced that AGW is real, and the evidence that the earth is warming significantly seems a little thin, too.

One thing I do know. Every decade, scientists come up with a new apocalyptic vision that guarantees plague, famine, death, a new ice age, and the White Sox winning the series. They have been wrong every single time. (see Dr. Ehrlich and friends)

Why would I believe them this time?

camamintx
Perhaps you should read Ms. Schlafly's article before you comment on it.

Kermudjin
Are you saying Al Gore's hot air is causing global warming? Hmmm. Maybe you've got something there. Perhaps scientists should tape up Gore's mouth for the next two years and see if it has any effect on the climate.

Kirk, Reply # 34
"I just wish more people were aware of this fact. CO2 makes up less then 1% of our atmosphere, and no life on this planet can survive with out it."
---------------------------------------------------
All life is based on water also, but like anything else, too much of it can kill you.

The Cause of Climate Change
Back in 1975 the climate scientists were raving about global cooling and the coming ice age. The earth started to warm. Around 1998, AGW was the scientific craze-- and the earth started to cool.

The only question to be solved is whether liberal scientific opinion causes climate to change to the opposite of what is predicted, or that they are just naturally wrong.

Icedog, Reply # 7
"Here’s a little advice genius, research the Gleissberg Cycle of Solar Activity and Climate Change - a mind is a terrible thing to waste. "
-----------------------------------------------------
Maybe you should follow your own advice. Solar activity is back to the same levels it was in 1940 but global temperatures are still at record highs. Hard to see any correlation there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Robert, Reply # 76
"The Cause of Climate Change
Back in 1975 the climate scientists were raving about global cooling and the coming ice age. The earth started to warm. Around 1998, AGW was the scientific craze-- and the earth started to cool."
-------------------------------------------------
Way to misrepresent the data there Robert.

http://tinyurl.com/2en7xd

camanintx
Citing wikipedia as a source does not help your credibility. They are notorious for getting things wrong.

The global warming hoax,
conceived in the diseased ridden minds of liberals, and spread to their diseased ridden spawns in the MSM; together they continue to lie, and swindle the American people.

The most disgusting thing about this hoax is all the gullible people we have in America buying this BS.

camanintx
"Way to misrepresent the data there Robert."

I don't know what you think he misrepresented, but scientists in the seventies most certainly were warning us of another ice age. I was a school boy then, and I remember hearing them say it.

Ken, Reply # 79
"Citing wikipedia as a source does not help your credibility. They are notorious for getting things wrong."
-------------------------------------------------
The source of data for this graph is clearly referenced in the article and freely available to anyone. Maybe you could actually study the data and make a reasoned argument as to why the graph is wrong instead of resorting to ad-hominems.

Ken
I said: "Cons on this site don't think the Earth is warming."

Ken says: "Neither do many scientists."

I rest my case. If by many Ken means three, then so be it. I have yet to read or hear otherwise.

The Earth is warming. Get over it. Not believing this is like not believing in temperature.

Ken can be safely disregarded. Next.

inthemajority, what evidence
is there to support your theory that more CO2 forces temperatures to increase - and without an upper limit?

Here's my argument, in advance:
1) the greenhouse "signature" is missing according to weather balloons tracking it;
2) the strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed data turned that theory inside out;
3) global average temperatures have not risen since 2001;
4) CO2 is doing almost all the warming it can do (it is a trace gas, comprising 0.04% of our atmosphere. N = 78%, O2 = 21%, Ar=0.9%)

None of the computer models includes all the factors necessary to accurately predict something as complex as climate. Please keep your responses limited to addressing my points above.

Ken, Reply # 81
"I don't know what you think he misrepresented, but scientists in the seventies most certainly were warning us of another ice age. I was a school boy then, and I remember hearing them say it."
----------------------------------------------------
The link I posted shows how, despite 1998 being an unusually warm year, global mean temperatures continue to rise. The earth did not start cooling in 1998 as Robert said.

camanintx
Robert's point still stands. Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting another ice age. Now they're talking about global warming. The only thing these alarmists have proves is that they have a major credibility problem.

inthemajority (yeah, right!)
"If by many Ken means three, then so be it."

Ms. Schlafly cited 680 scientists who doubt global warming.

"I have yet to read or hear otherwise."

Then you should broaden your reading.

"The Earth is warming."

Given the record cold temperatures we've seen recently, I find that difficult to believe.

"Get over it."

If global warming is such a crisis, why do you want me to get over it?


It was HOT in NYC for the conference!
So, according to Phyllis, scientifically aware people (those of us with at least a modicum of science knowledge) can get a chuckle out of the fact that the denier conference (sponsored by Austrailian companies with ties to mining no less) was held in near record HOT temperatures.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Get it Cons? You now have to laugh at the fact that the HOT days during the denier conference PROVE that Al Gore is correct!! Why would Phyllis be so blind to the obvious? Why would she think that cold temperatures during a real scientific conference have some relevance to global warming, and then deny... Oh, I get it now.

Sorry, I you can't impose Con-logic on us only when you choose. You have to apply silly Con-logic for all such meetings.

"Mr Viv Forbes Chairman Grandfather, Sheep and Cattle Grazier, Soil Scientist and Mining Consultant, Rosevale, Qld, Australia."

Funny stuff.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/heartlands_denialis t_conferenc.php

DocInsight, Reply # 84
"inthemajority, what evidence
is there to support your theory that more CO2 forces temperatures to increase - and without an upper limit?

Here's my argument, in advance:
1) the greenhouse "signature" is missing according to weather balloons tracking it;
2) the strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed data turned that theory inside out;
3) global average temperatures have not risen since 2001;
4) CO2 is doing almost all the warming it can do (it is a trace gas, comprising 0.04% of our atmosphere. N = 78%, O2 = 21%, Ar=0.9%)

None of the computer models includes all the factors necessary to accurately predict something as complex as climate. Please keep your responses limited to addressing my points above."
-------------------------------------------------
1) David Evans doesn't know what he is talking about.
http://tinyurl.com/5llehs

2) References?

3) Misrepresents the data.
http://tinyurl.com/2en7xd

4) It's not the total amount of CO2 that is important, but it's ratio to the other gases. No matter how big a glass of water may be, it only takes one drop to make it overflow.

If you believe there is a better climate model than what is being used, please point to it.

Ken, Reply # 86
"Robert's point still stands. Thirty years ago, scientists were predicting another ice age. Now they're talking about global warming. The only thing these alarmists have proves is that they have a major credibility problem."
------------------------------------------------
In the 1970's, temperatures were still only .2 C above average and solar forcing was still the prevailing climate theory. Since solar activity has basically remained constant since 1950, it cannot explain the additional .5 C rise in temperature since then.

Again, saying that temperatures have been dropping since 1998 misrepresents the data.

Cynthia
Strange weather is nothing new. On any given day, someplace in the world is setting some kind of record. To draw any conlusions from the odd weather on its own is specious reasoning. I could argue that the cold weather was caused by "An Inconvenient Truth:, since global temperatures have dropped steadily since its release.

The best example of correlation fallacy is sexual assault statistics. The rate of sexual assault reports in any given state lines up perfectly with the rate of subscriptions to "Field and Stream" in that state. It is the singel best predictor of sexual assault rates of any data available. But it would be ridiculous to conclude that it has any causal effect whatsoever.

hail to the chief
The Global Warming is coming from the Washington Politicians, who should shut their mouths.

Juseff and Eric

Juseff said: "Science Avenger is merely repeating the tired and oft-refuted unsubstantiated nonsense spouted by the professional liars of the left"

No, I'm repeating what practically every scientific organization in the world says, substantiated by thousands of articles in the peer reviewed literature.

Eric said: "I wonder if Science avenger sees this, or is too busy drooling over his lover sycophant Mr. Al Gore, who basically wants attention."

Al Gore is merely promoting what the scientists are telling us. He is a mouthpiece, nothing more. If he died tomorrow, the global warming issue would remain. Focusing on Al Gore instead of the science is just another way of advertising your ignorance.

Truthtobetold doesn't understand science
Truthtobetold said: "What are your qualifications to judge anything scientific? I have a B. S. in Chemistry and I don't believe any of the hysteria about Global Warming."

One doesn't need any qualifications to recognize a scientific consensus. Now if you wish to challenge that consensus, the place to do it is in the peer-reviewed literature, not political blogs. Refusing to do so whilst parading your BS in chemistry here would merely add you to the list of cranks opining data-free outside their field.

Truthtobetold said: "Just 35 years ago the headlines on Time and/or Newsweek was read "The Coming Ice Age".

Again, the place to get your science is in the peer-reviewed literature, not popular magazines. And even then, the articles in the literature on warming greatly outnumbered those on cooling. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

for an excellent debunking of that myth.

Truthtobetold said:"Evolution has been scientifically proven to be false according to Darwin's own statement."

You are merely revealing your ignorance of how science works again. It depends on falsifiable experimental data, not anyone's opinion, not even Darwin's. But thanks for providing another example of how the anti-science crank mindset tends to run across multiple topics.

Icedog and Anderson: sorry, no cooling

Sorry guys, the science is on my side, and there is no cooling. That myth was based on cherry-picking 1998 as a starting point (because it was at the time the warmest year on record), and noting that many of the years that followed were less warm. Talk about confusing political rhetoric and science! Sorry, cherry picking is not science, and if you look at all the data as you can here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polyno mial_fits_j.php

the continuing warming trend is clear.

Corndog and JerseyVet

Corndog said: "If your side is so positive that man-made global warming is a fact, why won't it debate anyone from the anti-global warming crowd?"

It will: in the peer reviewed literature. That is where science is debated. But see, to "debate" there one must actually you know, do science, and bring actual evidence to the table, and that is the one thing the denialists do not have. It's the same in all the crank fields: creationists want to debate all the time too, as do the anti-vaccers, the Holocaust denalists, etc. Yet all avoid the relevant scientific literature like the plague.

Jerseyvet said: "Science Avenger sounds like someone ripped out of the comic books. In fact this whole Global Warming fraud clearly originated from comic book-style catastrophic melodramatics."

With idiotic comments like this you wonder why no one in the scientific world takes you guys seriously? Rhetoric is all you guys have, and sorry, that doesn't count for squat in science.

Science or Dogma: Global Warming
Harold Varmus, who co-chairs Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology said in regard to stem cell research "This is consistent with the president's determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy". The question arises whether this administration will abide by this rule in regard to the issue of alleged man-made global warming. So far Obama has asserted that there's no need to debate this any further, that the science is done and that we need a carbon tax or something like it to save the planet. Only 2% of CO2 emissions are man-made and only 3% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2. That means that 99.94% of the greenhouse effect is beyond man's control. Yet federal policy is about to impose hundreds of billions on Americans because Obama is no longer willing to consider the science and evidence that man's role in global warming is too trivial to matter. Sounds like dogma to me.

DocInsight
"is there to support your theory that more CO2 forces temperatures to increase - and without an upper limit?"

You're serious? No upper limit? Are you daft? So now I have to respond to something Hannity might put out there as a strawman for Cons to quote? DocInsight, are you Sean?

1) the greenhouse "signature" is missing according to weather balloons tracking it;

Ahh, the old Joanne Nova crap we have to see recycled... thanks Joanne, for allowing nuts to quote something they know little about.

http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-ske ptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right

2) the strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed data turned that theory inside out;

Can I use real science to point out how silly this is, or is that unfair? "They also show that during that entire period of time, there have never been concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane as high as the current levels, said Edward Brook, "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514131131.h tm

3) global average temperatures have not risen since 2001;

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2009/03/06.13.08.glo balairtemp.png

(yeah, I guess if you were to turn the graph upside down, I see exactly what you mean)

4) CO2 is doing almost all the warming it can do (it is a trace gas, comprising 0.04% of our atmosphere. N = 78%, O2 = 21%, Ar=0.9%)

Really? And do you still have those incorrect results from you MS science experiment? Some of us rely on the experts. Do you really think 99% of them are wrong about something so simple?

global warming nerds
attacking those who emit CO2- which includes all living things! I'm surprised they haven't taxed us for farting, which they want to do to cows and hogs! Oh man! I burped! The seas will rise 10 feet, the ice caps will melt, the AGW enthusiasts will sick climatologists on you! From an ice age scare to a warming scare, I wonder what "panicky" scenario is in store for us in the future. How about mixing up global cooling and warming for a new and catastrophic ultimate disaster making the day after tomorrow look like an after school special! Oh no, its coming this way run! Oh no, its coming from the other way... RUUUN!!

Global warming enthusiasts make me laugh! I love their mythological ideals.

Global warming would be wonderful.
It would cut my gas bill.

Anthro blamers
Hand wave when it is pointed out that all of man's fuel usage gives us no more than 2% of the total carbon dioxide that is in the air. Then they drag in methane and make many ad hominem remarks.


Science Avenger: Where have YOU been?


'No, I'm repeating what practically every scientific organization in the world says, substantiated by thousands of articles in the peer reviewed literature.'

Don't think so, Bunkie...... :-)


"Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening......

"Temperatures dropping, fewer hurricanes, arctic ice growing, polar bear population up..."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557



Back to the drawing table to cook up another hoax!

:-)


So called Science Avenger
wins top honors in the ad hominem category.

Scientology avengers
express themselves suspiciously like a certain entity with a similar name.

This is the mark of cultists in both cases.

Science Avenger and inthemajority
SA: in your response #94 you assert "scientific consensus" and "falsifiable experimental data". How do you square consensus - which implies merely opinion - and experimental data, which is objective, observable and repeatable?

itm: Am I daft? Hardly. I just don't buy or drink your kool-aid. Regarding item (4)what do your alarmist friends say is the appropriate, allowable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? And what is the predicted effect, over how much time? If we are forced to follow your alarmist plans re: carbon-based fuels, what will be the cost in dollars and lives impacted?

"Something so simple" - no, unlike the alarmists, I recognize how infinitely complex the climate is and that mankind has little effect on it, on a global scale. You may think more of yourself than you ought.

Hawky: "Science Whiner" is of the same

mentality as the "greenies" and "PETA" crazies.

Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer...

Living In Fear
Weren't we all supposed to die from the bird flu by now anyway?

The average intellectual living in the 21st. century has more fears than peasants who lived in the Dark Ages.

inthemajority
Do you dispute the percentages of the items in #4 of my first post? If yes, what are they and name your sources. If no, then respond to my assertion that, due to such a miniscule amount of CO2, any increase from man-made sources has little effect on climate.

Also, if CO2 is a pollutant, then every life form that expresses that gas must be dealt with accordingly, in "fairness" you know! Ditto with methane.

carbon dioxide greenhouse effect
How greenhousey is carbon dioxide?

About Global warming: There seems to have been a small drift upward in average
world temperatures in the past few decades, and a large constituency has
developed blaming the effect on our society emitting greenhouse gases, and
demanding enormous and costly effort to mitigate the problem. I personally
am dubious that the future effects will be large, and that our emissions
will have anything to do with future climate changes.

The issue is very political. Those who believe in GW can get research
grants from Governments, those opposed are told to shut up.

In 1986 at an APS convention I met a fellow former Princeton University Graduate
Student who was then a Professor at Johns Hopkins. He had done his 1947 PhD
thesis under John Wheeler on radiation transport in the atmosphere, and had
made Climatology his career choice. I asked him then how GW studies were
going. He replied that he could then not be sure whether the temperature
coefficient for carbon dioxide was positive or negative.

At present hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT says it is positive, but quite small. Read chapter 3 in his book "Divine Wind" where he discusses atmospheric temperature differences that provide the hurricane energy supply. To make carbon dioxide a real problem it is claimed that it greatly increases the effect of water vapor.
If you are in the GW business you believe in such a magnification factor, if
reducing carbon dioxide emissions will cost you, you don't believe it.


Stuart Ridgway

2005 approx

Leonard, Reply # 97
"Only 2% of CO2 emissions are man-made and only 3% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2. That means that 99.94% of the greenhouse effect is beyond man's control. Yet federal policy is about to impose hundreds of billions on Americans because Obama is no longer willing to consider the science and evidence that man's role in global warming is too trivial to matter. Sounds like dogma to me."
-------------------------------------------
Once again the deniers exhibit their lack of comprehension on the subject of global warming.
No one (except the deniers) says that the greenhouse effect itself is the problem. Since Earth would be a chilly -18C without it, one would be stupid to suggest otherwise.

The radiative forcing of CO2 is about twenty times that of water vapor, so despite being a far smaller part of the atmosphere, it is responsible for about 20% of the greenhouse effect. That makes the 3% of CO2 released by humans more than capable of causing the 0.5C increase measured to date.

Since they own all the levers
of power and propaganda, they have already won. When Gore declared the debate was over, his twisted mind was merely acknowledging that the lies were already embedded in the democommie media and machine and plans so deeply, as well as all the departments of the US government including NASA and DEFENSE for instance, that there was no effect from any "debate".
They already WON.
They are now implementing to the tune of hundreds of billions of "future tax dollars or printed inflation".
The debate is truly over, they have absolute power and are, as I've noted already, IMPLEMENTING.
All that is reality. The debate is already over, and now the only arguing that is left is how many hundreds of billions and trillions will be pumped into their takeover and control communist government mechanisms and tyranny.
It will be much more than any of you care to imagine.
Just look at the corn ethanol crisis the idiots pushed through - they are accustomed to jamming everything down our throats no matter what and frankly admitting just afterwards it was a gigantic disaster then immediately doing it again with greater gusto - they increased the ethanol targets.
They have increased the 350 billion x X rollovers again - after admitting it was a gigantic errored implementation. They're doing it again - and again, and announcing more.
Reality and truth simply don't matter anymore - the COMMUNISTS have total reign of power - and there simply are not enough republicans to stop them.
They have indeed won. Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll quote even right wing TV news " WE ARE ALL COMMUNISTS NOW".

Hawky, Reply # 103
"So called Science Avenger
wins top honors in the ad hominem category."
---------------------------------------------
Since you apparently don't recognize an ad-hominem when you see one, let me give you an example.

Anne, Reply # 106
Hawky: "Science Whiner" is of the same
mentality as the "greenies" and "PETA" crazies.

Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer...

measuring earth temperature
Someone stated that February 2009 was the 9th hottest since record keeping began in 1880. How were temps measured worldwide in 1880, and how can they be compared to 2009? The earth's temp has only been measured for 30 years, and not on a consistent basis. There have been faulty data collectors, some placed next to heat sources, redoes of data due to satellite drift, changes in types of measuring devices over the 30 year period, etc. The basic problem is that we know so little about the climate as a system. We cannot define the system and therefore any prediction of its future behavior is pure speculation. To define a system one has to have reliable, repeatable measurements of the variables. And the computer models which the AGW backers rely on cannot match historical data and are useless for predicting. The argument is purely political, not scientific.

Mike, Reply # 113
"Someone stated that February 2009 was the 9th hottest since record keeping began in 1880. How were temps measured worldwide in 1880, and how can they be compared to 2009? The earth's temp has only been measured for 30 years, and not on a consistent basis. There have been faulty data collectors, some placed next to heat sources, redoes of data due to satellite drift, changes in types of measuring devices over the 30 year period, etc."
-------------------------------------------
That is why most data should be represented with error bars indicating the level of uncertainty. Unfortunately, most popular media prefers simpler graphs without this clutter. Even with the error bars included, the temperature charts still show a marked increase since the 1970's.

http://tinyurl.com/d5q9bm

Camanintx Reply # 114
You miss my point. We have not collected data on a consistent basis for any measurable length of time, and I am not just referring to the earth's temp. We put this data into computer models which are not weather models, which do not account for important phenomena like clouds, other significant natural phenomena such as volcanos, el ninos and la ninias, and then make startling predictions about weather behavior 50 years into the future. This is rushed into press and plans are laid to turn our energy base and economy 180 degrees. All of this highlights the hubris and the ultimate arrogance of man to think he understands fully the whims of nature and can control it.

DocInsight
"Do you dispute the percentages of the items in #4 of my first post? If yes, what are they and name your sources. If no, then respond to my assertion that, due to such a miniscule amount of CO2, any increase from man-made sources has little effect on climate."

Doc is clearly not a scientist. If you wanted an example of why Doc is not the guy you want arguing anything dealing with AWG, this would be it.

Sorry I so easily made you look silly on items 1, 2, 3 and 4. If you cannot understand why #4 is absurd, then I can recommend a few basic science books.

Al Gore
I wonder what's happened to Al Gore the (rhymns with Gore) of the left wingers and global warming, global climate change, whatever you want to call it.
Is he still flying around in his jet or has he retired to his energy-eating mansion here in Tennessee?

this guy is a real nut case and the opinions he expresses only verify that he shouldn't have been elected back in 2000. Unfortunately we have an even bigger fool how leading the country with much devastating consequences who also follows Gore's tenets.
Dangerous.
He wants us to rely on windmills and solar arrays to solve our energy problems. Maybe I need to purchase a windmill to place in my backyard or hook my bicycle up to a generator to power my home. I might even purchase a car much like the Flintstones had in the cartoon series run by foot power.
Too bad I can't package all the evil hot air coming from the mouths of the Demoncrats, Al Gore and all of Foggy Bottom. It could furnish energy to my home for years!

I'm Happy to See the Concern!!
I'm elated to see all the Concern for the Climate Change, Global Warming, Cooling or WHATEVER!!I tend to lean a bit toward the theory that it is a scheme to enact some form of "CAP/TRADE". But no matter what Ur individual persuasion, consider THIS:: What do U think the bunch of Morons in CONGRESS would do to the formulation of WORLDWIDE WEATHER if they were put in charge of that function?? The Polar Bears should be so LUCKY..CHEERS

Camanitx -humans cause global warming...
Oh-I get it since you think humans cause global warming at the rate of 20% .then we should wreck our economey to reduce it by .2% Ok I am with you brother-but why not do the sensible thing and just get rid of all humans and solve that pesky carbon problem......It still leaves 80% of warming to some other source...Maybe we should send rockets full of arctic ice into the sun-Yeah that's the ticket.....

Man-made global warming is a hoax
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.

First Draft from Phyllis
The warmest spring in a decade in many places, with heat in unlikely cities such as New York, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming deniers. A sudden warming that saw plants blooming in NY upstaged a conference scheduled to deny the real science global warming.

Nevertheless, according to TH and the wingnut minority media, "the debate is over" providing no scientific proof that global warming does not exist, that humans are not causing it and that "science is settled."

The conference drew a crowd sponsored by mostly mining companies from Australia.

************

Funny how Cons think everyone who is paid to do their job is lying. If 99/100 doctors recommend surgery, then 99 doctors obviously have an agenda. If 99/100 accountants recommend you take a deduction, then 99 of them stand to gain from this enlightenment.

THEN, after denying real science and ignoring all scientists who agree (99/100) their comeback is to suddenly AGREE with scientists whose work is backed by mining companies and ExxonMobile.

Cons say: every scientist is working for money, therefore you cannot trust their peer-reviewed work... except for this small group of semi-scientists sponsored by big business.

Fun stuff.

Mike
Reply # 115

You miss my point. We have not collected data on a consistent basis for any measurable length of time, and I am not just referring to the earth's temp. We put this data into computer models which are not weather models, which do not account for important phenomena like clouds, other significant natural phenomena such as volcanos, el ninos and la ninias, and then make startling predictions about weather behavior 50 years into the future. This is rushed into press and plans are laid to turn our energy base and economy 180 degrees. All of this highlights the hubris and the ultimate arrogance of man to think he understands fully the whims of nature and can control it.
--------------------------------------------------
Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?
==================================================
Reply #119

Oh-I get it since you think humans cause global warming at the rate of 20% .then we should wreck our economey to reduce it by .2% Ok I am with you brother-but why not do the sensible thing and just get rid of all humans and solve that pesky carbon problem......It still leaves 80% of warming to some other source...Maybe we should send rockets full of arctic ice into the sun-Yeah that's the ticket.....
--------------------------------------------------
Do you work to misrepresent my statements or does it just come naturally?

I said that CO2 is responsible for 20% of the greenhouse effect. That makes the human contribution about 0.6%. But since the greenhouse effect raises Earth's surface temperature by a total 33 C, that 0.6% cause can have a 0.5 C effect.

No body thinks much of God


Man cannot cause global warming nor cooling. There is a God who controls nature, but many refuse to believe in Him. However, that does not change the fact that HE "Was, Is, and shall forever be. If the global warming group would admit it, they would tell you that this idea was spawned in the United Nations.
Ms. Schaffley is correct in pointing out some areas are having extreme cold.So the global warming theory cannot hold true for the whole globe. One day the whole earth will go up in flames according to the Bible and both the heavens and earth will be burned up, but I believe when that happens, it will be an act of God, not of man.

Question some of the answers
OK global warming believers science is with you.

So the answer is to obliterate the doctrine of open space by allowing the monsterous wind generators to cover thousands of acres.

The answer is to place mercury in every home.

The answer is to have government monitor the amount of heat you use and have a computer determine when to shut your system off.

Sorry rather have global warming and move to Alaska.

CAMANINTX
Do you have anything to refute my statements about our lack of understanding of the earths climate system, the shortcoming of the models, and the deficiencies in our measuring systems? Add something relevant to the discussion instead of cryptic comments about definitions. That is a typical environmentalist strawman comment. Is it your opinion that the models in use are accurate predictors? Since this nation is being railroaded into enormous decisions concerning our economy based on these models, should not all relevant assumptions, data, equations, algorithms, and results be openly published and peer reviewed by people on both sides of the argument? After all, we were promised complete transparancy, no lobbyist influence, and bipartisanship on all matters relating to policies.

Allen
"OK global warming believers science is with you."

Thanks. We all knew that, but nice to hear a denier state the obvious.

"So the answer is to obliterate the doctrine of open space by allowing the monsterous wind generators to cover thousands of acres."

That is one answer. Better than oil slicks ruining our waters, better than being held hostage by our oil companies and foreign companies/nations, better than mercury and other pollutants in the air from coal burning facilities...

"The answer is to place mercury in every home."

Ahh, the non-researched mercury crap. So you want to have MORE mercury from coal burning than LESS from efficient bulbs? Really? How does this make any sense whatsoever.

Oh, you didn't know about the tradeoff. Well, live and learn.

"The answer is to have government monitor the amount of heat you use and have a computer determine when to shut your system off."

Wake up... Bush/Cheney are out of office. this will not happen. Maybe Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly say stuff like that, but you have to learn to think for yourself.

Realy Cons, get with the Google or stop posting.

Sorry rather have global warming and move to Alaska.

Mike, Reply # 125
Do you have anything to refute my statements about our lack of understanding of the earths climate system, the shortcoming of the models, and the deficiencies in our measuring systems? Add something relevant to the discussion instead of cryptic comments about definitions. That is a typical environmentalist strawman comment. Is it your opinion that the models in use are accurate predictors? Since this nation is being railroaded into enormous decisions concerning our economy based on these models, should not all relevant assumptions, data, equations, algorithms, and results be openly published and peer reviewed by people on both sides of the argument? After all, we were promised complete transparancy, no lobbyist influence, and bipartisanship on all matters relating to policies.
----------------------------------------------------
Attacking climate models is just a red herring. While they may not predict specific details such as the temperature in Minot, ND on March 25th, 2015, they are still useful tools in climate research.

No computer model is going to predict where a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building is going to land, but you can still be sure that it will fall.

As for peer review of the models in question, that has happened. You just need to know where to look.

http://tinyurl.com/d2yuv9

what is your solution
avenger and majority:
First, I've noticed the "weather" in my location has changed in the years I've lived there. (Cal central coast). Not saying it's caused by man. Just sayin'
What I'd really like to know is what is your idea of a solution? No cars, or transportation, period? How about nuclear power? Any energy at all? Or is it all evil. How long has solar been used? Is it efficient? How bout those wind generators that kill migrating birds, or aren't permitted because they ruin someone's view? If you have solutions I'm all ears.

Discuss the subject
CAMANINTX, quit obfuscating. The current models are off by a mile in matching history, let alone predicting future trends. Where did I say that we expect a model to predict isolated incidents. You are creating a false argument! Stay on subject. Defend the accuracy of models with results, let the gurus share the code, and let it be reviewed by both sides. The guy who did the hockey stick trick would not even share his algorithm until enough pressure was put on him. Then it was revealed to be a gross misuse of statistics and totally discredited. Al Gore keeps throwing slides into his presentations to the idiots in Congress, and then after they are reviewed he has to drop them from his stichk because they even embarrass global warning believers.
I am done with this discussion.

The facts about global warming.
I don't claim to be a scientist, but here are a few facts I've observed with regard to global warming:

- When the weather is unusually hot, it's blamed on global warming.

- When the weather is unusually cold, it's blamed on global warming.

- When the weather is unusually dry, it's blamed on global warming.

- When the weather is unusually humid, it's blamed on global warming.

- When we have a busy hurricane season, it's blamed on global warming

- When we have a slow hurricane season, it's blamed on global warming.

As I said, I'm not a scientist, but I do have enough common sense to notice a great deal of incongruity among the global warming alarmists. They sound a great deal like Chicken Little ("The sky is falling!"). No wonder so few people take them seriously.

Mike, Reply # 129
Discuss the subject
CAMANINTX, quit obfuscating.
--------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with temperature reconstructions that show global mean temperatures today 0.5 C higher than they have been in the last 2,000 years?

Heart Rates vary. Right?
Your heart beats at an average of 70 bbp, give or take. But we all know the rate has a pattern of increasing or decreasing based on many factors. Exercise, diet, age, etc.

Your heart rate is always changing. It can be up one day, down the next.

If you were to wake up with 180 bbp, you would go to the doctor. I certainly hope the doc would not tell you that heart rates always fluctuate. I would hope that he would not point to a chart that shows you have had a heart rate of 180 bbp in the past (when on a treadmill).

If you were to visit 100 doctors, and 99 said you must be tested right away because something is wrong, I suggest you believe the consensus. If you are dumb enough to shop for the answer you wanted, you just might find that one doctor.

A Con, however, would thank the one doctor who told him to go home and pretend nothing is happening. As all good Cons know. heart rates go up, heart rates come down. It would be hubris to conclude that you had anything to do with the change. After all, God controls all functions, so it couldn't possibly be that coke you snorted the night before.

The other 99 doctors? They have ulterior motives, of course!! They want to make more money by testing you, and even more if surgery is involved!

YES, YES, YES, you Cons have it all figured out. Anyone who performs any function for payment is swayed by the money source. All doctors make decisions so that they can make more money. They never have your health in mind. 99% of scientists write papers that go against real science because they want to be paid -- with the exception of that small minority who sell out to ExxonMobile and produce fine scientific research.

Right.

Cons, get a grip. Scientists would not last long if they produced results that could clearly be dispelled by peers. They would simply not last long in the field -- like a doctor who recommends you go home and rest with your 180 bbp heart.

inthemajority
So, you are obviously a credentialed scientist by virtue of the condescending tone in your posts. What is it - B.S.? M.S.? Ph.D.?

Point (4) remains a valid point of debate and you won't address it - perhaps because you don't know and don't dare admit that you don't know the answer. No one knows, thus the whole hype around CO2 emissions is just a scare tactic.

In Re Anti-Science Sniveler
For those of you who have wasted your time responding to the cowardly liar who jokingly calls itself “Science Avenger” you should know that you are wasting your time on a moron. This is an individual who will call you names for not agreeing with its asinine beliefs and then will whine after you respond in kind.

As proof of this I suggest you read the dimwit’s postings on Dinesh D’Souza’s column “The Two Faces of Darwin” which was in TH on 2/12/09. On that thread the idiot repeatedly insulted me despite my attempts to hold a real debate. Once I grew tired of its nonsense and returned insult for insult the dingbat had a crying fit over me being mean.
This individual cowardly then waited 3 days to reply to me and had the audacity to accuse me of debating without an opponent when I had responded to it in about 3 hours. The moron is not worthy of your time, your well thought out answers or your attention.

The Anti-Science Sniveler knows about as much about science as I know about how women think; which is to say, less than nothing. Like most liberals and proponents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax, this person is an idiot. Those who insist that AGW is real are either liars or hopeless loons. To attempt to debate them is to give them credence that they do not deserve and gives them the opportunity to issue more lies.

DocInsight
"... due to such a miniscule amount of CO2, any increase from man-made sources has little effect on climate."

OK. You got me. 99% of all scientists and I are incorrect. You must have performed some additional experiment that I did not, and if you didn't get around to CO2 greenhouse experiments in HS, then you must have skipped them in college.

Please, do tell what you have found, because all other scientists know that CO2 contributes up to about 25% of the greenhouse effect. Hmmmm, you seem to be stuck on some elementary, incorrect thought process that equates percentage by weight to effect. Try increasing the trace elements arsenic or lead in your body and come back to tell me trace elements don't have much effect on a system.

If you could get past the falsehoods and talking points, you just might learn something. Instead, you continue to beat non-existent points into the ground even after they are easily shown to be silly questions.

You can refute real science (your choice), but you then can't accept the false science that is handed out by ditto-heads.

Shockingly stupid
That's what I have come to expect from articles on this website, but this takes the cake:

"The coldest winter in a decade in many places, with snow in unlikely cities such as New Orleans, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming. And a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming."

Please, PLEASE tell me this woman doesn't really think that one harsh winter somewhere negates all the evidence of climate change.

I didn't even think Phyllis Schlafly was still alive LOL.

Greenhouse Effect
Hmmmm....99% of scientists agree that CO2 causes the "Greenhouse Effect?"

Let's see; the glass in a greenhouse presents a barrier preventing the lighter, hot air, heated by the sunlight hitting mass inside the greenhouse, from changeing places with the heavier, cold air outside the greenhouse in a process called convection.

So, CO2 acts as a barrier preventing the air inside the earths atmosphere which has been heated by the sun from changeing places with the colder air outside the earths atmosphere?

There is only one method the earth has for shedding heat; radiation in the infrared spectrum. If CO2 prevents that from leaving earth, it also prevents it from striking the earth from the sun.

Oh,
and that 99% of scientists only holds up if you don't actually count the scientists. Or talk to any of them.

You notice how nobody who supports the CO2 warming position ever actually explains how it is even possible for CO2 to cause warming?


Hey Ken
Maybe you have common sense, you still lack scientific data evidently. Climate change menacing enough to cause catastrophic impact on the planet can cause any of the above weather conditions you cite. It depends on where you are on the planet, and what other factors are doing. This isn’t a game folks; please don’t wait for Rush’s permission before you educate yourself.

Hey I know, pretend climate change is as menacing as fundamental Islam! Believe me, your life (and the lives of your loved ones) is going to be changed far more by climate change in the next 50 years than by radical terrorists!

Jeffery writes:
Please, PLEASE tell me this woman doesn't really think that one harsh winter somewhere negates all the evidence of climate change.
=====================
Winter nothing.
One cold day is all it takes
Climate changes every day here in Colorado.
One day its near 70 degrees, next day it colder brrrrr, like today.

I wish the globe would warm up some, especially in winter

Hey Jeffery
Whats going to be the weather on March 25th 2009 in Colorado?

You would know, seeing as how you know what it will be in 50 years.

hehe funny stuff Jeffery

I am 65 years old
And I have seen the climate change every day of my life.

It makes me wonder why it scares people like Jeffery

Its not a big deal Jeff, its been going on for thousands of years

Lance
from Wikipedia, a partial explanation:

Of the human-produced greenhouse gases, the one that contributes the bulk in terms of radiative forcing is carbon dioxide. CO2 production from increased industrial activity (fossil fuel burning) and other human activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation[23] has increased the concentrations in the atmosphere. Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm (mole fraction in dry air[24]) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[25]

The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first demonstrated in the 1930s, may be called the Callendar effect.

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will contribute to additional absorption and emission of thermal infrared in the atmosphere, which could contribute to net warming. In fact, according to Assessment Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[26]

Over the past 800,000 years,[27] ice core data shows unambiguously that carbon dioxide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm.[28] Certain paleoclimatologists consider variations in carbon dioxide to be a fundamental factor in controlling climate variations over this time scale.[29]

Talent Scout
Have you been stupid for all those 65 years? I hope you know the difference between weather and climate. No, pumpkin, you haven’t seen the climate change every day. You’ve seen weather change. Happens here in Michigan, too.

And when the snow stops falling on those gorgeous Rockies, then you’ll sit up and take notice. And you’re just gonna love all the big, nasty tropical insects that might soon be inhabiting Colorado. Hey, we can rename the CU Buffs, the Rhino Beetles!

Who Knew??
“Phyllis Schlafly is America's best-known advocate of the dignity and honor that we as a society owe to the role of fulltime homemaker. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.

In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.”

My goodness, I had no idea just how qualified Phyllis Schlafly was to comment on global warming and climate change! She is certainly my new go-to gal for science!

Trade offs?Inthemajority
Oil slicks do not last forever.
Giant wind generators will. Not such a good trade off.
Why would oil have to be the only source? How about nuclear?

You pick on coal. It may yet be a source. I never said coal should be. Mercury is certainly not an answer.

As for the government. It is exactly what they are proposing to do.

Please try next time for some original, independant thinking.

Lance, Reply # 137
"So, CO2 acts as a barrier preventing the air inside the earths atmosphere which has been heated by the sun from changeing places with the colder air outside the earths atmosphere?"
---------------------------------------------------
Not even close. CO2 acts as a barrier preventing ENERGY from being radiated back into space. Most energy from the sun is in the visible spectrum which is why CO2 doesn't affect it. This heats Earth's surface which then radiates energy in the infrared spectrum. This energy is blocked by the CO2 causing the surface to stay hotter than it normally would.
===================================================
"You notice how nobody who supports the CO2 warming position ever actually explains how it is even possible for CO2 to cause warming?"
---------------------------------------------------
You notice how some people who deny global warming never actually try to learn anything about it?

There is scientific evidence GW
Since scientists never change their minds it is undeniable something drastic needs to be done now.

I would like to see geothermal and better housing construction standards.

I do not like to see our landscape raped by these giant wind generators.

The liberal side does not seem to think GE would benefit from the hyseria by having our government bless their putting poisons in every home.

The liberal side does not seem to believe that the trade offs in the way of carbon offsets are ripe for frauds and scams. Direct payoffs to politicians.

Lets try to move away from the name calling and use American common sence.

Jeffrey
"Maybe you have common sense, you still lack scientific data evidently."

You lack both. What's your point?

Jeffrey
"from Wikipedia, a partial explanation"

Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA???? You claim I lack evidence, and yet you cite a notoriously inaccurate source like Wikipedia???

Yeah, you're a real critical thinker, aren't you?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Jeffrey
"from Wikipedia, a partial explanation"

Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA??? You accuse other people of lacking evidence and scientific credentials, and yet you cite material from a notoriously-inaccurate source like Wikipedia?

Yeah, you're a real critical thinker, aren't you?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Sorry for the double post...
I hit the "submit" button once, but didn't think it had gone through, so I hit it again. Guess it went through the first time. Sorry!

Ken
Another example of TH braindeadedness. Is Wikipedia the last word? Hardly. I challenge you to go read the entry. It's accessible, even for low IQ TH readers. Prefer Scientific American? Even better! But get the facts, ok? There's a lot at stake.

Most of you...

who are denying that Earth is falling apart, are too uninformed for me to even bother addressing individually, "docsinsight" included.

As for you, "cleverness of me," you live in a state that gets down to freezing, so, you can't be THAT clever. I know what you know about studies and the scientific method, plus A LOT that YOU DON'T know. I'll leave it at that for now. Got important things to do, like saving our imperiled Earth.

Here's a clue: The global warming problem is JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG, so to speak.


Jeffrey (aka, "Chicken Little")
"Is Wikipedia the last word?"

No, and it shouldn't be the first word, either. Why did you quote it?

"But get the facts, ok?"

The fact is, you have no facts.

"There's a lot at stake."

There sure is. A lot of "green" companies stand to make a lot of money from these proposed environmental regulations.

Ken
I quoted wikipedia because it’s accessible. It’s a great starting point, and this particularly entry is pretty comprehensive. Let me challenge you to take a look and tell me what’s flawed about it. But I encourage you and others to consult a multitude of sources, just to be properly informed. Or is an article by a housewife on Townhall good enough for you? I would choose Wikipedia over Townhall. That ok with you?

See, the thoughtful person doesn’t choose the easy way out (well, except on TH.com LOL). I trust science, mostly. Especially when a bunch of different scientists are working separately, in different fields (literally and figuratively) and they all reach the conclusion that there might be a problem, a big problem, I want the facts. I don’t care what people of faith say, I don’t want to hear “It is God’s will!” or some such nonsense. They’re useful for the supernatural, not the natural.

It’s like cancer. If a reliable source says you might have cancer, you don’t just reject it outright because it’s an unpleasant reality. You make the effort to find out the facts, visit a specialist or two. If climate change is the earth’s “cancer,” I say let’s find out the truth.

Pitifully Laughable
The Heartland International Conference Schlafly quotes describe their presenters as "the elite in the world among climate scientists." On their website, they list the "Headliners" of the presenters. In order, they are, President of the Czech Republic; a former U.S. astronaut; a member of Colorado State University (no mention as to his specialty; could be a janitor, for all we know); a "Planetary Waves" expert (whatever that is); a Blogger; a Curator of a global warming petition; a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics member (again, no title or area of study mentioned).

I don't see any Climatologists in the list of headliners, far less the elite, (as is claimed) which should be the pick of the litter, so this organization's credentials are questionable at best. God knows who the unmentioned are.

But, this is usually all it takes to convince a shallow-minded and uncurious Schlafly and other Conservatives who seek to slip deceits such as "Clear Sky Inititives" and Healthy Forest Inititives" past an unsuspecting public. Shameful.

If I may be so bold
I'd like to repost my previous comment about Ms. Schlafly's credentials, from her Townhall.com bio:

“Phyllis Schlafly is America's best-known advocate of the dignity and honor that we as a society owe to the role of fulltime homemaker. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.

In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.”


I'm not knocking her devotion to home and hearth, but I do strongly question her credentials to make misleading or false statements on an extremely important matter.

Jeffrey
"I'm not knocking her devotion to home and hearth, but I do strongly question her credentials to make misleading or false statements on an extremely important matter."

What are your credentials to make false and misleading statements?

Ken
I'll answer that when you show me a false or misleading statement I've made.

Hey Wendy
Does Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the foremost climatologists today, have sufficient credentials for you? He refuses to drink the GW Koolaid.

Run from a Lion, get eat by a Bear
That proverb comes to mind when this subject is argued over.

All know its is nonsense, but truth is unimportant to the globalist blood suckers.
They preach fear of this or that comnstantly, and will be the victims of their own dementia and lies about GW.

Jim (FL) et al

Re. your post to Wendy, asking if a climatology professor from MIT has enough credentials to back his disbelief in global warming.

Jim, since you're so learned, what does the acronym MIT stand for? Oh, that's right. The Massachusetts Institute of TECHNOLOGY.

Do you suppose the professor might be a little biased? I find that a lot of academics are...especially those who might get big honorariae from oil companies for giving speeches...or those who get big paychecks from the universities that employ them, for devising more ways to cannibalize and destroy Earth...


Consensus
When Einstein was promoting his theory of relativity, did he go out and find a consensus of scientists, or did he look for an experiment to verify his theory?

Current predictions were, before the recent cooling trend, that in a little over a century the world would be as warm as it was during the early AD warm period when Greenlands glaciers had largely melted. At that time, there were people living on Manhattan Island. Yet we are to believe that should temperatures again reach that point, New York will be under water.

The earth has been producing oil for millions of years, long before man started burning it. But, we are not swimming in a sea of oil. Something appears to have been happening to the oil. Could that mystery explain why the earths mantle produces huge quantities of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and volatile hydrocarbons?

Oh, and most of the suns energy is in the ultraviolet and above. But that does not mean that the sun produces no infrared. Infrared radiation is heat. The sun is hot.

Cynthia
Why is it that you AGW boosters always accuse those who refuse to believe your religion of selling out, but you never question the millions Al Gore and others are making from this con? Any scientists who disbelieve are vilified. You are a pathetic hypocrite.

Lance
No I don’t imagine that Einstein (or any real scientist) ever bothered to try to get a consensus to prove any theory. Rather, he allowed the theory to speak for itself and invited testing.
It was Al Gore and his followers who insisted that there was a consensus among scientists and that there was no more debate. The refusal to allow contrary opinions or to acknowledge evidence that runs counter to AGW is standard operating procedure for lefties.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.