The 1911 Eastern North America heat wave was an 11-day heat wave in New York City and other Eastern cities that killed 380 people starting on July 4, 1911 – 101 years ago.
In Nashua, New Hampshire, the temperature peaked at 106 degrees Fahrenheit. In New York City, 146 people and 600 horses died.
I’ll bet there has been a history of hot temperatures like what we are currently going through. It’s just a heat wave folks – not global warming!
Alright Ted wants proof here you go. I started snowmobiling when i was 17 years old i’m now 50 thats 33 years. Every year we would go around Christmas time to St,Germain Wis. the snow and lakes where always frozen knee deep. Then slowly we where moving our trips into January becuse the snow and frozen lakes was moving futher north each and every year it got worse.
Now we cant even plan a trip untill late January and we have had to move about 100 miles futher north into the upper peninsula of Michgan.
In 1911 how many cars were on the road Ted, infact how many coal fired power plants where there and how much pollution did they produce way back then. Fast foward to today Ted.
The air over Bejing China is orange Ted, you can see the air in L.A. the polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than ever thought and the perma frost that is also melting is producing super high amounts of C O 2 if you cant see this is really bad long term for all the World and we have a chanch to do something about it now not later that makes you a really dumb engineer becuse these numbers dont lie…Ted !! it’s not to late to do something and it’s not Democrats or Republicans…it’s everybody
Carol, the only ones wearing “blinders”, are you of the Leftist persuasion. Facts and (accurate) figures mean nothing to you.
Brian, the Earth’s climate has changed ever since it was created. We have had numerous ice ages, and periods of global warmth, all prior to the industrial age, and even the human race. Climatic changes are not measured in years, or even decades, but in millenia. Anything else is an aberration, or a glitch.
The air over Bejing is orange, because they use virtually no emission control devices on their industries. That is part of why their products are so cheap.
As to L.A., the original people who lived in Los Angeles, the Tongvas, called the San Fernando Valley the Valley of the Smokes, because the topography of the area captured the smoke from their bonfires and kept it there.
BTW, did our rovers on Mars cause it’s ice caps to start melting?
See: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
Snuss, are you sure about all that science your pointing to ? Dont you think the smartest people in the World would maybe know a little more than you about this subject. I mean quoting Rush Lintball is NOT scientific. Fox news is NOT science and they dont even bother to ask the smartest people if Rupert Murdock says theres no globel warming then according to Fox news corp. there is none thats is…!! Pretty scientific HUH.
So your saying the melting polar ice capps is just a normal climatic event. Do some real research and you will findout that we can make a difference now if act, But if we do nothing as your suggesting …? we will all parrish not just the rich or poor everybody will feel the effects and I’m not willing to ignore the facts like you republicans are…
No – most people don’t understand the vernacular of a discipline they haven’t studied — as a result I don’t expect anyone to understand climatology immediately.
But I notice the posters who don’t acknowledge global warming continue to hold the notion that the science is based on the words of Al Gore. That’s like saying people who support the cause of helping African children believe everything Sally Struthers has to say.
They also use sources by NASA, NOAA and Nat. Geo. while discounting that all of these organizations acknowledge global warming.
Brian, what are you talking about? I’m not quoting Rush. My sources included Investor’s Business Daily and NASA, but not Rush. There are numerous scientific sources that understand that “global warming” is more politically-driven fear-mongering, than pure science.
Global warming? It’s natural, say experts
Global warming is a natural event and the effects are not all bad, two respected researchers claimed yesterday.
Authors Dennis Avery and Fred Singer looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and argue that these experts are doubtful the phenomenon is caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
Climate change is much more likely to be part of a cycle of warming and cooling that has happened regularly every 1,500 years for the last million years, they say.
And the doom and gloom merchants, who point to the threat to the polar bear from the melting North Pole, are wrong, the authors say.
Even if our climate is changing, it is not all bad, they suggest, because past cold periods have killed twice as many people as warm periods. Mr Avery said: “Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.
“Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people.
“It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine, plagues and disease.”
Read more at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
Brian – if that’s your data to prove your case – I don’t think I would have hired you for my engineering group. So you are saying it’s global warming based on your observations? What were the environmentalists basing their observations on, when they said we were going into the next ice age in the 1970′s?
Problem is data has to be observed and measured. Where’s your measured data? Otherwise you can switch form the debate from the ice age of the 70′s to the global warming of the 2000′s and now the climate change of the 2010′s!
The differnce Ted is that the scientist that started telling us about the global warming some 15 years ago predicted presisly what is happening now and told us so. Remember Ted, How they said that the weather patterns would start to change in differnt goegraphics …i.e. droughts in none drought areas, shifting heat patterns,completly differnt weather for many regions, They even predicted how we would have these huge forest fires, or tornadic winds ….anything sound familier guys..off the coast of New England the sea has risen some 3 inches already. Does any of this sound normal to you ..?
Ted, I have worked with many brillant engineers over my years some much smarter than others. I have also worked with some engineers who have trouble tying there shoes so lets not go down that road.
I’m not a rocket scientest nor an engineer Ted …But I do know this you, cant put 30 million cars on the road pump millions of tons of toxins into the air we breath and NOT have some kind of BAD conclusions …why do you think they keep preaching about Sun damadges and a higher number of Sun block each and every year.
My simple expereances in life have told me nothing stays the same for very long. Change will happen but the way it’s changing you would be a fool not to see this coming.
I will give you my very simple thoughts of how Global warming would make more since to the average idiot…i.e. me !! Say you have your home tempature set at 76 degrees. Then you invite over say 10 of your neighbors there body temp at 98.6 degrees it will take about 5 to 10 minutes and your AC will have to turn on becuse the tempature will automaticly rise.
If we deplete the Ozone layer like we are the sun light coming trough gets stronger every year now this is something they have been mesuring for years Ted. So would it not make since that the Polar Ice caps melting even faster than predicted. ?? This really dosen’t worry you an Engineer..?
You know Brian I don’t care what these genius predicted 15 years ago or 40 years ago or 50 years ago. I care what the past shows for the last 1000 years in the scheme of things. You can’t prove a trend in a short 15 years because the next 15 years could be entirely different. We need to see long term trends.
Besides, I seem to recall that the ice packs were coming back and the polar bears were on much firmer ground than predicted just a short time ago. We really need long term data. I don’t consider myself an expert in this area but jsu common sense and logic dictate that we need more than just someone’s feelings about a measureable criterion.
Besides there are 100′s of scientists that say global warming is simply hogwash.
I really don’t remember where I saw it or heard in on 60 minutes and I don’t have time to look up all the facts. Could you find out how the polar bears are doing today compared to whenever? Thanks.
/Snuss
Thanks for the chuckle about the indians telling the white man about smoke accumulations in the San Fernando Valley. Guess they heard the story from those indians on Long Island how easy it was to fool the White Man and he’d buy any story.
Exactly what was that indian population in Los Angeles with all those camp fires?
As P.T. Barnum used to say, “:there’s a sucker born every minute,” and Snuss you’ve just proved him right.
When the Spanish settled in California, they had very large ranches. Wrote copious diarieas about the area back home to Spain. No where did they every mention the camp fires of Los Angeles had them under smoke in the San Fernando Valley or anywhere else. Now they did mention the tar pits, good grazing, and the fog. Yes, fog, Snuss. Something that hangs in valleys all over California. Indians in the northern area of the State tried to tell Sutter not ot locate in Sacramento because the fog hung there and all the way up to the butts. Sutter didn’t get it, and between the mosquitos & fog spent a first year very miserable in California and I’m sure the indians had a belly laugh around their camp fires about it.
When Ted talks about the heating and cooling of this planet taking place, what he fails to note the length of time involved in those processes. The earths record is very clear in the matter, none of it is quick. What’s happening now is a rapid change as never seen before in our history. The biggest difference in the planet is how man has affected it with the size of the population and how man changes it to make us more comfortable. Refered to often as your carbon footprint.
Put on the blinders along with Ted. Pretend the ozone layer hasn’t changed and you’ve got nothing to do with that either. Keep telling yourself to compete with China ect. you’ve got to get rid of rules concerning clean air & water, plus energy use. With your head stuck firmly in the sand like all good fellow non believers, don’t let the obvious kick you in the butt too often or cause you to think for yourself. Let someone like the former President change the date of the scientist so your world will continue to look rosey. After all, you are only a drop in the bucket of time as TEd loves to say. And certainly what P.T. Barnum said you were.
Ted, I take it from your indirect answer to my question that you do think the scientists who are doing the ice coring in Antarctica are spewing hokum. But I prefer to believe Dr. Neil De Grasse Tyson the astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium who says that the evidence of climate change is proven. Looking at his educational and career background I have to believe he knows how to understand scientific evidence. But let me ask this question; is the objection you and other climate deniers have concerning climate change caused by the thinking that conservation of resources will have an adverse affect on your purchasing power? Me, I’m pretty happy that the SUV I just bought is rated at 28pmg versus the SUV I bought six years ago rated at 20mpg. (More hp with the new one too)
azguy, I just want a reasonable and less expensive energy policy then we will have if the environmentalists get their way on everything without proving that climate change is a reality – which I don’t think they have proven!
F.Y.I…..
Global warming mystery: Why are some glaciers growing?
Around the world, ice caps are melting due to climate change, scientists say. But a few icy masses in the Himalayas are, weirdly enough, getting bigger.
Read the rest at: http://theweek.com/article/index/226873/global-warming-mystery-why-are-some-glaciers-growing
BTW, msnbc also reported this.
And…..
The media has done a great job of covering this up, but the fact is that all seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing.
Glaciers are growing on two different mountains in Italy – Mount Canin and Mount Montasio. Will you see this in the main-stream media?
“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning
UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted
it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
Read more at: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
Ok to all you global warming/climate change/whatever the flavor of the day wording is, lets look at some FACTS.
1. Al Gore’s movie (where he won a now joke/nobel prize) “inconvient truth” was taken to a british court of law. You know what the ruling was? It was classified as a work of SCIENTIFIC FICTION due to over 6 PROVEN scientific inaccuracies (aka FALSEHOODS).
2. The fossil data shows (even taking into account continental drift) that the climate overall was more tropical (aka hotter) with high seas (as being found evidence in such places as AZ, SD and even IL), and places such as iceland/greenland being green. Not until whatever hit the earth caused the global ice age.
3. No one can PROVE what the earth temperature should be. If so give me proof.
4. In the late 70-late 80′s the same “proof”/scientific concensious/supporters cried “global cooling”. Need proof just search the publications of the time. Time magazine had wonderful articles on the matter. It was even taught as a theory in environmental classes required of all students at SIU-C.
So they were all now oil industry paid stooges then?
5. Science is NOT BY CONSENCIOUS. It is by using scientific method to test a theory and ONLY becomes fact when it can regularly be re-created in a lab over and over. Then its a FACT NOT BEFORE.
6. Most of the evidence of global warming is based on “computer modeling”. The same modeling is used to predict the hurricane season in how many there will be, broken down by category of severity and number.
News flash it has been DEAD WRONG 4 years running. Both in how many total AND how many in each severity category.
So they cannot EVEN COME CLOSE in a known weather event in our own back yard (as it were) but you can PROVE how the earth was, is and will be in the future. REALLY?????
Lastly back to the global warming crowds “the scientific community has come to a concencious, case closed” is this. Here is some of those same “concencious” from the past.
The earth is flat
The earth is the center of the universe, with the planets rotating around it.
The basic elements are earth, fire, air, water.
That bathing make one vulnerable to the black death.
We cannot break the sound barrier with maned aircraft.
The smallest particles are electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Brain damage is permanent.
I could go on and on.
All of this was proven wrong due to the scientific method and VERIFIABLE/RECREATEABLE experiments.
So as ted and others have asked for I also ask again.
1. What is the earths normal temperature supposed to be?
2. Verifiable proof we are having a SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on it? Note not just because there are alot of us or otherwise places like india with more people per space than us should be unlivable.
3. Proof other than faulty computer models and INCONVIENANT TRUTH FILMS
4. Records where these temperatures were much lower in the past.
Note the fossil records show HOTTER CLIMATE WITH HIGHER SEAS.
I see in the future going from global cooling, to global warming, to 20 years from now articles on global neutrality.
PS There are mispelled words so I give the liberals something to debate with some degree of irrelivant truth.
Here’s the simple truth from the science side of this that cannot be ignored. The core samples have been recording CO2 temps that date back as far as 3000 years these samples have never been above 200 parts per million until…..the 1980s and it is climbing at a very rapid rate, thats what has everybody in a tizzy we are now approching 300 parts per million stage witch is off the charts.
Ted this scientific data is exactly the kind of warning we are getting thats proven. The Ocean is having the same kinds of scary changes that have the Marine people on the edge of there seats.
These are not all related without some commen cause , and again you cant really beleive that all those tail pipes and smoke stacks and billions of tons of toxins pumped into the air on a daily basis is NOT going to somehow damadge our planet ….Really !!
@ truth hurts: “Brain damage is permanent.” could be accurate, when discussing Liberals.
Ok, it’s back to name calling…again..! We can agree to dissagree thats called debate. Here’s the thing about the conclusion. If i’m wrong or the scientist that say that we have damadged our planet are wrong the worst that will happen is that we start doing a better job of taking care of our enviroment (good)
If your wrong along with all those companys who agree with you that are the poluters, we ourselves will not be the ones who pay a terrible price but it will be our kids and there kids. (Bad)
And to think that all we had to do was start taking more care now and change just a few simple things. how selfesh, what exactly doe’s Conservative mean anyway…?
Dr, Gore had over 30 BS statements in “The Inconsistant Truth”. If it is such rock-solid science, why lie?
Juice – why bother with the truth when your minions will believe it anyway? It’s so dang HARD to investigate and share the real stuff and so EASY to just make it up.
And you smart fellas i’m sure voted for Bush…what twice ? and your guna question me …huh ok and yea they made up the core samples and those fires they started ..oh my !! Idiots fox news is NOT science..and Rush is just a high paid wind bag of sh&t
Given that the opposition was ultra-Liberals Gore and Kerry, the choice was clear. I would have preferred a more fiscally-conservative candidate, but that choice wasn’t there.
Romney isn’t that perfect conservative, either (IMHO), but I don’t think this Country can survive four more years of the Obama regime, and still remain a Representative Republic, much less a major world power.
At the bottom of the pile of asking for “truth” is Ted’s wallet as usual. He just wants the cheapest energy for his buck and the short amount of time he’ll be spending on this planet. How anyone else survives after that won’t be his concern.
Do we all recall the former President altered what science had to say in reports coming from the White House in relationship to global warming? That President was watching out for his buddies wallets as well and not the American People.
If I didn’t know some very nice Conservatives, and Ted was the example of that group, guess I’d have to think they hadn’t much to contribute to this nation. The ones I know might feel differently about gov’s role somethings, but they do recycle etc. and want to take care of the planet they live on over their price at the pump, Ted
Again, Ted, I find you don’t represent most Conservatives on a topic of your choice. Trash day at the curb proves the point where streets are lined with recycle bins and they aren’t labeled Liberal nor Conservatice/Tea Party/Republican, or Libertarians etc.., but they are still there being used all the same by a majority of people. So take that fact and stuff it next to your wallet and see which is bigger. You can’t get people to do recycle bins when they don’t think it serves a purpose.
If Romney wins, most of the rest of us will definitly lose 98 % and billionare MONEY will own our elections from now on. The middle class that shurnk under Bush will dissapeer under Romney.
The middle class drives the economy when they have money to spend they spend it witch creates demand and starts the hireing process.
Romneys only plan so far is to give an even bigger tax break to the millionares just like Bush did but bigger to do this he is going to raise the midde class taxes and start taxing those who live on basicly nothing you know the TRICKLE DOWN theory..that dosn’t work…
Isn’t Professor Gore on Apple’s Board? Why are Apple components no longer catagorized as “green”? Interesting, profit over principle?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-10/news/ct-oped-0710-byrne-20120710_1_global-warming-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel
It looks like Dennis Byrne from the Trib used your column idea or one similar a couple of days later. Of course, now you’ll just have to convince the science groups that believe global warming is man-made.
More debunking of global warming…
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC
World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
Read the rest at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20KNrh0iD
This is really funny! Ice core samples a faulty science, but tree ring reading is are completely accurate and valid proof that it was warmer in medieval times. Someone must be looking at the plastic trees they have at the Medieval Times Restaurant over near Chicago…………
As opposed to the termite-infested wormwood between your ears.
Tree rings ARE scientifically proven to reveal year-to-year climate variations, as the following shows: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516120304.htm
Well first carol to your comment about wanting “cheap energy” at all costs. While that may be your first ammendment right on judging teds opinion, it answers NOTHING on the facts and evidence those like myself bring up to challenge the “dogma” of global warming.
As for the comment about brians co2 levels lets look at this comment. Lets for now say you are correct.
This is one fact that by itself does not even come close to negating the over 10 facts I presented.
Now lets take this in conjunction with the tree ring fact you so strongly mocked.
Take the two at the same face value then you both have proven that the scientists have NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
Now add to the fact the fossil records from AZ, SD and IL that the sea was in these areas (hmm can you say higher sea level than today) and that the climate was more hot and tropical overall.
At best it reinforces the fact scientists still have a debatable theory at best, or unprovable theory at worst.
Lastly one basic fact I have posed has remained unanswered and thus a factual thorn in the global warming debate.
WHAT IS THE EARTH TEMPERATURE SUPPOSED TO BE and BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.
Without a baseline “normal” temperature you are just blowing moke up a mules backside as to your assertion the earth is getting too warm.
You didn’t provide any facts that are backed up by a source — there’s nothing to negate — only statements some capital letters for emphasis to look at without a hyperlink.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
@ SNuss, the insult queen, from Wikipedia:
“An ice core is a core sample that is typically removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. As the ice forms from the incremental build up of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. This enables the reconstruction of local temperature records and the history of atmospheric composition.
Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.
The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr (800,000 years) for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable.
An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.”
Let me know where you can find an 800,000 year old tree.
If you need more, try this link. Very interesting look at Ice Core procedures and science.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
“WHAT IS THE EARTH TEMPERATURE SUPPOSED TO BE and BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.”
What a silly question! To pretend that there is even a remote possibility of an answer is nothing more that a specious, disingenuous attempt to make people think that you have proved your point.
No one could answer the question because when it comes to nature, there is no “supposed to be” anything. It is what it is! There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.
So if you think that your question could contribute anything to the scientific study of anything related to climate, you may be the one attemting to blow smoke up someone’s backside.
shawnnews I love that comment I have not provided a hyperlink.
Please do you REALLY NEED NEED me to post pages of links (many that would have been repeated my the other posters here) that all you (and other global warming fanatics) will just say any of the following….
They are oil company funded
Fringe scientists not of the “group”
Ranting of a tea bagger (or other degrogatory term)
ect
In short you are not interested in any FACTS that contradict global warming,
Now from JRM_CommonSense.
QUOTE “No one could answer the question because when it comes to nature, there is no “supposed to be” anything. It is what it is! There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.
Now lets look at your quote (which was very truthful and honest thank you).
YOU PROVED MY POINT EXACTLY
“there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be” (YOUR QUOTE) then you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is global warming or cooling.
ONLY that in X time frame the average temperature high and low was X.
So all I have done is shine the light of truth on the MYTH of global warming.
Thanks to you JMR you have also shown the HOAX global warming myth is.
Or will you backtrack on your words because it does not support the dogma of al gore?
@truth hurts:
I will try to answer you IN YOUR OWN STYLE so that YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING what I am saying.
While you are correct that “there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is ‘supposed to be’ (YOUR QUOTE) then you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is global warming or cooling.”
You forgot to mention that because ““there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is ‘supposed to be’, you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is NOT global warming or cooling.
Unfortunately, that failure of yours to point out the other side of the truth, means that you have failed to “shine the light of truth on the MYTH of global warming”. And you have failed to prove that there is NOT global warming or cooling. So, you HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ANYTHING.
You have not proved that global warming is a MYTH, HOAX, or FACT. You have done nothing but DEMAND THAT PEOPLE ANSWER AN UNANSWERABLE question, pretending that it would prove that something is a HOAX or a MYTH. If the question you posed as being the way to prove the HOAX cannot be answered, then it cannot possible prove or disprove any kind of theory at all.
Have a nice day!
I’ve said this a few times — I’m not a scientist. I’ve received my inofrmation about science from science classes. I wasn’t great at them. As a result I have to rely on science articles from sources I know are used by other scientists or are not known to have partisan leanings. As a result, I have never seen any movie with Al Gore as a spokesman or read any of his books. He is not a part of my “belief system.”
Since I don’t make a claim of knowledge I rely on others trusted in their fields who study the information — just like I would any other topic. I go to NASA, National Geographic, Discover, NOAA.
The problem with people denying global warming is that they don’t use sources from with the sciences. They rely on their own observations — my backyard was cool there must not be global warming. They rely on their political opinions — since Al Gore believes it, they will be against it. They rely on their “free market” sources like Investors Business Daily or Forbes. They rely on their politcal party sites and mags like Cato, Heritage, Heartland or even some speaker they heard at the Tea Party. Maybe they can make a few Bible verses say what they want to about global warming.
But you wouldn’t listen to these people for any other subject outside of their field of expertise — politics, investments, religion — so there is absolutely no reason to listen to them on science issues.
Yes, I put hyperlinks on most of my posts to back up what I say with a mainstream source. If you want to ignore the opinions of NASA, National Geographic, NOAA and the people who actually study climate, you do so not out of reasonability but out of partisanship or because when you took science classes the subject wasn’t around.
“Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.” from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
So if no science organization of any standing disputes the notion of man-made climate change, I am not in a position to claim they are all wrong. I would need a science source of recognitiion rather than a political one.
RM my calling global warming a myth was a bit extreame and I apologize for it as well as retract it.
However saying since I cannot prove (to your level as a pro global warming person) that somehow gives proof to your viewpoint is silly at best.
Lets all review that the theory of global warming is in its two parts.
Part one
The earth is warming at an unnatural accelerated rate and to a level that is doing cataclysmic harm to the environment worldwide.
Part two
Humans are solely or majority of the reason for this and unless we take drastic steps by X year (a time that keeps moving around) we reach a tipping point of no return.
JMR by your very quote (which you retold in both your posts) ….
QUOTE
There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.
This one well written fact NEGATES the first half of point one of the global warming theory.
Without that there is NO WAY TO PROVE that we are going to or past a temperature “tipping point”. So by simple logic it is reasonable to say that we are not to a climate (hot or cold) that is unnatural to the enviroment/earth.
The second half “level that is doing cataclysmic harm to the environment worldwide” is also not scientific easy to prove.
Lets take the last big ice age (the one caused by the comet/metor). The dinosars were wiped out along with a majority of the bigger animal life. Now even after that environmental disaster life not only came back, but thrived, just different than before.
So taking that proven series of events why should it be any different now? Say the ice caps melt, sea rise, and weather changes. Life will just adapt to the new situation as it has done over MILLIONS OF YEARS. The polar bears (using a global warming issue) will be replaced just as the t-rex was and so on.
The second point of global warming has not been PROVEN in any way.
The only PROOF given to this idea is by saying there are more humans living today so due to the climate models XX will happen/happening.
These models have been shown to be innacurate (and that is putting it mildly). The same people who make and use the models are the same ones that predict gulf hurricanes.
Well for the last 4 years they have been DEAD WRONG in both overall numbers and specific numbers by severity.
A reasonable person says if this one LOCALIZED KNOWN EVENT cant be modeled accurately then how do you claim that the world wide predictions are accurate? You can’t and be logical.
Now I could load up this posts with verifiable scientific facts contradicting global warming such as (but not limited to) from NOAA that earth temperatures have fallen one degree over the last 10 years. Or that hurricanes from 1950-70 were greater in numbers and strength than from 1970-2000 (during the warning from global warming scientists).
Or those infamous hacked emails that showed the doctoring of statistics and concerted effort to silence critics of global warming.
Or lastly that the global warming supporters discredit any scientist/study that was paid for by anyone else but their groups claiming bias. Logic dictates that if those are unrealiable due to who paid for them, then pro global warming groups who pay for scientists/studies are also unreliable right?
So not to fill a post with back and forth studies it is reasonable to conclude with this.
Due to conflicting and convincing evidence global warming is just a theory and nothing more
So your comment that I cannot prove global warming does not exist and that proves your point case closed nothing but a desperate (and predictable) comment from a global warming supporter that cannot tolerate any provable counterpoint to your view.
Oh just for accuracy the Al gore film that won him a nobel prize was taken to court in Britian. It was ruled a scientific FICTION due to OVER 6 scientific innaccuracies/untruths.
YAWN! You still have not proved or disproved one darn thing about climate change by your arguements. I assume you will continue to flat your jaws abotu it because when you are shown that you haven’t proven anything, the truth hurts. Keep chirping!
And BTW, you are not even close to what I believe about climate change. Just because I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact. It just means that I challenge your faulty logic.
JRM QUOTE
“And BTW, you are not even close to what I believe about climate change. Just because I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact. It just means that I challenge your faulty logic.”
Really JRM you more than tell by your posts you are a GLOBAL WARMING supporter.
1. You used the last desperate talking point used by global warming supporters when all else fails (that includes name calling and cherry picking facts) in that NOW you CHANGE YOUR STORY to CLIMATE CHANGE.
This name change (for those who dont know the whole story) came about a few years ago when it was noted on talk radio that over the last 10 years the earths average temp had fallen almost one degree. When the global warming crowd tried the usual “well stop using rush/fox news” and the study was found to come from NOAA (a US GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) then the name change happened.
At least thats the timeline as it appears. There may be another reason for the change but I cannot find (at this time) a logical reason why.
2. ReQuote for accuracy
“I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact”
I went over all your posts and found this interesting fact. The only “challenge” you did was to those who presented VERIFIABLE AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS that condradicted global warming theory. In my case 2+ posts/rants.
The rest was praising and reenforcing links THAT ARE FAVORING global warming theory.
Hardly the factual much less in spirit of your statement now is it.
3. Again using your own QUOTE
“YAWN! You still have not proved or disproved one darn thing about climate change by your arguements. I assume you will continue to flat your jaws abotu it because when you are shown that you haven’t proven anything, the truth hurts. Keep chirping!”
Last I checked YOU are NOT THE JUDGE, JURY OR KING that makes the final decision on global warming for the rest of us.
Thus your OPINION (as well as mine for that matter) IS JUST THAT AN OPINION. Get over yourself.
I was trying to have an ADULT debate on global warming. When I went overboard on calling it a myth I (as an adult) apologized. You on the other hand by the quote above continue to use the typical global warming talking points of name calling over factual debate.
4. You still continue to ignore viable scientific facts from credible sources (such as NOAA and NASA) and clear evidence (as in the computer modeling of hurricanes) of failures of basic studies used by global warming supporters, and PROVEN questionable behavior by scientists (the hacked memos) that at the VERY LEAST show that the THEORY of global warming is not the “case closed” that supporters keep saying.
As I have stated before I consider (at best) that global warming is unproven theory but leaning due to the scientific evidence continue to be a “opponent” to the “case closed” mentality of global warming supporters. Thus being the other side of the debate.
So JMR why are you so afraid to debate GLOBAL WARMING (the origional reason for teds post) as an adult?
Or even to admit you support global warming?
Look who snuck back here a week after the last post to post the same old lame argument to make it look like he had the last word. Yawn!
Well since you could only resort to name calling and kindergarden childish mocking I will gladly let you have the last word.
Because all you do is enforce the later part of the old mark twain saying
Better to be thought of as a fool than to open ones mouth (or post) and remove all doubt.
So post away. I enjoy a good laugh