Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax since the Cardiff Giant! Anyone with any science back ground at all can see that most climate scientists are not following true scientific processes to reach their conclusions. They use the results of computer models as fact ignoring the garbage in garbage out rules of computing.
Dr. Roy Spencer’s new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
Dr Spencer has been criticizing climate scientists for years for their lack of understanding of cloud cover. Computer climate models all use the same assumptions where they assign an average amount of cloud cover determined through statistics. Their insufficient knowledge caused them to make assumptions that are not valid.
Another mistake that climate scientists have made is to assume the Earth is very sensitive to heating or cooling by external sources. Recent satellite data shows the Earth is quite insensitive. That poses the question of how can a trace gas like Carbon Dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere) have any major effect on the climate. Dr Spencer actually states that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”
While it will take concentration to read and understand the importance of this book, it is worth a read. Nearly half is references. During the read, remember that ill informed politicians are currently spending your tax dollars to prevent a phenomenon of which they have little or no knowledge. Politicians are using AGW to further their political agenda, and we tax payers pay for it!
Watts Up With That? – Climate FAIL Files
Junk Science – The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
Randy recently retired from the Army with the rank of Colonel. His military specialty was environmental science and civil affairs. Randy has completed his doctorate of management and has become involved in local politics.
Something else interesting that I actually found on a comedy website of all places. Turns out we were generally only half right on glacier formation, which means ice core samples and satallite surveys may not be so reliable. Glaciers can grow from the bottom up when over water which could confuse dating and other estimate bassed on ice depth.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/antarctica-growing-from-the-bottom-up-110303.html
I think that we can agree that man might have some localized effects on climate CHANGE, in that where I live, just off of the Gulf Coast, I have seen the effects of both the “Urban Heat Island” effect,and the clear-cutting of trees, which I deplore. But while we might not cut down so many trees, we will still affect the LOCAL weather when you sprread concrete on an area the size of Houston.
I live north of Houston, and I used to see the thunderstorms build along the Gulf, and then move into land during the heat of the day.
Now, when these storms encounter the added heat of the concrete reflecting heat up into the atmosphere, they dump the rain on Houston, and it rarely makes it up here, to the Piney Woods area of Texas.
In that sense, yes, we are affecting the climate- but unless there is a drastic epidemic, there will be more people, not less, so I fail to see how we can mitigate the UHI effect here.
Perhaps if we located some companies to other places, but that would be an economic question.
Unfortunately, “environmentalism” has become a religion and no amount of factual information will persuade the true believers that their god doesn’t exist. The late Michael Crichton wrote about this in Environmentalism as Religion
I believe his speech on this subject is on YouTube.
Michael Chichton was a man who died long before he should have. He was a voice of reason among celebrities.
Randy I saw your writing the other day and figured you should release a reader post on the subject and you did, look at that. I remember that woman who thought it would be wrong to invade Afghanistan because of environmental reasons, don’t remember her name but I think she was in congress. The global warming philosophy is clouding peoples judgment, in dangerous ways. Its not a religion, its a cult. A bad one.
John Cooper,
Randy, good point there, I also believe that MOTHER NATURE has more flexibility than the humans who are trying to condradict her way of doing because they don’t know why she is giving the EARTH
SO MANY DIFFERENTS VARIATIONS OF CLIMATE always to respond to the fluctuations and problems,
occuring du to facts not even explored yet by those trying to sell us their beliefs so banals compare to the diversity that MOTHER NATURE IS CONSTANTLY SHOWING with HER WISDOM ESTABLISHED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION, DONE BY A MASTERFULL ARTIST GOD THAT IS.
thank you
It’s a “CULT” with a “GREEN” agenda of “MONEY AND POLITICAL WORLD POWER”!!!!!!
@John Cooper: Talk about hitting the nail on the head….
When I was a young boy in up state NY, I’m 75 now, my day would tell me stories of the Cardiff Giant. His point being that there are people who would believe and fall for the most outlandish hoaxes. Like the global warming scam the Cardiff Giant was exposed as a hoax but it still was displayed by the hucksters and the rubes still paid their hard earned coins to view it.
@randy:
First of all:
Second of all, I think that people who assert — absolutely, positively — that AGW is a “hoax” are every bit as bad as those (e.g. Al Gore) who assert that AGW is “settled science.” In point of fact, it’s a theory, and it’s a theory that true scientists may criticize, but do not dismiss out of hand, they way that it is dismissed out of hand by political bloggers.
One of the true heroes of the anti-AGW movement is MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, who critiques many AGW arguments, but doesn’t dismiss them out of hand. In a famous offer to bet on the world’s future temperature, Lindzen was willing to take the “under,” but wanted to receive 2:1 odds.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
Likewise, Richard Muller (a UC Berkeley physicist) “set out to disprove” global warming, but his data came back in support of it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
I personally think that the appropriate way to approach this controversy is from a scientific perspective and not from a political perspective. Or rather, discuss it from a rational scientific and political perspective.
i.e.
1. What is the probability that global warming is occurring? (on a scale of zero percent to 100%)?
2. What is the probability that the global warming is caused by human activity (scale of zere to 100)?
3. What is the probability that AGW, if it is occurring, will cause a serious problem (zero to 100)?
4. If a serious problem were to occur, what would be the magnitude of the least of the problem? The worst of the problem?
5. What is the probability that atmospheric CO2 is increasing?
6. What is the probability that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase?
7. What are the potential environmental and health implications of this CO2 increase, divorced from any climate effects, per se?
8. What would be the actual economic cost of mitigating the above?
9. What the economic and social disadvantages or advantages in mitigating the undisputed increase in atmospheric CO2, even if the climate and/or health impact were to turn out to be trivial?
The point is that CERTITUDE is POISON. In either direction. It’s neither “settled science” that AGW exists nor that AGW doesn’t exist.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
“Anyone with any science back ground at all can see that most climate scientists are not following true scientific processes to reach their conclusions.”
But they are getting their papers peer reviewed and published. That is where the trouble lies, the alarmists can claim ACC is real because the bad science is getting published and going unchallenged.
Where I live many small towns are disapearing, the populations are dropping because the kids are leaving for the big city. These communities are shrinking, but the local cities are growing. Perhaps the small towns disapearing offsets the increases in cities. In other words the falling UHI effect of many small towns might offsett the increasing UHI from large growing cities.
It wasn’t until ”ClimateGate” broke that we first learned how so-called peer-reviews were done.
The AGW’ers had a cadre of buddies who would glowingly ”review” whatever one of them put out.
If a AGW doubter tried to publish he/she could not get a ”peer” to do the review at all.
In other words, AGW was, in essence, consensus science.
And Michael Crichton gave a great speech at Cal Tech about that.
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture
by Michael Crichton
A key point:
2003
@nan: You quote a 2003 Michael Crichton lecture. To be fair and balanced, here’s a 2004 rejoinder:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, climate change is a science but is not treated in a scientific manner. That is what Dr Spencer is alluding to. You fall right into the AGW trap by using a consensus instead of scientific processes and data. If you want to look at the storied history of consensus science, ask Galaleo and the folks who studied science then. The consensus was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Galaleo proved through the use of scientific methods that the reverse was true.
In the middle ages it was consensus that blood letting was a sound medical procedure. Are you using that consensus science in your practice? Read Dr Spencer’s book before you trot out all of the same tired references you have used before. Read the references he quotes and refers to in the book. Try to understand his point that climate scientists are not using scientific methods and are making conclusions based on the desires of the funding agent rather than real science. Then we can talk!
@klem: Yes, they are getting their papers published. Are they falsifying their data? If they are not, why will the University of Virginia not release documents generated by Michael Mann to garner grants? That information should be available under the freedom of information act but the Virginia Attorney General has had to sue the liberal university for access to those papers. If there is nothing to hide, why are these papers not made public?
Yes, those “climategate emails were damning, but people like Larry dismissed them out of hand. I wonder why? The emails told me that much of the scientific community is publishing papers that are not really peer reviewed. The once respected journals they are publishing in today are not much if any better than the yellow journalism papers at the grocery store check out!
@Buffalobob: The Cardiff Giant was one of the stories I read as a young man. My mother always pointed out that the side shows at the county fair were also just a hoax. They were only out to get your money!
According to dictionary.com a hoax is something intended to deceive or defraud. Now if AGW climate scientists have never considered that climate change is a natural phenomenon, but make claims of AGW to garner grants for further study isn’t that a hoax or fraud? A true scientist would have already looked at natural climate change and showed proof one way or another. There is no money in proving that climate change is natural, so no one addresses it. Seems like that meets the definition of fraud or a hoax.
@randy: I’m not talking “consensus.” Obviously, there’s no consensus. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a lot of data. For example, CO2 is undeniably increasing in the atmosphere. Number two, it is now higher than it’s been in the past 1,000,000 year history of homo sapiens. Number three, there is a lot of good, solid information to indicate that the earth is, indeed, warming. That much is pretty solid. Now, where it gets gray is whether or not CO2 is contributing to the temperature rise. No one has proven it; yet no one has disproven it, as even critics such as Dr. Lindzen acknowledge.
As I wrote, I’m against certitude, in general.
No, I don’t plan on reading the book. It’s really not my field of expertise and it doesn’t have anything to do with my work. I read general reviews in the lay press. When something that looks like it’s new and important comes out, I read what reviewers have to say about it. So I read your blog about the book and then I read the other side of the story. I am confident that I know enough not to accept that AGW is a “hoax,” just as I don’t accept that AGW is “settled science.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The fact is, that most of those people, like myself, who disbelieve in AGW, do so from a scientific standpoint, as the data presented and used most often violated several accepted, unwritten rules, concerning the gathering and presenting of the data. Those who insist on it come at it from the standpoint of politicized science. You cannot claim a conclusion, and then force the data to conform to it. You cannot claim a conclusion first, so that you gain grants to support it. You cannot reach the conclusion, before you’ve gathered the data. And that is exactly what the AGW proponents have done, and are continuing to do, and then they stand behind the podium of “science” to present their case.
If science were first, foremost, and alone, in the concerns of the scientists studying global warming and it’s cause, that “hockey stick” graph would never have been presented to the world as scientific fact. AGW theory, in today’s world, is as close to ‘wagging the dog’ as I’ve seen.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That is not exactly true, Larry, and is a simple proclamation by the AGW proponents that is not based on scientific fact, using scientific methods.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Historic variations in CO2 measurements.
You said;
Those quotes, and links, that I provided pretty much discount your statement there. As I said in the above post, one cannot claim a conclusion, and then force the data to conform to it, using accepted scientific methods and principles. Those ‘scientists’ most closely aligned with AGW, did just that. They came up with a theory, and then reached a conclusion, and after that they picked the data out, massaged it, to conform to that conclusion. A real scientist starts from a theory, with no conclusion reached, and gathers and interprets the data to see if their theory is correct. That wasn’t done.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, who measured CO2 1,000,000 years ago? There are ice cores that show CO2 has been much higher than today. Please tell me what the normal temperature of the Earth is and I can tell you if it is warming or not. No one can! Show me the scientific evidence? Tree rings? It has been discredited. Yes, there is a lot of data, but if it has not been processed using acceptable scientific methods, it is as good as the newspaper I start my fire with!
Lay people are just that. They are not experts. Do you support “lay” people who use faith healing to combat cancer? Listening to lay people and lay publications get you someone’s opinion not fact! For the life of me, I can not understand why someone who has achieved the success in life that you have would listen to a quack ant think him reliable.
@johngalt: you are correct in your analysis. What Spencer is trying to show people is that the climate change scientists are hardly that. They are only con men slicking tax payers out of their money. If they were honest in their research, they likely would not have a job!
@Randy:
Ain’t it the truth, Randy!
I wonder would cold, suffering Brits like it better if they could grow grapes for wine more easily?
Would Greenlanders like it better if they could graze sheep and grow crops again?
Would the Inuit people like it better if their forests were a bit warmer, longer?
It used to be all of those things for all of those people…..once.
Were they being selfish?
Is it someone else’s turn?
Who sets the agenda?
@randy: I didn’t say “lay people,” I said “lay press” [meaning articles written for lay individuals by scientists, which is precisely what the Roy Spencer book is].
Regarding global temperature increase:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
Regarding CO2 increase:
http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://www.climatechoices.org/new-site/pix_cc/graph-for-web.gif
– Larry Weisenthal
@Randy:
Well, the fact of the matter is that CO2 measurements mean very little if one shows that temperature changes precede CO2 level changes. The effect of the ocean itself of CO2 levels in the atmosphere dwarf the entirety of the known animal kingdom on CO2 levels, let alone a crackpot theory that man alone is the cause of it.
If the grants for the study of climatology were given based on merit, and not a politicized conclusion presented before the research was even started, I highly doubt that AGW would have any support within the “scientific community”.
@john:
The theory:
What happened in the past isn’t relevant to what’s happening now, because what’s happening now is unprecedented. In the past there would be some “natural” warming event, which would heat up the oceans, releasing water-dissolved CO2 in the same way that heating up a glass of beer releases CO2. This released CO2 then acted as a greenhouse gas, amplifying and prolonging the heating period, until some other “natural” phenomenon (e.g. cyclic variation in the earth’s orbital distance from the sun) interrupted the heating cycle and triggered an ice age.
What’s happening now is that we are releasing, in only a period of 200 years, massive quantities of carbon which have been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years. i.e. this time the CO2 accumulation precedes the warming period.
P.S. To my knowledge, neither Michael Crichton nor Roy Spencer ever challenged the claim that atmospheric CO2 is increasingly rapidly and that man is the proximate cause of this increase.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Uh..oh. We’ve managed to insult Dr. Larry’s religion. If America were Great Britain, it would probably be a crime.
@John Cooper:
My “religion” is that I merely believe that AGW is unproven, and that I fail to believe that it rises to the level of a “big hoax,” perpetrated by a global conspiracy of disreputable scientists, who will stop at nothing, in the interests of maintaining their funding?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I actually read the replies to this intersting book review. I was particularly keen on the “Climate Moderates.” You know, those ‘enlightened’ middle-of-the-roaders’ who can see AGW as possible but not YET proven – both sides have validity?!?
I wonder if any of the proponents and agnostics on AGW have ever thought of the debate in this fashion…
If you give me enough of your tax money, I can control the weather.
That’s IS what the debate is all about. Stop CO2 emissions, and the weather is back under human control. Yeah, Right.
Those people remind me of the three scientists in the “In Like Flint” movie who conjured up rain by drilling into the earth’s core. Just cracking up laughing at their unmitigated Chutzpah!
@pat (#29):
It’s not a nonsensical statement.
IF human-generated CO2 is responsible for rising temperatures, then reducing human-generated CO2 should mitigate these temperature rises. It’s not at all absurd.
The questions outlined in my comment #9 are the questions which need to be addressed before there are radical changes in taxation and regulation. I agree that we are not “there” yet. But I am strongly supportive of California’s current experiment with effectively ratifying the Kyoto Treaty. We’ll get the chance to evaluate the costs and benefits (e.g. technology advances), which will be of benefit to future national energy decisions.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, Dr Spencer is not a lay person. He is a noted science in his own right. Listen to the people who are getting their bread buttered.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: larry, when you say “too my knowledge” you are assuming you are the worlds expert? Both have criticized the notion that CO2 caused global warming. Did you even read this post?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry do you know how ignorant ratifying the Koyota treaty is? It is like signing up to pay billions of dollars to fill up a bucket that has huge holesin the bottom. Koyoto did nothing to reduce the CO2 on Earth. It only moved CO2 generating industry (those that create jobs) from signatary countries to those who were not. It didn’t even address world CO2 levels only spreading the wealth around. The last AGW meeting produced actual statements that spreading the wealth around was the purpose. (Does spreading the wealth around sound familiar?)
@Randy: Spencer is a scientist, but his book was directed at a lay audience. That’s what I was talking about. I do not read original peer reviewed climate science studies, published in Nature. I do read original peer reviewed biological science studies, published in Nature. However, I read climate science articles published by scientists and intended for a lay audience. These latter types of articles are not published in peer review scientific journals. They are published in venues (blogs, magazine articles, newspaper articles, books, etc.) intended for a lay audience, as in the case of Spencer’s recent book.
Neither Crichton nor Spencer ever, to my knowledge, challenged the claims that CO2 levels are dramatically increasing nor that humans are the proximate cause of this. As I have repeatedly said, those facts are not controversial. Nor is the finding that there has been global warming during the last century highly controversial. What is controversial is the theory that it is the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 which is causing the warming. This latter remains controversial.
The reason why it was a good thing for California to ratify Kyoto is not that it will alter the earth’s climate, in a meaningful way. But it will give very valuable information on the economic and technologic impacts of controlling CO2 emissions. This will be very valuable information for future policy decisions, no matter how the climate science shakes out.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Here’s another thing to consider, about what has kept AGW alive for so long: we are bombarded with narratives saying skeptic scientists are corrupt. Since those all looked to me to be superficial guilt-by-association accusations, I ignored them for the longest time, but one day I decided to look into it. Long story short, the accusation is baseless, and stems from about a dozen enviro-activists back in the mid ’90s. Please see my Breitbart article from last November, “How an Enviro-Advocacy Group Propped Up Global Warming in the MSM” and click on my name above for my complete collection of writings on this specific problem.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, you cannot claim that what is happening today is unprecedented. To do so, one would need exacting data for all of the preceding years in which man has walked the earth, and that data would have to prove, conclusively, that only the industrial age of man has put such massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and on top of that, that CO2 is responsible for the warming.
You, yourself, stated in your post that natural warming trends, which heated the oceans, is what released the CO2 into the atmosphere. Assuming that were true, which is postulated by many scientists, the cause is the warming, the result is higher CO2 levels. Yet, the AGW crowd says the opposite is true, that the cause is the higher CO2 levels, and the warming is the result. Which is it?
There is, as well, those who state that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would have an overall cooling effect on earth, rather than the warming that the AGW crowd says is what happens.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/physicist-cooling-effect-of-co2-is-100x.html
Now, when discussing CO2 in the world, we must discuss in terms of emission sources and sinks. For example, humans, and our activity, are sources only, while land and ocean are both sources and sinks. And, even without any industrial, or man-made process emitting CO2, we humans would still be a source, albeit not as large. Estimates for human produced CO2 runs around the 6 Billion ton figure, annually. Land use, which includes plants, animals, volcano activity, and the like emits 439 Billion tons, while it takes in, or acts as a sink, for 450 Billion tons. The oceans emit 332 Billion tons while taking in 338 Billion tons or so. Based on those numbers, humans emit roughly .75% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere annually. It is not far-fetched to assume, based on the CO2 sink abilities of land and ocean, that our measely little 6 Billion tons would easily be taken in, without a net positive effect on CO2 increases caused by human industrial and CO2 emitting processes.
So if we follow the cycle, humans emit very small quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the massive sink capacities of land and ocean make up for our emissions. However, if a warming effect takes place, such as from increased solar activity, the oceans emit more CO2 than they take in, causing an overall net atmospheric increase in CO2 quantity. That CO2, in the atmosphere, causes a cooling effect, which we have been in since 1998. Slightly higher CO2 levels will have a positive impact on plant life too, as CO2 is one of the needed ingredients in photosynthesis, the process by which plant life takes in CO2 and emits O2(a process that is reversed at night, although not in the same quantity).
And, related to the previous discussion about CO2 sources and sinks, there is a valid argument that states that deforestation is the cause of the increases in CO2 atmospheric levels. In 2003, it was estimated that deforestation adds 2 Billion tons annually, but that isn’t the big deal of deforestation. Loss of trees and plant life takes away from the CO2 sink capacity of land mass, so that while CO2 is released from the deforestation, the total capacity for CO2 to be absorbed is reduced, which is why the levels have been rising so fast.
Larry, there is much to be concerned with, regarding human activity that causes destruction in our world, but the CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning processes is a minor one, and one that we should not be making large economic impacting decisions on, such as a Kyoto Treaty, or Carbon credit legislation. And the people pushing this are nothing short of con-men who stand to make fortunes by supporting such falsehoods.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, Larry, that very fact is controversial, otherwise there would be no push against the AGW crowd. How can you not understand that? Numerous scientists have spoken out, in lectures, trade magazines, and research papers, that human caused CO2 emissions are not the cause, or, are not scientifically shown to be the cause, of CO2 atmospheric level increases. I have given you numerous links, and there are hundreds more out there, that dispute that very claim. By rule, if there are contentions with a theory, then is IS controversial, and not what you keep stating.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, there have been many periods in history where the CO2 levels exceeded .038% of the atmosphere. No one has proved using a scientific method that CO2 causes global warming. You really need to understand the science and stop listening to the lay people and actually read the science. Computer models do not make science. They create theories that need to be proven. Remember the Spotted Owl? Thousands of jobs were lost in the lumber industry to protect the owl. The theory is that the spotted owl can only live in old growth forests. So the environmental lobby succeeded in placing old growth forests off limits to logging. In fact, the Spotted Owl doesn’t care how old the forest is. He just needs a hollow tree carved out by a woodpecker. Old growth forests are much less diversified of animal and plant species than 2nd growth forests. The real agenda of the environmentalists was to stop logging of old growth forests. Now, these old trees die and rot on the forest floor giving back CO2. People are out of jobs and less CO2 is sequestered. This is another hoax that could take up several posts.
Larry, take some time off from posting on AGW issues and read some real scientific papers.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, Dr Spencer oriented his book to “lay” people because they are the voters and bill payers for the hoax. The purveyors of the hoax, Al Gore and his buddies to include the in the UN have placed their unproven data into media that has actually been playing in our schools. Try to pick up a news paper with a liberal twist where there isn’t some reference to AGW. The left picked the battle field. Dr Spencer is only playing on it! Read the book Larry!! Or stick your head back in the sand!
@johngalt: JG you are correct with your post. Observations are that CO2 levels increase one to two hundred years after the warming trend occurs. This has been pointed out to Larry for several years. He fails to understand the importance of warming driving CO2 levels instead of the CO2 levels driving warming.
What is most perplexing about Larry is that he has a science background, yet he excuses those who fail to follow scientific principles and methods.
Randy, I must disagree. Climate is a science: Climate Change is a political ploy. People who study climate are involved in science. People who study climate change collect data to prove a hypothesis and that is not science at all. That is a way to get grant money and stipends from GE. Whatever validity the science of claiming CO2 has been lost in the politicizing of the compound. Carbon and Oxygen, the two elements that are required to produce and replicate life have been persecuted by ignorant people who couldn’t tell you the first thing about the properties of these elements or find them with a search warrant on the Periodic Table.. I speak of people like our illustrious Democrats in the House and Senate and perhaps in the White House as well, but they have become political footballs. Our population is naive and ignorant enough to believe people who destroy their integrity for all of history by repeating lies and clown science. AGW has now become known as the WGH, World’s Greatest Hoax, I saw my first bumper sticker bearing that message today on I10. Once the wizard has been shown to be a pathetic little old man, the lies lose their effectiveness. Now, we have only the most naive and gullible along with die hard party loyalists as the only ones clinging to the hoax, but the hoax is dead. Dead for everything, except as a con game for Obama to squeeze more drops of blood from a middle class that can no longer afford his Socialist dreams.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Well, 600 million years ago it was much, much higher and life was plentiful on this big blue marble we call Earth.
You further said:
Um, wrong again Larry.
@Skookum: Skook, it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when there is so much tax payer money lying on the table for the taking. Actually, GE is one of the guys who has been using the hoax to benifit from the alternative energy result of AGW hysteria. Albert Gore has increased his wealth 100 fold with his investments improved by his AGW efforts. Last time I looked, the water levels are not rising in Florida. Mickey and his friends will be safe in Orlando. Not sure about the Micky mouse folks in washington and California.
When you look at the fact that the magnetic poles have shifted 600 miles in the last 100 years, that might explain some of the weather fluctuations we are seeing- other than that, it is just weather, and weather is what weather does-
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you will never be able to convince me that Co2 is a “poison gas”, since plant life thrives on it, and gives back oxygen as it uses Co2-
The EPA has been wrong-headed for a long time regarding climate, and just going along with the alarmists who just seek to make a profit off of our fears. That is cowardly money, and all the “scientists” who timidly go along, just so they can suck the tit of Al Gore and others of that ilk, is NOT in any way related to a scientific approach.
Blake that shifting of the MAGNETIC POLE 600 MILES, IS very interesting to know,
is there a way to know which side they went, I am just thinking that it might even shift the
countrys’s limits to benefit others , giving them rights to revendicate their share of added land and sea as ocean’s limits, we all know of the RUSSIANS submarines coming to probe and take maps under the north
waters of CANADIAN’S FROZEN ARTICS LANDS AND SEA.
BYE
Jeez…I’ve been on Accuweather.com blog for years arguing against the Gavin Schmidts and their insistence that we need to go back to the stone age in order to save the world from melting……
Any person with any common sense can see the hoax right up front without needing any ‘scientific facts’ that the whole thing is a hoax.
When Al Gore put out his ‘inconvenience’ ‘documentary’ (false propaganda, I say), it was so crude that schoolkids could see the ‘inconvenience’ of the inconsistencies of Gore’s proslytism of the new religion. He has already profited millions off his scare tactics while leaving a ‘carbon footprint’ 100 times more huge than the average person while he jets around the globe, then turning around and ‘buying’ carbon ‘credits’ from his own companies. Talk about a shell game…..down here in the south we used to tar, feather (or worse), and run out of town guys who tried such crap.
The whole objective is that the greenies, of whom Obama is one, have memories of the dot com explosion during the Clinton administration and the ensuing capital explosion thus the ensuing government revenue explosion that was the primary catalyst of the ‘balanced’ budget of the Clinton years………they hope that if everyone goes overboard on ‘green’ technology and invests heavily in it, we will see another ‘explosion’ of revenues as during the dot coms.
Their only problem is they seem to forget the bottom fell out of the dot com house of cards and things went to hell in a handbasket immediately thereafter though millions got rich but millions lost their shirts.
People also forget the y2k hoax where airplanes were supposed to fall out of the sky. Millions got rich then also, but trust me folks, I don’t want to get rich on a scam by hurting others….do you? Ask Al Gore since he has no shame…
The world has endured for billions of years and likely will endure for billions more, until the sun gives up the ghost. Mother Nature is a strong lady and she’s been around for a long, long, long time and has seen everything that can be thrown at her.
It is the height of arrogance to assume that puny little man can create conditions that will upset the balance of nature to the detriment of the earth’s ability to offset it.
Man may be responsible for his own eventual demise, however, this likely will come from his own polluting of his environment and the associated disease that it fosters. It may come from the release, accidental or otherwise, of one of the many ‘super-bugs’ in laboratories scattered over the planet. It may come from blasting himself to smithereens with nuclear armaments and contaminating the air he breathes for an infinity to come. It may come from all sorts of things other than bringing about his extinction due to an infinitesimal increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…..
But such has always been used by the Al Gores of the world to lighten others pocketbooks to put the resultant riches into their own….riches going to huge multinational companies like GE and others, and leaving, as always, the ‘little man’ who is expected to pick up the tab..,,,
@Esdraelon: I have to agree with you on almost every point. Man may indeed be the master of his demise, and if so, we deserve it. But if that does happen, it won’t be from Co2- but from clearcutting too much forest, to plant corn in order to make fuel. That is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard- converting food into fuel-
@ilovebeeswarzone: The shifting has been to the East, I believe- it is hard to tell , when you are on the North Pole, but the poles have shifted before, (generally every 26,500 years, or also known as the Mayan Long Cycle), and this might account for the increased seismic activity.
@Blake: My brother flies for a major airline. He was telling this lady about the magnetic north shifting and the impact it would have on run ways. Does anyone know how much it would cost to move a run way to align with the readings in the flight books? You just change the run way designation.