Further rebuting paranoid propagandistic 'climate change' rhetoric:

[gsvol]

Part one:

putting some perspective on oft repeated claims which are coupled with unrealistic, unscientific conclusions.

“Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small – perhaps undetectable – effect on global climate.”

Even if CO2 levels were to double or triple, no harm would come to the planet. Why? Because, contrary to the nonstop fright-mongering by the IPCC, Green lobby and researchers in search of grant money, CO2 is neither a pollutant nor enemy of mankind. It is one of life’s essential elements.
----------------------------------

During the Jurassic period, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in the neighborhood of 1,950 ppm – five times the concentration of today’s modest 385 ppm. During that period, the earth flourished in the fertile embrace of life-giving CO2.
--------------------------------

“The great lesson from geologic history is that carbon dioxide is critical to life. The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous. The logical extension to that thought process is that the government has legally regulated life. The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.”

 

[IPorange]

This could be an interesting argument for heavy metal poisoning in water, as well. Most of the heavy metals in the lakes of the northeast are natural, but the small amount added by humans is what makes it toxic to fish and anything that eats them. Hmm...

Or how about as argument to get out of a DUI? "Officer, it was only .01 over the limit! What difference could that possibly make?"

I wonder what the natural water content of jet fuel is? I wonder what difference it would make if you just added 10 % more?


A percentage-based argument is an appeal to those who aren't aware of the subject matter. It just marginalizes the whole issue in hand.

 

[gsvol]

This could be an interesting argument for heavy metal poisoning in water, as well. Most of the heavy metals in the lakes of the northeast are natural, but the small amount added by humans is what makes it toxic to fish and anything that eats them. Hmm...

Don't look now but a little green worm has crawled in your ear and eaten your brain.

I think that theory has been debunked, you didn't get the memo??

Go ahead and make your argument, I don't see how your jump from CO2 to heavy metals has any connection.

We took octane boosting lead additives out of gasoline a long time ago.

Or how about as argument to get out of a DUI? "Officer, it was only .01 over the limit! What difference could that possibly make?"

Works for me.

Some other good arguments;

I can't get out officer, I'm afraid you'll give me a ticket for littering when all the beer cans fall out if I open the door.

You get in, I'm way too drunk to get out.

I wonder what the natural water content of jet fuel is? I wonder what difference it would make if you just added 10 % more?

As a matter of fact water injection into jet engines is used to increase thrust during takeoff.

The P-51 fighter plane (and others) used water injection into internal combustion engines to boost HP during WWII and reached speeds of over 400 mph.

A percentage-based argument is an appeal to those who aren't aware of the subject matter. It just marginalizes the whole issue in hand.

On the contrary, that argument is used by those who are aware of the subject matter.

How about the benefits of increased CO2, does that not marginalize the whole global warming/ climate change theory???

That theory being that CO2 levels might someday be the trigger that induces runaway global warming when we know as a scientific fact that CO2 levels follow temperature levels and are not a reliable factor in predicting future temperature levels. Furthermore CO2 levels are a minescule as a greenhouse gas.

Furthmore treaties such as Kyoto affect American energy production but don't apply to China or India.

As a result of current policies we ship coal to China but cancel any new coal fired plants in America.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Just what is the issue at hand????

The other thread saying the start of another el nino proves global warming is like saying I found bird poop on my patio table this morning, hence that proves global warming.

If CO2 levels are constant to very slightly increasing then why don't we have el nino all the time?

How does one say el nino is proof of global warming and then ignore the la nina cycle????

There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.

 

[IPorange]

The planet is adapted to the atmospheric composition and climate that we have NOW. Changes to that will have short to medium term bad effects, that will cause problems for both humans and the natural world. I wish I could explain it better, but it's as simple as that.

 

[gsvol]

The planet is adapted to the atmospheric composition and climate that we have NOW. Changes to that will have short to medium term bad effects, that will cause problems for both humans and the natural world. I wish I could explain it better, but it's as simple as that.

"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

I was bringing up plate tectonics to describe how different the world was then.

Agreed the world has changed quite a bit, how does this equate to the idea of giving the government the rught and authority to stop any more change??

As for as "letting the excess starve," I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. My concern was FOR those people.

I don't question your youthful altruism but the ethanal mandate led directly to food riots in 22+ countries the next year and how are societies supposed to rise above subsistance farming when they can't get fuel for mechanized farm machinery.

I mean you don't see that many nuclear powered tractors, not that the enviro lobby doesn't block nuclear power as being unsafe etc etc.

As for the rest of it, we could trade links all day. I know what the majority of relevant scientific community thinks.

From one of the most knowledgeabe and top climatologists of the world.

The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of scientists posted to it by government agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists contributed to the report, but university representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time needed for participation are not available to most university scientists.

Many governments have agreed to use that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The report, as such, has both positive and negative features.

Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report models are largely verified by comparison with other models.

Given that models are known to agree more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that approach does not seem promising. In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results.

That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report.

Nonetheless, the body of the report is extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office.

His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further.

On the basis of the summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.

While the International Panel on Climate Change's reports were in preparation, the National Research Council in the United States was commissioned to prepare a synthesis of the current state of the global change situation.

The panel chosen was hardly promising. It had no members of the academy expert in climate. Indeed, it had only one scientist directly involved in climate, Stephen Schneider, who is an ardent environmental advocate. It also included three professional environmental advocates, and it was headed by a former senator, Dan Evans.

The panel did include distinguished scientists and economists outside the area of climate, and, perhaps because of this, the report issued by the panel was by and large fair. The report concluded that the scientific basis for costly action was absent, although prudence might indicate that actions that were cheap or worth doing anyway should be considered.

A subcommittee of the panel issued a report on adaptation that argued that even with the more severe warming scenarios, the United States would have little difficulty adapting.

Not surprisingly, the environmentalists on the panel not only strongly influenced the reports, but failing to completely have their way, attempted to distance themselves from the reports by either resigning or by issuing minority dissents.

Equally unsurprising is the fact that the New York Times typically carried reports on that panel on page 46. The findings were never subsequently discussed in the popular media--except for claims that the reports supported the catastrophic vision. Nevertheless, the reports of that panel were indicative of the growing skepticism concerning the warming issue.

Indeed, the growing skepticism is in many ways remarkable. One of the earliest protagonists of global warming, Roger Revelle, the late professor of ocean sciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who initiated the direct monitoring of carbon dioxide during the International Geophysical Year (1958), coauthored with S. Fred Singer and Chauncy Starr a paper recommending that action concerning global warming be delayed insofar as current knowledge was totally inadequate.

Another active advocate of global warming, Michael McElroy, head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, has recently written a paper acknowledging that existing models cannot be used to forecast climate.

One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity'' continues unabated.

At times, that insistence takes some very strange forms. Over a year ago, Robert White, former head of the U.S. Weather Bureau and currently president of the National Academy of Engineering, wrote an article for Scientific American that pointed out that the questionable scientific basis for global warming predictions was totally inadequate to justify any costly actions.

He did state that if one were to insist on doing something, one should only do things that one would do even if there were no warming threat.

Immediately after that article appeared, Tom Wicker, a New York Times columnist and a confidant of Sen. Gore, wrote a piece in which he stated that White had called for immediate action on "global warming.''

My own experiences have been similar. In an article in Audubon Stephen Schneider states that I have "conceded that some warming now appears inevitable.'' Differences between expectations of unmeasurable changes of a few tenths of a degree and warming of several degrees are conveniently ignored.

Karen White in a lengthy and laudatory article on James Hansen that appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine reported that even I agreed that there would be warming, having "reluctantly offered an estimate of 1.2 degrees.'' That was, of course, untrue.

Most recently, I testified at a Senate hearing conducted by Sen. Gore. There was a rather arcane discussion of the water vapor in the upper troposphere. Two years ago, I had pointed out that if the source of water vapor in that region in the tropics was from deep clouds, then surface warming would be accompanied by reduced upper level water vapor. Subsequent research has established that there must be an additional source--widely believed to be ice crystals thrown off by those deep clouds. I noted that that source too probably acts to produce less moisture in a warmer atmosphere.

Both processes cause the major feedback process to become negative rather than positive. Sen. Gore asked whether I now rejected my suggestion of two years ago as a major factor. I answered that I did.

Gore then called for the recording secretary to note that I had retracted my objections to "global warming.'' In the ensuing argument, involving mostly other participants in the hearing, Gore was told that he was confusing matters.

Shortly thereafter, however, Tom Wicker published an article in the New York Times that claimed that I had retracted my opposition to warming and that that warranted immediate action to curb the purported menace. I wrote a letter to the Times indicating that my position had been severely misrepresented, and, after a delay of over a month, my letter was published.

Sen. Gore nonetheless claims in his book that I have indeed retracted my scientific objections to the catastrophic warming scenario and also warns others who doubt the scenario that they are hurting humanity.

Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue?

After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters.

Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics.

Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.

The answer almost certainly lies in politics. For example, at the Earth Summit in Rio, attempts were made to negotiate international carbon emission agreements. The potential costs and implications of such agreements are likely to be profound for both industrial and developing countries.

Under the circumstances, it would be very risky for politicians to undertake such agreements unless scientists "insisted.'' Nevertheless, the situation is probably a good deal more complicated than that example suggests.

It is funny that you and others keep bring up political points when discussing the merits of climate change. It is very clear that your real problem is the implications and politics that have been hitched to it (which I don't like either), because that is what these threads always come back around to.

See above, this has been a political rathert than scientific issue from day one.



"When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state ... this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

AFP: Challenge to IPCC's Bangladesh climate predictions

 

[IPorange]

Lindzen is a natural-born contrarian (which is a quality I can respect).

But let's be honest. He's brilliant, but 70 years old and almost always takes the minority view. Did you know he is adamant that cigarette smoking is not really linked to lung cancer?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Lindzen is a natural-born contrarian (which is a quality I can respect).

But let's be honest. He's brilliant, but 70 years old and almost always takes the minority view. Did you know he is adamant that cigarette smoking is not really linked to lung cancer?

Tobacco by itself doesn't cause cancer, it's the synthetic chemicals they put in it that help in the process. But yeah, smoking as it is today, sure does seem to lead some people to cancer.

 

[IPorange]

Tobacco by itself doesn't cause cancer, it's the synthetic chemicals they put in it that help in the process. But yeah, smoking as it is today, sure does seem to lead some people to cancer.

Show me a man who rolls his own cigarettes and smokes 10 a day, and I'll show you a man who is going to have serious lung problems.

I'm sure the additives don't help, but tobacco smoke has qualities about it that lend to lung cancer.

 

[TennTradition]

That's something I've heard about Lindzen for a while...he is contrarian by nature, but I also agree that this isn't a bad thing. At times, I'm fine with a lot of what he says, and then he pulls out some quote like "CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around, look at the historical record," which I *know* he has to know doesn't make any sense in the face of non-natural emissions of CO2.

I could walk 150 feet out my door and talk to multiple colleagues of Lindzen who would disagree with him on a lot of points. They are also very respected climatologists. Yet, their analysis is 'clearly biased', 'a joke', and 'full of holes', apparently...while everything Lindzen says must be the gospel. He is a respected climatologist, after all. Nice. What about these other guys? The ones who have told me that Lindzen is about the only guy in their field they can think of who they have a lot of respect for (scientifically) and yet disagree with on the core aspects of climate change.

 

[gsvol]

Lindzen is a natural-born contrarian (which is a quality I can respect).

But let's be honest. He's brilliant, but 70 years old and almost always takes the minority view. Did you know he is adamant that cigarette smoking is not really linked to lung cancer?

It isn't and there never was any DDT found in penguin eggs, no matter what you may have heard.

Incidentally there are plenty of knowldgeable people who agree with Lindzen on this and much more, so he isn't just some isolated scientist who happens to know exactly what he is talking about.

That's something I've heard about Lindzen for a while...he is contrarian by nature, but I also agree that this isn't a bad thing. At times, I'm fine with a lot of what he says, and then he pulls out some quote like "CO2 lags temperature, not the other way around, look at the historical record," which I *know* he has to know doesn't make any sense in the face of non-natural emissions of CO2.

Non-natural if you consider humans to be non-natural.

At any rate current levels (or projected rises) in no way endanger the future of life on Earth and to say so is laughable.

What alarmist consistently try to do is talk about human cause emissions and blow it waaaaaaaaaay out of proportion to what occurs in nature naturally even if there was no such thing as a human being.

And the draconian political solutions as presented are just too absurd to be taken seriously.

I could walk 150 feet out my door and talk to multiple colleagues of Lindzen who would disagree with him on a lot of points. They are also very respected climatologists. Yet, their analysis is 'clearly biased', 'a joke', and 'full of holes', apparently...while everything Lindzen says must be the gospel. He is a respected climatologist, after all. Nice. What about these other guys? The ones who have told me that Lindzen is about the only guy they can think of who they have a lot of respect for (scientifically) and yet disagree with on the core aspects of climate change.

Then they must be a rather ignorant lot, there is a multitude of respected scientists who agree with Lindzen.

 

[IPorange]

When it is said that GCC endangers life on Earth, it isn't meant that life would stop existing. It is meant that we will lose biodiversity, we'll lose ecosystems, etc. Those will have associated human and economic costs.

 

[gsvol]

When it is said that GCC endangers life on Earth, it isn't meant that life would stop existing. It is meant that we will lose biodiversity, we'll lose ecosystems, etc. Those will have associated human and economic costs.

So what? Then what???

Yet another laughable conjecture.

When you say human and economic costs do you say that we should be enslaved and excess humans should be eliminated???

Do you think some supposedly endangered snail was reason enough to make ranchers quit watering their cattle in the Snake or one of it's tributaries and to forbid sport fishing??

Ranchers had been watering their cattle there for over a hundred and fifty years and the snail was still around, I doubt that a few odd fishermen were going to hurt the said snail population either. Does that not give a few men great power for so little danger???

You must stop and think and question everything.

Do you think it really prudent that we cut off irrigation with no warning to the Imperial Valley of California, one of the most productive areas in the nation over some minnow???????

Why not just build a delta smelt hatchery and turn them loose by the millions????

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome


"The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species."
Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923

If you don't watch out some of those human and economic costs might just jump up and bite you square in the ass and more than likely that bite wont' be like a chihuaha, it will be more like a pit bull, or worse.

Study history and see what happened to the people when their government was given or took too much power, never a pretty sight.

The socialists have said they were going to destroy America using environmentalism as the tool and it looks like they shall.

However, we ain't half dead yet and we have not yet begun to fight.

Perhaps we can agree on the best way to go, if not you go your way and I'll go mine.

Bottom line is the BS crap and tax tax tax bill is born dead and will not be introduced in the senate this year.

Even that utterly stupid dumbass John Freaking Kerry can understand that, people like him are the only reason I'm only 99% against all abortions. Abortion opponents say the next abortion might be the next Albert Einstein but I say more likely the next abortion will be someone more like that idiot Kerry.

I thought Sabbachino might jump in here and throw out some of his monkey crap, but I guess he isn't up to it.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know why I bother. You clearly can't stop making sweeping assumptions.

 

[gsvol]

I don't know why I bother. You clearly can't stop making sweeping assumptions.

we will lose biodiversity, we'll lose ecosystems, etc.

Hmmmm, no sweeping assumptions there.

When you can't hold up your end of the debate, blame me, yeah right, I feel so bad.

We have a federal government so strong and all powerful that it plans to seize more than 13 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that's essential for local funding of schools, firehouses and community centers.

The Obama administration plans to do this under the 1906 Antiquities Act by unilaterally designating them as national "monuments".

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter seized millions of acres for the federal government while they were in office also.

Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior's real estate shopping list.

This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No.

Before we venture far afield, the bottom line on CO2 regulation is that there is insufficient evidence to take any legislative action. On the contrary, overwhelming evidence is that the whole CO2 warming theory wrongly uses misleading and sometimes false data to support a theory that is fatally flawed from A to Z.

 

[gsvol]

Man-bear-pig's worst nightmare!!

“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” says Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, a group that doubts the underpinnings of climate change theory.

Bring it on, baldie, loser Hockey Stick boy!

 

[gsvol]

Now that we have established that the cornerstone of AGW is incorrect (that CO2 is a polutant) we can proceed to the long awaited part two of this twelve part series.

Review:
{Rather than being a polutant, CO2 is vital on Earth and is as important as Oxygen or H2O in naturally occuring life cycles (including weather patterns) and human activity that produces that compound are insignificant when compared to all of nature.}

Examining the AGW theory in detail:

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

1. The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.20C to 0.60C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.

2. The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.

3. The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.

4. The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.

5. The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.

6. A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the Stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

1. Highly questionable. (read why)

2. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

3. Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements.

4. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. Greenland and the arctic region are now no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! Data does not support claim 4.

5. Claim 5 is clearly wrong.

6. This has proven to also be absolutely untrue.

Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory WRONG!!

I'm a bit surprised that OB hasn't joined this thread to educate me on these matters. :unsure:

 

[IPorange]

FOXNews.com - South Pole Has Warmest Year on Record -- Averaging -54.2 F

Huh.

 

[gsvol]

FOXNews.com - South Pole Has Warmest Year on Record -- Averaging -54.2 F

Huh.

AS IF there has been some sort of steady increas to duplicate the steady increase of CO2 in the atmosphere!!

Whoever wrote that article is FOS and doesn't know what he is talking about!!!!! If not trying to be completely deceptive he is just being ignorant.

Damned commies at Fox!!

Average monthly temperatures and precipitation (Fahrenheit, inches) at the South Pole, Antarctica.

They mean it's the highest since 2002 right??

Or maybe TennTrad needs to correct my math once again.

Ya think all that human activity had anything to do with it?? How many gasoline powered electrical generators do they have down there now?? How may planes take off and land there each year???

Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The ceremonial pole and flags can be seen in the background, slightly to the left of center, below the tracks behind the buildings. The actual geographic pole is a few more metres to the left. The buildings are raised on stilts to prevent snow buildup.

The polar ice sheet is moving at a rate of roughly 10 meters per year, so the exact position of the Pole, relative to the ice surface and the buildings constructed on it, gradually shifts over time.


Do you think at -54 degrees the ice cap is in danger of melting??

How many years do you think it will take for the temperature to reach levels that will produce significant sea level rises???

Do you think we might in the mean time figure out how to use nuclear fusion as an alternative energy source??
(without forcing energy bills on the average citizen that would be financially crippling and have a domino effect on all businesses and on the economy that would force us into hyper-inflation, bankruptcy and chaotic anarchy then draconian knee-jerk reaction from central government that is the antithema to the original American revolution?? IE: marxist socilaist is couter revoltionary and all who promote it should be up against the wall mf, fire, aim, ready?)

And just think if the Antactic ice cap melted what that would do for biodiversity!!!!

At present there is no flora and only humans except one box of petunias held hostage and maybe a gerranium and a few pet gerbals and a goat that one of the Norwegians is rumored to be bunking with.

Timothy Markle is the meteorology manager at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Here’s what he has to say about weather and climate at the Pole.

The temperature trends here at South Pole Station are quite puzzling, actually. Interestingly enough, South Pole, since 1957, has been getting a little bit colder every year. We’re actually about 3.5 degrees Celsius [6.3 degrees Fahrenheit] colder now than when we starting taking records back in the late ’50s.

No one really knows why that is happening.

(to be fair) gs

Also, oddly enough, 2009 (we just compiled our annual temperature and weather data for 2009) was the warmest year on record down here at South Pole. So, even though we are trending toward the colder end in terms of the long-term, in the short-term it has been very variable and we have seen warmer-than-usual temperatures here.

South Pole Weather and Meteorology

South Pole Station Records 1957-2001

Maximum Temperature -13.6 / +7.5 on December 27, 1978
Minimum Temperature -82.8 / -117.0 on June 23, 1982
Average Temperature -49.5 / -57.1

Real data not kpsm (knee pad sycophant media) hype:

Anyone with even half a brain can study such charts and see that they match cycles not all of which we may understand but have much to do with solar cycles and ocean temperature cycles and have very little if anything to do with CO2 levels.

Ball in your court dude! :dance2:

 

[IPorange]

Why do your numbers differ so much from Fox News' numbers?

I mean, FOX NEWS.

 

[sjt18]

I am just old enough to remember the scare of the 1970's... industrial pollution was going to cause global cooling, lock up mass amounts of water, and destroy the earth...

Of course the vain alarmists are much more intelligent now than then.

 

[BeecherVol]

I am just old enough to remember the scare of the 1970's... industrial pollution was going to cause global cooling, lock up mass amounts of water, and destroy the earth...

Of course the vain alarmists are much more intelligent now than then.

Or more driven.

 

[sjt18]

IIRC, a "real" warming pattern occurred after an extended cool spell about 1000 years ago... it helped bring Europe out of the Dark Ages.

By and large, the warm cycles free water, increase growing seasons, and reduce drought. It is historically true... and true now. Unfortunately we are likely headed into a cooling cycle... and some predict a longer than usual one. If so, we will probably see widespread crop failure and famine... and war.

The earth has been self-regulating to equillibrium throughout its history. Solar activity is MUCH more significant than anything man has done or ever could do short of something like a mass nuclear war.

 

[sjt18]

Or more driven.

Yeah... I could see blind motivation being a huge factor.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yeah... I could see the money motivation being a huge factor.

fyp

 

[sjt18]

Yeah. That too. Toeing the party line in science is unfortunately the only way those guys get grants. Step off the reservation or question accepted dogmas/philosophies... and you get nada.

The modern academic science establishment bears a striking resemblance to the heavy handed flat-earthers of a bygone era. Anyone who dares question basic presuppositions will get summararily excommunicated as a heretic.