Hannity declares: "The debate's over. There's no global warming"
October 13, 2009 8:56 am ET
From the October 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
MacDonald response to Hardy's statement that "the government invented ... the Internet": "No, Al Gore did"
November 21, 2009 11:48 am ET -
Weinberg, Hardy smack down Forbes' and MacDonald's IMAC rationing fearmongering
November 21, 2009 11:32 am ET -
-
Hannity falsely suggests Democratic health bills would only insure "12 million" people
November 20, 2009 9:58 pm ET -
-
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009 -
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
It's framing like this that caused the new Tea Party promoters to have to tell the attendees to stop bringing such offensive signs to the events. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths - promote insults on Hannity's show, decry them when out in public.
Let those that believe it just continue their chatter.
Over means over, doesn't it.
I often wonder....how will people like Hannity react when the reality of global warming effects them personally and financially? What is there argument going to be?
Sadly, by the time the reality enters his pea brain it will already be too late for it to matter??
That's the problem with circus clowns masquerading as 'news' guys... they get so used to spouting off talking points that they forget how to think for themselves.
Oh yeah, we can't forget the costs that manufacturers will pass on to us as they have to buy their carbon credits after they have exhausted all of their allotted number.
Then we have to re-regulate the traders who will be making money hand over fist "trading" these so-called "credits." But man, these progressive democrats really care about the little guy... The working man. They would never support anything that tightens the grip of the powerful few over the rest of us (wait a second... TARP, Auto Bailouts, $787 billion stimulus that I haven't seen in my pocket or any of my lower-middle class fiends. You tell me who they care about with all of these programs).
Let's not forget that scientific analysis shows that Waxman Markey will not reduce temperatures by any substantial amount. I don't know how you all feel about nation's sovereignty, but international man made global warming legislation will strip away that sovereignty for many nations including the U.S.
We do care about the little guy, and we also care about our grandchildren. What we also see is that you only care about the here and now. Screw them - you've got a "I've got mine" mentality.
And we know that's a bad attitude to have. You should not be proud of your selfishness and lack of foresight to protect the environment for our kids and all the grandkids all over the world.
We don't think a little sovereignty is more important than the billions of people who will be adversely affected by global climate change.
You are hilarious Dell. Do you do stand-up or is this just a hobby? Thank you for following the one-sided Hannity model. Your tax rebate offset is a true joke. The $175 CBO fiasco you often quote to justify your claim is by the CBO itself only a partial picture of the costs of cap and trade. Or do you forget so soon? From that report's footnotes:
"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."
And:
"The cost of obtaining allowances would be passed into prices in most cases because that cost would raise firms’ variable production costs (that is, the costs to produce additional units of output). In contrast, the receipt of allowances that is not linked to the quantity of output would represent a reduction in firms’ fixed production costs. Businesses generally do not change prices in response to changes in fixed costs as they do in response to changes in variable costs. Therefore, the value of the allowances received would generally accrue to shareholders (or perhaps workers in some cases)."
Do you think these "minor" factors will have some effect on your touted rebate system and the costs of cap and trade? These are the CBO's own words, Dell. Should we ignore them as you and the other flat-earthers have? Your one-sided (as always) diatribes are transparent so it is especially rich that you routinely attack opposition with claims of one-sidedness, failure to grasp reality, etc. That's why I often have to say this to you: look in the mirror. The only thing you were missing was a "Shame on you" sprinkled in.
We do care about the little guy, and we also care about our grandchildren.
Please! Please stop! My sides are starting to hurt. You care so much about the little guy and our grandchildren yet endorse rampant government taxation and deficit spending into perpetuity! What a joke. News for you Dell. The grandchildren you care so deeply about will be paying for this. The little guy you so care about will pay for this directly. We all pay dearly for this. The economy that supports us all has taken a huge hit and is now being kicked repeatedly when it is already down. Great plan. Please save your bloody heart for someone who buys your big government tripe.
You should not be proud of your selfishness and lack of foresight to protect the environment for our kids and all the grandkids all over the world.
A laugh a minute with you. Close enough to "Shame on you" I guess. Dell my friend, your vision does not protect the environment. Your Gorey vision actually hurts the environment and its inhabitants. Trillions (with a "T") will be stolen from us and the world's inhabitants (and thus from environmental causes as well) to wage war on a phantom enemy touted by false prophets. You are one of the inhabitants of Animal Farm who have such strong faith in the government and the pseudo-science of AGW that you fail to see reality even as the AGW world you have bought into crumbles around you.
We don't think a little sovereignty is more important than the billions of people who will be adversely affected by global climate change.
That's the problem really, isn't it? A little sovereignty, eh? Our national sage Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, neither deserve liberty nor safety." To borrow another phrase from a less-than-sage-like poster here, "Shame on you."
There has been no observable rain in 3 weeks. Therefore there will be no more rain anymore.
I don't get these folks . . . why is an ACCEPTED phenomenon [by the overwhelming majority of the non-oil funded scientists] a partisan politic issue? It is what it is and it's affecting everybody equally.
I think it would be great to be able to declare that there's no global warming or climate change. What irritates me is the argument that its a "hoax", like scientists are conspiring to create a phony concern because they want funding. There needs to be solid evidence of that, otherwise it could be used to dispute any scientific evidence on any issue. That is anti-science by nature, and therefore has no legitimate place in the discourse.
Why don't we compare people who say there is no global warming to the people who did not want to end slavery. There motivation is exactly the same.
If pointing out the obvious... the blatant racism the the right and their media thugs have been engaging in against Obama and the Democrats... is going to "scare off the opposition", then runaway, little one... run away. The Race Card? Give me a freakin' break. It's like that other nearly forgotten and cliched shield of the right, 'Political Correctness'. It is merely a sloppy rhetorical dodge that wingers whip out
whenever they are being exposed for the vileness of their attacks on all those who fall outside of their definitions of 'Real Americans'. It's their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. The only racism in contemporary America, they argue, is practiced by black people and liberals. That vicious ideologues like Rush, Hannity, and Glenn Dreck are making ongoing racist attacks against the opposition is to be ignored. After all, it makes them look bad!
And so you whine and complain and shed bitter tears that the left won't leave reality out of the argument, and insist instead on pointing out the right's tactical use of racial animus when it is indeed being used. If you don't like 'the Race Card' being played, then take it up with your racist compatriots who insist on exploiting racial fears and white resentments in order to bring the debate down to the angry, shouting sub-intellectual levels that they get their best results from.
Since you cherry-picked my quote, I'll fix that first. I said "try to scare off opposition." The key word is "try." You can throw whatever you want at me, including completely unfounded allegations of racism, but I'm not scared off by the likes of you. Simpletons aren't all that scary after all.
What you call "reality" is simply your sick and twisted fantasy of what "wingers" represent. Funny thing is, I'm not a republican or a right winger. I'm a fiscal conservative, and socially I'm fairly liberal (very liberal on certain topics, oh, and an environmentalist as well). Hence my disdain for clowns like you who come along and use terms like "your racist compatriots" when exposed. Who here exactly is prejudging? Who here is defending a method of race baiting by calling AGW skeptics defenders of slavery?
As a victim of racism myself on many occasions in my life, hearing your "racist compatriots" say things like, well, things like you just said, makes me laugh a bit. Another good one: socialist is the new n-word. Classic stuff. The fact that that was ever uttered by your ilk shows that the left does in fact "leave reality out of the argument."
The fact of the matter is that science is how a civilized society understands the world. You work with what you have. We accept evolution because it's so widely accepted within the scientific community, not because it's been "proven" like a math equation or something.
If some scientists have cause to dispute the consensus (why it's "so-called" remains a mystery), terrific. If they can turn the tide their way, then I'll accept that as objective truth as we are capable of understanding it. I think the point of touting the consensus is more for the sake of the political process, as opposed to stifling scientists. Like I said, we work with what we have. From a governance standpoint, it's insane to say "I'm going to wait until the skeptics are proven wrong" without some solid evidence that the consensus is severely flawed for whatever reason. It would be like your doctor telling you that they believe smoking cigarettes is what's causing your health problem, then going out and buying a pack of cigarettes because it's not 100% certain. We accept conclusions from those who understand things better than we do, as a principle.
Is that unreasonable, really?
As for what you said, first, I am glad to hear that you would be willing to change your mind if you felt that you heard and understood compelling evidence that went against the AGW scripture. The same cannot be said for many of the posters on MMfA as many do in fact treat AGW religiously and nothing apparently will alter their dogma.
As for the consensus, it is "so-called" because it really does not exist despite your having heard the term thousands of times by now. There is a rather vigorous debate going on about AGW despite what the IPCC and the AGW-funded say. The 50-odd IPCC scientists who wrote chapter 9 of WGI AR4 (the chapter dealing with attribution) hardly make up a consensus. But somehow the IPCC takes the AGW view of the 50 and incorrectly and repeatedly implies that this is the sentiment of the rest (purportedly thousands) of the authors and reviewers (a vast majority of whom were not involved in attribution).
And there is "solid evidence that the consensus is severely flawed." I have touched upon many of the flaws here before and in other threads, but needless to say, the debate most certainly is not over. I predict there will be a day soon when more and more scientists come forward with their opinions on the matter as the "climate" shifts.
Since you claimed you did not have time to respond to my comments on the Will thread, here's your chance. What do you make of Hans von Storch's comments I posted last week? You know, he is one of those who resigned from Climate Science when Soon's paper was published.
Should we listen to von Storch when he says this? How about when he published this in Science? By golly that's peer reviewed! He also said, "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad." He must sit on the board of BP!
The truth you do not want to hear is that there are substantial problems with the AGW climate models that are the basis of the recommendations within the IPCC summaries. The fact that you are unaware of the issues or choose to ignore them altogether proves your one-sidedness and lack of understanding of the topic. You are thus either an ill-informed sheep or an informed propagandist. Likely a combination of the two with an emphasis on the former.
"While admittedly incomplete and highly approximate general circulation models of the atmosphere predict that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air's CO2 content will raise mean global air temperature a few degrees Celsius, natural experiments based upon real-world observations suggest that a global warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree could result from such a CO2 increase."
"According to the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers, essentially all of the anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750 is due to the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. This means that if the sun is responsible for 36-50% of the temperature rise since 1900, the IPCC is using too large a value for its coefficient relating radiative forcing to changes in carbon dioxide concentration. This is important because a smaller value of α reduces the sensitivity of the earth's climate to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations a result that has significant policy implications."
"In a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change."
"But it seems self-evident to us that, recognizing the limited due diligence of paleoclimate journal peer review, it would have been prudent for someone to have actually checked MBH98 data and methods against original data before adopting MBH98 results in the main IPCC promotional graphics."
"A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial periods of the past 650,000 years, even under the 'fast response' framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed."
"The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites."
"We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records."
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."
"The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible."
The biggest question is (and this has been answered) is this; is mankind contributing to the pace on these cycles getting faster? In other words, is global warming increasing faster than it normally would? Answer is yes, as has been reviewed, and determined throughout the climatologist communities around the planet.
Ask the Alaskan natives who no longer can go out and hunt on the ice during the winters like they could just 20-30 years ago, or how soon the ice leaves, and how late it comes in. Look at the glaciers around the world that are melting, or have disappeared completely, and so on.
If you don't even know these simple facts, then you are not qualified to be trying to educate any of us on this subject.
Yet you try, and fail, and continue to make a fool of yourself.
Grunt said that "solar activity and oceanic temperatures have the largest effect on global temperatures." Are you saying that isn't true, "junk" in your eyes? So the PDO, NAO, and AMO can all be minimized in the Dell model? As can the solar cycle itself? Do I have that right? Please quote Hadley or the IPCC in your response. The fact that you apparently discount major climate drivers as "junk" speaks volumes to your anti-science AGW religious fervor. You "continue to make a fool of yourself."
Nobody denies natural cycles, what is happening is an acceleration of the natural cycles and to deny that we humans are causing the acceleration is to be utterly deaf and blind.
A decade in terms of climate, is really short term. Climate is measured in decades and centuries and millennia.
Weather is hours, or days, or even years.
Please don't look too close.
Critical thinking not allowed.
Move on I Said!!!
'The BBC story originally went out as "Judge Backs Gore Film in Schools" as good news for Gore stating "schools in England are free to show the climate change film by Al Gore under certain conditions, a judge confirms" - the court ruling a win for Gore as it deflected an attempt to have the film banned.
Then, oddly, some time in the last 12 hrs BBC rewrote the article with the "nine errors" headline.
You can still see cached versions of the original headline/excerpt on a number of secondary sources/RSS feeds, here, although the old headline now link to the new version of the story:
http://www.newsalerts.com/full/e36/judge-backs-gore-fil...
http://www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&na...
http://news.ippimail.com/2007/10/10/judge-backs-gore-fi... /
Just goes to show how easily a news desk can spin a story either way.'
http://beta.newsminer.com/news/2009/oct/10/near-record-temperatures-expected-today-fairbanks/
Though atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing global temperatures have been cooling since 2002. Oceans temperatures have also been cooling since 2002. US temperatures in 2008 were below the average of the last 115 years, and the Summer US temps 2009 were the 34th coolest in 115 years.
In fact, temperatures have cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels keep rising. The warmest year in the USA was 1934 and the warmest decade was the 1930s. Five of the ten warmest years were before 1940.
CO2 is a trace gas. It is less than 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere. CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has gone up only 1/10,000th since the mid 1700s.
Global polar sea ice (the ice at both poles) is largely unchanged for the 30 years of satellite tracking according to both NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
Arctic sea ice has had some summer melting but is now recovering and sea is 24% larger than just two years ago.
Global hurricane and cycloe storm intensity is at the lowest level in fifty years.
If CO2 caused warming, why are we not seeing it? Solar activity has changed. We will find that the sun is the main driver of the climate.
Solar activity impacts cloud formation. An active Sun causes fewer clouds to form, this warms the earth. An inactive Sun causes more clouds to form, and this cools the earth. Solar activity is at some of the lowest levels ever recorded, thus the source of the cooling.
Supporting documentation and sources are at this website, www.isthereglobalwarming.com
Do you know how to read non-politically motivated science writing? Just about every one of these supposed "facts" seem to be coming from the gut and not the brain, because they are completely wrong. Here's something to look at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299426.stm
You mention one source that is dubious at best.
Try these sites. They are less dubious than yours.
If you really have an open mind, you'll see just how wrong your site is.
But, that assumes you have an open mind.
The same science that deniers say is wrong about climate change is the same science that allows your site to post its nonsense.
With the scientific method, data leads to conclusions. With deniers, conclusions seek the data. It's called "motivated reasoning". Look it up.
The same scientific method applied in all cases; whether it's biology, physics, chemistry, etc. The deniers just want to conveniently nit-pick & claim all other science is "ok", it's just the vast majority of climate scientists that have it wrong on climate change.
Just what part of the scientific method did they screw up on this one, dude?
Is it just me? Does anyone else see big gaping holes in the logic of the deniers?????
Check out these links, if you dare!
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
If you don't like the NYT link, there are many more there. Another denier problem - everything else is there, but you focus on one thing.
In case you missed it, the point is this:
Anthropogenic global warming is supported by solid science, with conclusions based on the scientific method.
This is the same method that has brought about all the technology even deniers enjoy.
So, which part of the scientific method went so wrong this time? Deniers claim anthropogenic global warming is real, and all the scientists who back that position must be some type of conspirator just to make their life a miserable hell.
Just where did the scientists go wrong this time?
"Deniers claim anthropogenic global warming is not real"
What you claim to be the scientific method is anything but. Most of this was propagated by the IPCC, a political body. Further, the "consensus" does not exist as you claim. Most of the IPCC scientists involved in AR4 said not one single word about attribution, yet the IPCC includes them in their AGW consensus.
Time permitting, I am continuing to dig into the author lists and will try to do some research myself into of what exactly this "consensus" is comprised. You know, independent research? Science? Not regurgitation.
He didn't show the part where Gore answered part of the question and then asked the reporter a question that the reporter couldn't answer.
All that had occured before security stepped in because the reporter was becoming belligerent, attempting to command the floor, ask more questions and get into a debate instead of a Q&A.
I get such a headache watching this kind of stuff, I've been living in Europe for about a month now and the idea that Americans are having a debate about whether or not global warming is real is a joke to every person I meet (as is our "great national debate" on health care).
It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.
And just how minor were those "9 MINOR errors" you alluded to? Is a wildly exaggerated 20-foot rise in sea level minor to you? Burton called it "distinctly alarmist." Some of the other MINOR errors Burton had an issue with: mass evacuation of citizens of low lying Pacific nations to New Zealand (didn't happen); shutting down of the Gulf Stream (not gonna happen); the fallacy of a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (the biggest fraud in AIT). Yep, pretty minor. Thanks for pointing that out. Now go back to enjoying your wine and cheese with Pierre as you scoff us dumb Americans. Check out the list of 35 AIT errors from the SPPI if you want a migraine.
Ye of the sky-is-falling AGW tribe, please refrain from getting all Gorey in your rebuttals. It exposes your fanaticism and is quite unbecoming. And you're right. The debate never started because guppies like you were too busy preaching about a "consensus" before it ever existed (here's a clue: it still does not exist).
Yes, it's by Al Gore, but he should be able to defend himself, yes?
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
"It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
We're not being hypocrites here.
A powerful person flying in private jets or travelling in a limousine is not hypocrisy. It doesn't matter how many times you say it - it doesn't magically become true. His home is not inefficient - in fact it's very energy efficient, and he had to fight restrictions by his neighborhood to do some of the things he did to make it more energy efficient!
And do us all a favor by looking up Gore's connections to the WTI travesty, Occidental Petroleum, the polluting of the Caney Fork River from the Gore zinc mine (ironically he opens AIT with a shot of what I believe is the river), his gassy black angus fetish, Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve, and, while opposing drilling in ANWR he and Billy-boy opened up 87% of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) to oil and gas leasing. Please note ANWR is about 80% of the size of NPR-A. How many carbon credits did that cost him?
Pick another spokesperson. Gore is laughable.
An overwhelming majority of scientists support the position of anthropogenic global warming. So, which part of the scientific method was distorted, misused, misapplied, etc. by all these scientist to make they conspire to, as you seem to claim, make up all these lies about global warming?
The scientific method has served us so well for all the other technological advances we enjoy. So are you claiming that all these scientists are suddenly just out of wack with the very foundation of science itself?
Is this a conspiracy? Just what are you claiming?
I have explained plenty what I am claiming, including again in this thread, so you know where I stand. I don't think I have been ambiguous about it. The environmental movement I care deeply about has been hijacked by political activists who are attempting to use climate change to further their agenda(s). There is nothing conspiratorial about matters that are out in the open. Their ends are no secret.
Facts be damned.
Now today, the church is no longer in power so the murdering of scientifist is no longer in vogue, but the discrediting of them is still in fashion.
In the old days, they would just point to the Bible, but today that doesn't carry that much weight (although some still do when it comes to evolution)
Another thing they would do would find other "scientist" who the government or church would pay to support the theory that they wanted.
Well, it's no longer Medieval times, but the acts are the same today.
No matter how much science and studies and peer reviewed findings are presented... there will always be the one "junkscience" guy who gets all the attention because they run counter to the scientific community and they of course are funded by the opposition.
Oh Galileo Galilei.. we have not traveled so far from the 1600s
Perhaps you did not realize how perfectly you illustrate the opposite of what you said. I understand. Your vision is obscured by the AGW haze. Galileo was the one "junkscience" guy and the geocentric Romans and their flock were the "consensus." Sorry to see you on the wrong side.
You can divide people like you mention, or "gpp" and "galileonardo", into one of three groups:
Ignorant:
They aren't educated enough to understand how science works. But they are capable of understanding, if they want.
Stupid:
They don't have the mental capacity to know how science works. Or, they are ignorant, but consciously decide not to understand how science works.
Liars:
They know better, but claim otherwise.
Fortunately, solid science ultimately wins out in the end, in spite of the ignorant, stupid and lying deniers.
I declare: "The debate's over. Hannity has no brain!"
On the other hand, it's true that Gore side-stepped the journalist's question.
How high does the sea rise if the entire North Pole and all the floating ice on earth melted?
Answer: none. Floating ice is already in the water and its melting can not cause the seas to rise.
For the seas to rise, ice on land must melt. Where is 90% of the land ice on earth, the Antarctic.
In what year did the Antarctic have the most ice ever recorded?
Answer 2008. And in September 2009 Antarctic ice is over one million square kilometers larger than the prior year.
Antarctic ice has been increasing in size since satellite measurement began in 1979.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
There is 24% more Arctic ice than two years ago and there is also more old ice.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/spread-of-thicker-arctic-ice-seen-last-summer/?emc=eta1
According to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center there is basically no loss of total global sea ice when adding both pole's ice together over the last 30 years of measurement.
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-nasateam-algorithm.jpg
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-bootstrap-algorithm1.jpg
Did you know there were at least three ice ages with more atmospheric CO2 than today, one had ten times more CO2!
As for all this talk about scientific consensus, it simply is not true. Science is not supposed to have consensus, that is a political term. Here is a list of over 700 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the man made global warming theory and why.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
In conclusion, if global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are cooling, if there is no loss of overall global sea ice, if hurricanes/cyclones and their intensity are at record lows, if there are many more polar bears than the 1950s, all as CO2 emissions continue to increase, then there are only two reasonable explanations, either CO2 doesnt cause much warming or the natural forces are much much more powerful than those of man. The theory of global man made warming is thus false.
ALL science applies this method, so what have all the scientist who support the position of anthropogenic global warming done wrong this time? Where did they go wrong?
Deniers apply "motivated reasoning", which first states a conclusion, then looks for supporting evidence.
Come on deniers, spit it out. Where did the overwhelming numbers in the scientific community get the method wrong this time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
The man made global warming theory is false, simply because global temperatures have been falling for eight years while CO2 levels continue to increase.
Either CO2 doesnt cause much warming or natural forces are so strong rising CO2 levels dont really matter.
Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice, and Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded in 2008. Antarctic ice has been growing the last 30 years.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png[/url]
Your text to link here...
According to NASA global sea ice extent is largely unchanged the past 30 years of satellite measurement, quite a bit different story than what you read in the headlines. This is the combined sea ice at both poles.
Your text to link here...
Global temperatures have been falling since 2002
Your text to link here...
Temperatures have been in decline in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 increased in this period.
Your text to link here...
Here is a list of over 700 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the man made global warming theory and why.
Your text to link here...
Here are the record high temperatures for the continents.
Europe 1881
Australia 1889
South America 1905
Oceana 1912
North America 1913
Africa 1922
Asia 1942
Antarctica 1974
Your text to link here...
The warmest year in the USA, 1934, the warmest decade, the 1930s. US rural temperatures are today cooler than the 1930s.
Your text to link here...
So on and so forth.
You are misapplying Einstein's quote. Experiments are stepping-stones to understanding a hypothesis, which is often only a small part of an overall theory. One experiment does not discount a theory if overwhelming evidence exists that the overall theory is sound.
There exists tons of independent data from numerous measurements that point to AGW. Of course there are specific parts of a theory that don't always fit the predictions. So more study is needed to see where the gaps are to that part. But the overall theory is still sound.
So our understanding of the complex mechanisms that result from AGW are not well understood yet --like Antarctic ice. From what I read, researchers (who still hold to AGW) pretty much say this in their findings on Antartic ice. (links below)
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121647main_ais1.pdf
http://geology.com/research/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.shtml
Here's my take on you deniers. You aren't interested in proof. You already have your conclusions, and so seek only the proof to your conclusions - motivated reasoning. I am glad the smart scientists who know better are in a position of influencing the world's decision-makers. Deniers can stand off in the distance shaking their fists in frustration. In the end, who cares what you all think?
One (thousand) experiment(s) [do] not discount a (weak) theory if overwhelming(ly propped-up) evidence exists that the overall theory is sound (in the minds of AGW followers).
There exists tons of independent data from numerous measurements that point (away from) AGW. Of course there are specific parts of a theory (in the case of AGW huge portions) that (hardly ever) fit the predictions. So more study is needed to see where the gaps are to that (Grand Canyonesque) part. But the overall theory is still sound (in the minds of AGW followers).
So our understanding of the complex mechanisms that result from (fabricated) AGW are not well understood yet (period!!!).
And now for your very own mirror moment: Here's my take on you AGW fanatics. You aren't interested in proof. You already have your conclusions, and so seek only the proof to your conclusions - motivated reasoning. I am glad the real scientists who know better will soon be in a position to more heavily influence the world's decision-makers. AGW zealots can stand off in the distance shaking their fists in frustration when that day comes soon. In the end, who cares what you all think especially once the fraud is fully exposed? Then you'll scuttle away from the light like cockroaches.
ALL (Gorey) science applies this method...(True science) [d]eniers apply "motivated reasoning" (something for which I am the poster boy).