E-mail Story
Print Story
There are 26 comments - Display All Comments
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:06:25 AM
Is this from some Tabloid? Oh no, it is from some guilt-ridden retired person that enjoys drinking Koo-Aid.
As for NASA’s Susan Soleman, she is a rent-seeker climate pimp, looking for that next taxpayer’s handout, to pay her salary.
If she said that climate does what climate does- varies....her funding would dry up like a prune.
The last time I looked at SAT images (11/03/09) of both Antarctic sea ice and Arctic ice, it is doing just fine. That’s if you like ICE.
It is funny that after the unusual 2007 Arctic summer thaw, the Warmies predicted an ice free Arctic in FIVE years. When 2008 and 2009 begged to differ, the Warmies made new PREDICTIONS of an ice free Arctic in 20-30 years.
Yea....sure...and the people reading that announcement would either be dead or have forgotten this recent announcement on ice free oceans at the poles.
FrankWHaw
thorne
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:59:26 AM
Actually, the relentlessly stated opinions of the (understandably anonymous) Climate-Change Deniers has forced me to completely convert to Their “Sky-ain‘t-Fallin’-on-ME!” position.
In gratitude for their..`er Work, I’m circulating a petition to Congress to grant them All nice cottages—at sea level—on the oceanic coast of their choosing.
beekeeper
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 11:04:04 AM
Oh boy, a bona fide climatologist right here on the PB comment page! Who knew?? Throw in a few more slurs, and the world will be in the palm of your hand. I have never seen one post from OTT that carried any shred of research or understanding; only regurgitation of cute little sound bytes.
krisg
Munising, MI
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 12:15:09 PM
As scary as the potential realities of climate change could be, I’m not sure it’s helpful as far as debate goes to try to warn skeptics of the consequences of inaction—attempts seem to earn responses like “OnlyTheTruth“‘s here.
To OnlyTheTruth-- I don’t really see how looking at a single SAT image (instead of time series data) or the thaw data from a single year counts as a scientific analysis. And, honestly, how much does it matter if the ice is gone in 5 years or 30? We still have to deal with unprecedented sea level rise… or if you don’t have to, your children will.
However, I don’t agree with the basic idea presented in this article that our actions thus far are irreversible—we can take action to seriously reduce our carbon emissions by finally passing climate legislation in the U.S., thus helping to secure a global agreement in Copenhagen.
Transitioning away from an imported petro-based economy makes sense, both in environmental and economic terms. China is already rushing ahead to become the global leader in clean energy technology (tech WE invented) ... if we don’t act quickly, we’re going to be forced out of these global emerging markets. You still don’t think it makes sense to be investing in clean tech and reducing emissions? Check out this poll—94% of economists believe climate change is a serious threat to our economy. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-03-economist-climate_N.htm
... while you’re at it, maybe also read this letter from 18 leading U.S. science organizations in consensus about the reality of climate change. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 12:15:58 PM
Beekeeper, do you check out actual sites that show real, factual information besides your Warmie sites? Mmmm?
It is all out there. All you have to do is quit drinking the Kool-Aid and sober up to the TRUTH.
It is a challenge trying to straighten out a person that is high on Global Warming.
How’s you palm tree thriving in your backyard? Mmmm?
Have you sold your snowblower yet, due to global warming? Have you given away your snow shovel? Mmmm?
I enjoy the doomsayers that always keep their cold weather equipment and clothing, while espousing we are all gonna fry.
Remeinds me of some Heck Fire and Brimstone Preacher.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 12:58:33 PM
krisg- So what islands are now under water? Mmmm?
The only ones I know of that have an issue are ones who have been developing the land and digging up their own sand, causing sublimation.
How many MILLIMETERS has the ocean risen since 1988?
Two, maybe three?
Right after the last ICE AGE, what was the level in feet difference that the ocean is now? Try 450 feet lower.
Are you denying there was a “Little Ice Age” that ended in the mid-19th century? With the warming, could possibly, the sea levels rise afterward?
Usually the UP (Upper Peninsula) folks of MI are rational. I guess krisg is an exception.
I know more than enough ex-Yoopers to know that they do not think like you.
irishman
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 1:09:59 PM
I may not make my living as a scientist sucking off the governement teat, but I can sure walk down to Boston Harbor and watch the tide lines on pilings in place for 100’s of years. NO CHANGE!!!
Maybe not exactly the scientific method but it is real life.
Lantern
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 1:10:56 PM
PLEASE! What is it with people who still don’t see when they look at something or hear when they are listening. Global warming is a real result of both natural and man-made causes. Only a degree or two increase in the oceans’ temperatures greatly affects the world-wide weather patterns. Global warming doesn’t necessarily mean that your part of the world will get warmer. But you sure will experience some unsual variations in weather patterns. Most if not all the weather is caused by the ocean temperatures. Extreme weather in the form of drought, flood, tornado, hurricane, et cetera plus a gradual rise in ocean levels is already with us and it costs billions if not trillions in damage world-wide.
irishman
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 1:27:57 PM
Lantern: Shows how dumb some of us goobers are. I thought the billions and trillions of dollars in damage was because of the increase to 6 plus billion people and most living near the coasts.
Now instead of a cat 4 hurricane knocking down a few trees it floods a city and takes the roof off the local gas station for maximum insurance costs.
By the way, what did happen to the sky is falling predictions of the last hurricane seasons unleashing some of the most violent storms ever seen?
Don’t you just hate it when the climate won’t cooperate. Can you hear the stacks of dollars and the bags or euros being given out to someone else with a more believable schtick?
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 1:52:34 PM
Yes Lantern, whatever happened to all those hurricanes that were supposed to explode after Katrina? Mmmmm?
Katrina occurred in 2005, for crying out loud. It has been four years. Al Gore used a hurricane for his sci-fi movie on Global Warming. We are at a 30 year low in GLOBAL hurricane/typhoon activity.
Where are the predictions? Mmmm? The Warmies are great for predictions, until they don’t hold muster. Then they bait and switch.
Lantern- I see you have now included both human induced and NATURAL global warming. That’s cute. It never was that way before.
The problem lies in what is the RATIO between the two.
The Warmie’s mantra was that humans invoked the majority of any climate/weather change patterns.
Trying to sneak in some rationality? Mmmm?
The Warmie’s have been flat out wrong for the last decade.
Sorry, you lose. You have always said that the human induced aspect was the DRIVER towards, call it....what you want (global warming/climate change).
Give it up, natural forces, both earthly and our solar bulb in the sky (it’s the sun stu*id) that runs the show.
Human induced variations are a small part in the equation. Face it. We are not as evil as the Warmies want everyone to believe.
Maybe going to a priest and confessing your sins will relieve your heavy burden of guilt.
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:07:18 PM
A great illustration of the human contribution:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=678
JGreg
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:19:19 PM
No use arguing with folks like ott. They can’t see beyond the end of their nose and willfully refuse to understand the meaning of the word “global.” If it doesn’t happen within 10 feet of their back door, it never happens at all.
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:26:17 PM
Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!
Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’
Get the FACTS:
http://tinyurl.com/nmehw9
BillChris
topher
Olmsted County, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:29:33 PM
I really must get back to work on my CO2 absorption technology. I’m now accepting venture capital. Any takers?
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:35:47 PM
Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’
Check the FACTS here:
http://tinyurl.com/m237h6
dimpleche
eks
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 2:36:12 PM
Basically the global warming deniers position is that there is a worldwide conspiracy orchestrated by climate scientist so they can get more grant money.
(sigh)
Since no one is even trying to prove this conspiracy theory, I guess we’ll have to give Irishman and his little sidekick Onlythetruth the benefit of doubt.
BillChris
topher
Olmsted County, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 3:00:25 PM
Al Gore - won’t debate and can’t defend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ujzfnC7cI
(Must be Faux News footage in disguise....eh?)
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 7:15:37 AM
IT’S ALL HAPPENED BEFORE (1)
An email from Wayne Richards [theamazingrichards@gmail.com] below:
I’ve reached my own personal tipping point. I’ve heard once too often that the Arctic ice melt of 2007 was unprecedented, that it’s going to happen again, only worse, and that we’re all doomed. Including the polar bears. Never before in history...etc.
Less than a half mile from my home in Vancouver, B.C. sits the RCMP Vessel Saint Roch. She’s been declared a national monument or some such designation, and for good reason. In the early 1940’s she traversed the Northwest Passage. Then she did it again. Then again, in the other direction. Three times, three times.
She’s a small thing, but sturdily built. At a little over a hundred feet long, she displaces about 325 tons. She was powered by some small auxiliary sails and a piddling 150 hp.diesel engine. And she’s not steel. She’s built of good British Columbia Douglas fir, externally sheathed with Australian gumwood (thank you, Aussies). Mind you, her bow had some metal on it, whether iron or steel I do not know.
This small, woefully underpowered vessel was the first to traverse the Northwest Passage west to east, was the first to traverse it more than once, was the first to traverse it in both directions, and was the first to circumnavigate North America (using the Panama Canal at the small end).
But she was not the first in recorded history to traverse the Northwest Passage. In 1906 Roald Amundsen ran it from east to west in his even smaller (76ft) sloop “Gjoa”. It may have been all sail; if it had an auxiliary motor I do not know of it.
The log books of neither the Gjoa nor the St. Roch record any drowning polar bears.
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:09:41 AM
JGreg, Lantern, krisgand, beekeeper, and Frank- Have you heard about the Prophet (also Profit) Al Gore’s NEW sequal book, “‘Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis”?
After Al said, “The science is settled”, he now admits that CO2 amounts to only 40% of TOTAL GW. The rest of the GW comes from Methane and Carbon (black) soot. Natural forces are not in the equation for BIG AL. Also, he still EATS meat. That is so funny.
Gee, for a guy that refused new research and skeptics on his “faith”, all of a sudden he accepts “new” research that differs with his original “settled science”.
For all of you to believe in this snake oil salesman, I feel pity on you for being a dupe. What is really funny, is that many of you are secular or anti-religion (non-fact based faith).
Your prophet uses faith based arguments. If you haven’t a clue on what I’m talking about, then you haven’t kept up with the news. You have become backwards in what is happening on the edge.
From the UK’s favorite Lib news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate
Lantern
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:43:05 PM
Time to drop this thread. It’s getting soggy. Mmmmm?
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 5:12:36 PM
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” - H.L. Mencken
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 5:47:38 PM
Lantern quips- “Time to drop this thread. It’s getting soggy. Mmmmm?”
Yes Lantern, I can see you use the same tactics that the Goracle uses. Don’t debate, don’t allow questioning, walk off the stage if pressured.
SNAKE
ROCHESTER, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:37:46 PM
Wow. The ignorance is palpable on this thread (I’m looking at you, OTT and Irishman). “...scientist sucking off the government’s teat”? Where would you be without science? Really. Take your time answering that one, gather facts and evidence, and answer it rationally, if you can. Key word in global climate change is “global,” people. Not your yard, not your town, not even your state. Global.
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 8:01:59 AM
“The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the “Club of Rome”, a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: “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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Paste the following URL for many more examples of prominent Greenies saying how much and how furiously they hate you.”
http://tinyurl.com/ygux9k8
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 8:38:21 AM
snake- Have you checked the various temp data set records recently (GISS, NCDC, HadCRUT3, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU)?
4 out of 5 are trending with a negative slope. The only one that is not, is from NASA (GISS) who “adjusted” earlier temperatures (first half of 20th century) downward, but kept the recent temp data as is. Gee, no wonder we see a positive warming trend! The Warmies ignore all the other data sets and cling to James Hansen’s corrupted data set. Add the fact that after 1991 (USSR breakup), rural temp instrument numbers dropped significantly causing a bias towards urban instruments (warming bias).
If NASA were a business, they’d all go to jail for “cooking” the books.
schmittts
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 7:53:54 PM
It’s not so much scientists looking to get more grant money (although the carbon credit scheme in Europe helped get them some grants), but rather the politicians looking for a new source of revenue. Cap and Trade is a trillion dollar tax on our utility industry. Ask yourself if you’ll rather spend three to four times as much for electricity. Ask our leaders if the “proof” justifies your expense.
As for the Arctic ice cap, the average temperature is fairly stable around 0 degrees F. The ice moves and grows and shrinks based on ocean currents. If it all melted, it would lower the ocean level since the ice is in the water.
The average temperature in Antarctica is between -20 F and -60 F. Ice builds up and pushes to the ocean where it breaks up and falls in. Ice here would raise the ocean level since the ice is on land.
But ask yourself, how would a 1, 5, 10, or even 20 degree F rise in Earth’s temperature melt ice in an area where the temps rarely get over 0 degrees F?
(And Frank, if you can get me an ocean-side cottage for free, I’m there)
