2010 is the warmest January-though-June on record

[PokerGuy]

Although commonly referred as "global warming" the climate change also (and in particular) includes "extremes" - be it towards the warm spectrum or towards the cold one.

Wow, how convenient, this global warming religion ....errr... science can be made to fit *any* observation. Very nice. Pass cap & tax now!

 

[Moonbeam]

Let those who won't save our future eat bake.

 

[piasabird]

This is a lie. People's individual carbon footprints are smaller today than in 1970. Just the Car exhaust alone is a lot less per individual. The problem is we may be making up for it in computers and gadgets we use. Plus the population keeps increasing. Now China uses more energy than the United States. The USA is now producing less.

If you want to effect carbon footprint pricing use a formula of energy used per occupant for houses. Give people a discount if they use less electricity. Then tax people to hell that have a computer and a widscreen TV in every room of their 3,000 sq Ft mansions. Price Energy based on their usage-per-occupant. Bring it on. Maybe people will live in smaller houses.

 

[Jaskalas]

Now, how's that again about "global cooling?"

175 people killed in South America cold spell

 

[monovillage]

You don't understand, it's climate change now. So every cold snap, heat wave, windy, calm, cool, warm, rainy, drought, cloudy, clear, snowy, icy, humid day is a result of CO2 and climate change. The *koff *science* koff* is settled, the consensus says that's the way it is, stop being a denier and a septic. Accept it.

 

[sandorski]

You don't understand, it's climate change now. So every cold snap, heat wave, windy, calm, cool, warm, rainy, drought, cloudy, clear, snowy, icy, humid day is a result of CO2 and climate change. The *koff *science* koff* is settled, the consensus says that's the way it is, stop being a denier and a septic. Accept it.

Fail

 

[Craig234]

You don't understand, it's climate change now. So every cold snap, heat wave, windy, calm, cool, warm, rainy, drought, cloudy, clear, snowy, icy, humid day is a result of CO2 and climate change. The *koff *science* koff* is settled, the consensus says that's the way it is, stop being a denier and a septic. Accept it.

All those events are NOT proof of climate change, and could be abused if argued to be.

On the other hand, idiots don't know anything about the science but make posts like yours.

For example:

"Cigarettes cause cancer now. So every cough, sniffle, pain a smoker has is a result of smoking. Ignore the fact that non-smokers get cancer - if a smoker gets cancer, it's from smoking. The *koff* science is settled, stop being a denier."

Hm, whaddya know, just because there are bad arguments for something is not a refutation for the good arguments you are ignorant about.

 

[shira]

Now, how's that again about "global cooling?"

175 people killed in South America cold spell

What is there about the word "global" you don't understand?

 

[shira]

You don't understand, it's climate change now. So every cold snap, heat wave, windy, calm, cool, warm, rainy, drought, cloudy, clear, snowy, icy, humid day is a result of CO2 and climate change. The *koff *science* koff* is settled, the consensus says that's the way it is, stop being a denier and a septic. Accept it.

The NOAA article was about record global temperatures over a period of a month, six months, and what will likely be an entire year. Not about local, short-term weather.

And no one educated on the concept of climate change attributes all of the observed temperature record to manmade CO2 levels - there are other drivers as well. The temperature effects of anthropogenic CO2 levels ride on top of the effects of all the other drivers as a slowly widening band - 0.2 degrees (say) 20 years ago (say), 0.5 degrees today, 1.5 degrees 30 years from now, and so on. Because the other drivers can be large (El Nino, for example), manmade contributions can get "lost in the noise"; the but trend continues to get worse and worse.

You can be a skeptic all you want. But unless you refute the SCIENCE of anthropogenic climate change with more SCIENCE, you come across as just another ideologue with an opinion based on exactly nothing but whatever demagogue's screed attracts your attention.

 

[PokerGuy]

<blah blah blah snipped>

Yeah yeah, everyone who is an infidel to the global warming religion is just an ideologue, I got it. Lets raise taxes to fix the problem!

1 month, 6 months, 1 year, even 100 years isn't even a blip on the time scale of the earth. Scientists have no clue about a lot of this stuff, and yet left wing politicians are ready to take (stupid) actions based on their theories.

 

[flexy]

You act like the "idea" of global warming was created by POLITICIANS to piss off the right wingers. This i silly and cute at the same time.

Because the political debate came LATER, after scientists published their findings and predictions. Do you think there was an AGENDA to create GW theory? This is utter nonsense. I dont think there was any agenda involved because it was scientists making observations and predictions.

The silly "agenda" came way later since certain people didn't like what they heard.

Aka.."oil industry"...

Do you seriously think that all people "supporting" the theory of global warming and seeing greenhouse gases, increased avg. temps, depleted ozone layer etc..etc... are silly "left wing nuts"?

 

[Jaskalas]

What is there about the word "global" you don't understand?

How do you think they come up with that "global" number? Especially since they've removed many cold-location thermometers from their data set over the years.

 

[PokerGuy]

You act like the "idea" of global warming was created by POLITICIANS to piss off the right wingers.

No, I never said that nor do I believe it. I believe big government advocates and politicians have seized the opportunity presented by the scientific debate to promote their agenda. It's no surprise that their solution to the problem is always "more taxes, more government".

I dont think there was any agenda involved because it was scientists making observations and predictions.

Correct, there was no agenda to create the GW predictions, there most certainly is one now to make use of it.

The silly "agenda" came way later since certain people didn't like what they heard.

Aka.."oil industry"...

aka eco-kooks and other left wing nuts, tax happy liberals. Remember how in the 70's and early 80's the scientific community was debating the coming "ice age"? How smart would it have been to act on that science? There was no political agenda to go with that science, so it was just science, not a political religion.

Do you seriously think that all people "supporting" the theory of global warming and seeing greenhouse gases, increased avg. temps, depleted ozone layer etc..etc... are silly "left wing nuts"?

Nope. Just the ones wanting to push left wing policies based on the inconclusive and incomplete data, and predictions going out decades.

 

[flexy]

You would be surprised how many scientific theories are (still) inconclusive and incomplete.

Regardless, some theories are more sound than others....especially if PRELIMINARY findings actually seem to support the predictions.

If it turns out wrong...we simply dont have anything to lose...but it would be moronic to disregard it beforehand and then face consequences when its way too late to do something about it. Simple as that.

 

[JD50]

You would be surprised how many scientific theories are (still) inconclusive and incomplete.

Regardless, some theories are more sound than others....especially if PRELIMINARY findings actually seem to support the predictions.

If it turns out wrong...we simply dont have anything to lose...but it would be moronic to disregard it beforehand and then face consequences when its way too late to do something about it. Simple as that.

You don't think passing extra taxes, growing government, etc.. is losing anything?

 

[Modelworks]

No, it's supposed to convince you that the climate is warming. And if you look a little deeper - and are honest with yourself - you become convinced that mankind is to blame. No guilt, just knowledge.

Now, as to what to DO about climate change, that's for society to decide.

The only thing I am convinced about is a lot of people stand to get rich by the green mantra.

Warmest on record ? A record of the past 150 years vs thousands of years ?
They always use figures like, look the ice is melting more than it has since we started watching it 100 years ago !

Making conclusions from data like that is like me taking three minutes of your life where you drank a beer and concluding that you are an alcoholic because the first minute you didn't have one in your hand and the third minute it is still there. For two whole minutes you had a beer in your hand . That proves it , you are drinking more than you ever have before !

 

[Modelworks]

Because the political debate came LATER, after scientists published their findings and predictions. Do you think there was an AGENDA to create GW theory? This is utter nonsense. I dont think there was any agenda involved because it was scientists making observations and predictions.

Spend some time reading on which people announced it first and who those scientist were and what they earned before and after the announcement and it is pretty clear what the agenda was.

One of the best ways to insure a scientist will never be out of work is to research something that threatens life.

 

[shira]

Yeah yeah, everyone who is an infidel to the global warming religion is just an ideologue, I got it. Lets raise taxes to fix the problem!

1 month, 6 months, 1 year, even 100 years isn't even a blip on the time scale of the earth. Scientists have no clue about a lot of this stuff, and yet left wing politicians are ready to take (stupid) actions based on their theories.

You're an ideologue if your opinion on MMCC is based on non-science. If you've got a substantial collection of solid, peer-reviewed studies to back up you skepticism, you're a rational human being.

 

[shira]

Do you seriously think that all people "supporting" the theory of global warming and seeing greenhouse gases, increased avg. temps, depleted ozone layer etc..etc... are silly "left wing nuts"?

Nope. Just the ones wanting to push left wing policies based on the inconclusive and incomplete data, and predictions going out decades.

Well then, you're a happy camper. Because the article cited in the OP isn't pushing any policy whatsoever. It's reporting on the scientific data collected this year so far. Yet somehow, the right-wing knee-jerkers are desperate to invalidate the data and claim - based on NOTHING other than their "personal opinion" - that it's meaningless.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well then, you're a happy camper. Because the article cited in the OP isn't pushing any policy whatsoever. It's reporting on the scientific data collected this year so far. Yet somehow, the right-wing knee-jerkers are desperate to invalidate the data and claim - based on NOTHING other than their "personal opinion" - that it's meaningless.

The FACT is that no matter how hard you try to pretend that it's solid science and evidence supports all the conclusions, we as humans are only able to actually study current observations of a tiny sliver of time, and we have very limited knowledge of what factors are at play in the longer term. Yay, ice core readings go back a little further.. but the planet is close to 5 billion years old. All this pseudo-science is ridiculous.

 

[flexy]

The FACT is that no matter how hard you try to pretend that it's solid science and evidence supports all the conclusions, we as humans are only able to actually study current observations of a tiny sliver of time, and we have very limited knowledge of what factors are at play in the longer term. Yay, ice core readings go back a little further.. but the planet is close to 5 billion years old. All this pseudo-science is ridiculous.

backwards logic

Based on preliminary findings - so you'd say that the Big Bang theory or evolution etc. is also "pseudo science"? None of those theories is perfect and has flaws, here and there. Doesn't make them "pseudo science".

 

[spacejamz]

Can someone provide some unbiased feedback on these questions? They have probably been addressed, but I haven't been keeping up with the GW threads lately...

did these scientists 'cherry pick' their data (i.e., were lower temperature readings discarded)?
were their sensors place near heat sources which affected the readings?
did the scientists already conclude that temperatures were rising even before they began their analysis?

These were just some of the issues that I recall before I stopped reading these threads...

 

[bullbert]

And the only solution is higher taxes!

... and higher frivolous government spending.

 

[shira]

How do you think they come up with that "global" number? Especially since they've removed many cold-location thermometers from their data set over the years.

A bogus argument already refuted in an earlier post. Try actually READING and UNDERSTANDING what your betters tell you.

 

[shira]

The FACT is that no matter how hard you try to pretend that it's solid science and evidence supports all the conclusions, we as humans are only able to actually study current observations of a tiny sliver of time, and we have very limited knowledge of what factors are at play in the longer term. Yay, ice core readings go back a little further.. but the planet is close to 5 billion years old. All this pseudo-science is ridiculous.

The "we as humans" who have actually done the studying have peer-reviewed papers to back them up. All you've got is exactly nothing.

But glad to see you've got it all figured out.