Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

You don't understand global warming.

From Scientific American:

"Cold winter doesn't mean global warming is over"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=cold-winter-doesnt-mean-global-warm-2009-02-12

@Davemartin7777 - and you don't understand this post. If this had been an unusually warm winter the mainstream media and pundits would have spun it as proof not only of global warming, but of manmade global warming. And how is it that even cold temperatures are used as such evidence. (By the way, I wonder if the SA article from a year ago used average temps as calculated by the folks in England.)

Right-wing Republicans will ALWAYS put corporate interests ahead of environmental issues, that's just the way it is.

Republicans have never cared about the environment, unless it involves hunting or fishing.

I remember when the right-wing was bashing people trying to stop the clear-cutting of old growth forests by the hectare a few decades ago, "tree hugging hippies."

Now forest/ paper companies fall all over themselves with PR about protecting old growth forests stands.

If global warming predicting scientists are right, we protect our planet if they are wrong we get cleaner air... what's the problem?

The good thing is, the right-wing Repubulican "Do Nothing" name calling, ad hominem attack approach from the Rush Limbaugh/AM radio graduates of climate science is going to be a massive failure with young voters.

"The term global warming doesn't refer to warmer weather (although it will be slightly warmer), it refers to a warming of the earth's atmospheric temperatures and the temperatures of the oceans (which have already seen a dramatic increase).

When the earth warms, weather doesn't get warmer, it becomes unstable.

When "conservatives" stupidly point out that snow in Houston means that there isn't global warming, they are actually referring to a phenomenon that itself is caused by global warming: unstable, unpredictable and unlikely weather."

http://gop.am/gQbD

National Geographic, "Global Warming 101"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs

I have to thank the professor for allowing my dissenting posts... mighty big of you.

Most right-wing blogs (like Red State, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Fox Nation for example) permaban the ISP or omit any nonright-wing point of view.

I wonder if National Geographic will do a piece on "Global Warming Ponzi Schemes-Carbon Credits 101"

The Environmental Protection Agency was created under which administration? You know, when the 55 MPH speed limit was all the rage?. You know, when shortly thereafter we got unleaded gas?
You know, when affirmative action got its start? You know, when the Big Empty Spot on the map was opened to the US as China? Who was it again? Oh, you know! Just before the Bicentennial? Now I remember: Nixon.

It's interesting that they use global temperatures to prove that global warming is occuring, but when those temperatures show a cooling trend, it's not about those temperatures at all any more, it's about "unstable" weather.

And as a Conservative, I resent the implication that I care more about Corporations than I do the enviornment. I care more about people, than I do the enviornment. And will be a good steward of this earth, but I will not hurt or impede a single human life in an effort to "save" it.

davemartin7777
Could you please provide links sources of REAL WORLD climatic research resources to substantiate your perspective?

You did list National Geographic which was a recognizable name. However, they have a single mantra, CO2. No matter what the topic of their program they always interject a reference to CO2 levels. However, they are no more qualified to provide objective analysis of the globe's climate than Al Gore, the IPCC, CRU, or the RealClimate.com. You should be aware that the CRU, the IPCC, and RealClimate.com are all controlled by the same people. It is not surprising they would use each other as their validating peer group(s).

You should also understand that Dr. Mann based his 'hockey stick' sham on the tree rings of a handful of trees from the remote Yamal in Siberia. Question: how can a dozen or so trees in Siberia accurately record global temperature? I also have serious doubts as to the accuracy of tree rings in representing climate data. Why, you may ask? Here's the answer. In my front yard are 5 Bradford Pear trees. Four of the 5 were planted the same day, by the same person using the same planting technique. The trees are in a line along the street. The first tree is approximately 250 feet from the last tree. Three of these trees are at least twice the diameter and height as the 4'th tree. A replacement tree was planted 4 years later, approximately 30ft from the smallest of the original 5. This 'new tree' is now larger in diameter and height than the smallest of the original 5.

The other day I noticed an AGW advocate screaming about the disappearing Arctic Ice Cap. The AGW advocate mysteriously neglected to include any ice extent data newer than 2007. Then there is Al Gore's poetry in which he mourns the loss of a "floating continent" in the September Sun.

There are innumerable Internet resources regarding sciences relative to the AGW/Climate Change hoaxes. I am not dependant on "...The good thing is, the right-wing Repubulican "Do Nothing" name calling, ad hominem attack approach from the Rush Limbaugh/AM radio graduates of climate science is going to be a massive failure with young voters. ...' you claimed in your post. I have doubted the AGW hoax for years, even before BHO was a state senator in Illinois.

Has the climate changed? Yes. Has it ever been static? No. Has it ever been warmer? Yes. has it ever been cooler? Yes. Was evil man-kind and his industrial revolution a factor in any of these cycles? NO!

If CO2 is such a massive heat sink why do we continue to see drastic temperature deltas between day and night and between seasons? If CO2 acquires then re-radiates massive thermal energy shouldn't these fluctuations be very muted?

This comment has been removed by the author.

It is really quite simple, I do not understand why I have to explain it so often.

If we have an uncommon warm event (a record highest low temperature, for example) it is a positive proof the man-made global warming is causing the change.

But if we have an uncommon cool event (record cold temeperatures over most of the northern hemisphere and some of the southern (at the ame time), for example) it is a local weather phenomenom of no global interest. And as soon as the scientists get the data sequestered, and make the requisite adjustments, it will turn out that th apparrent "cooling" event was not accurately reported correctly and was in fact an AGW climate change event.

“Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”. . .” By NEIL FRANK

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

AGW is a SCAM. Yes Really

It will take a long time, if ever, for those poor ignorant souls who were duped by the Athropogenic Global Warming theory and its many corporate and governmental backers, to admit that they never really understood the science, that they had to alter the data in order to make it look like temperatures were rising in an unusual way, that the "scientific consensus" was created by unethical manipulation of the peer-review and research funding processes.

Or that the whole fad was hijacked by powerful financial and statist interests. Copenhagen was more akin to "Black Reparations" than how to stop climate change...how much wealth did the developed world have to pay the undeveloped world in order to assuage their guilt for having a better standard of living. And whose hands did that wealth have to be filtered through.

BTW, davemartin777, Scientific American lost most of their credibility as a scientific journal years ago when it changed ownership and they quit acting like a peer-reviewed journal and began using science writers instead of scientists as authors, put thier efforts into glossy drawings, and generally began aiming for popular curiculation with "if it bleeds it leads" type stories. It has become a PR hack piece.

National Geographic, like Scientific American, is a populist journal, not peer-reviewed. It tends to get caught up in the hype of the year. They aren't scientists, though occasionally publish articles "written" by them if there are enough glossy photos. But they know how many granola-crunchers and tree-huggers bulk up their subscription list, and aren't about to upset them with honest debate.

davemartin777

As for your comment about dissenting posts, try putting up one on climateprogress.com sometime that questions the AGW orthodoxy.

It isn't a "right-wing blog" phenomena by any stretch of the imagination. To even suggest that, tells me a great deal about your willful ignorance. The blogosphere is full of censored discussions. In my experience, the left has been worse than the right, but that is likely just be because of what I would post.