Name calling? I don’t see any name calling. I was describing the way you conduct yourself on this board. If your behaviour embarrasses you then you should consider changing it. I think it’s more likely, however, that you just don’t like that people are seeing through your tricks, and you’re trying yet another trick to try to cover that up.
Here is what you said: The whole paragraph is obviously quite hostile, and intended to be a direct personal attack. And you very directly called me a "con-man" in the last sentence, as bolded above. You see the name calling just fine, your openly published statement of denial notwithstanding, there is no doubt about that. Also, you clearly did it intentionally, and this is not the first time you have done it. I believe with great confidence that the Earth has warmed since the last ice age, and that there has been considerable variability in climatic conditions since that time. I believe that the "con men" in the promotion of the global warming agenda are people like Al Gore (Inconvenient Truth), Phil Jones (CRU-Climategate), and Michael Mann (Hockey Stick Graph). The lies and misrepresentations perpetuated by these characters, along with a significant number of others, and also the MSM, are easy to spot and follow. There is a fresh supply of deceptions being generated by these people on a pretty regular basis. You have been dishonest in your denial of having called me names, as documented above. And you have been repeatedly dishonest in your statements mis-characterizing my positions on this issue, which I believe you also knew you were doing when you did it. If you want to try to cast aspersions, you would do well to clean up your own act before doing so. Also, the dishonesty of the leaders of the AGW movement that you seem to be associating yourself with is publicly documented, is well established and is widely known about. And there have been a steady stream of disclosures of additional misleading and dishonest conduct over recent months, with every indication that there are more of these sorts of disclosures on the way. Birds of a feather, flock together. The kind of behavior that you have demonstrated towards me, and your association with a movement that is characterized by the known liars and deceivers who lead it, tells us a lot about you. And what it tells us us not good. And just so you will know, I am not impressed by your name calling or your personal attacks. If you think I am going to alter my views or my presentation of those views here on this board because of your petulance or your name calling, you have another think coming.
Here's the thing. Temperatures haven't been in decline when you look at the long term trend. In fact, this year's temperatures have been very close to the same as the record temperratures from the late '90s. There was a graph posted a bit earlier in this thread that showed exactly that.
Grizzled was completely accurate when he called you a con man. You seek to misinform people who are willing to believe your viewpoint, to repeat false information over and over again until people start to believe you, and refuse to engage in actual debate or discussion based on facts and available evidence. Con man was rather mild, considering your behavior on this board.
No, the temperature readings show a trough, a downswing in the temperatures starting in 1997-8 and then up again. We are back at the point where we were in 1998, but the larger trend is upward, no matter what any ten year period shows.
Three things, then. Another benefit would be that we could stop giving money to regimes like Iran because we need their oil.
The way I read this, you and others who share your animosity towards me and my views on this topic regard my posts as having been persuasive to the point of being a huge source of annoyance to you. In that case, the extent of your vitriol is actually a measure of my success in this ongoing debate. Thank you for the positive feedback. I will look forward to carrying on with you guys on this topic for a long time to come.
Wow, you really have the ability to ignore reality. Your posts are annoying becasue they are devoid of factual information, seek only to misinform, and lack any basis in reality. The success you have had is convincing me and others that you are a dishonest troll.
Again with the name calling. This appears to be your primary contribution to any thread you happen to post in. Bravo.
If you continue to be dishonest in every thread in which you post, I will continue to call you dishonest. I will be remarkably consistent in this action because you are nothing less than a liar.
Back to the actual topic of the thread. Over the years, the promoters of AGW theory have been quick to point to short term weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and even a lack of snowfall, as evidence that their theories were manifesting before our eyes. Unfortunately for them, these kinds of observations work both ways, as we are now seeing. It is really kind of funny, if you think about it. Of course, these short term weather events do not prove anything one way or another with regards to long-term climate trends. The warmists have been playing fast and loose with the data, including observations of short term weather events, and now people are just observing that their observations do not put forward a fully reliable picture of what is happening. Now there are those posters who have tried to chime in on this thread and suggest that the blizzards are evidence that AGW is happening. And of course anything else that happens with regards to weather or the climate will be regarded by these sorts of people as evidence that AGW is happening also. For whatever that is worth. Yucking it up about the weather this winter is about questioning the credibility of the promoters of AGW alarmism, and it is not about "proving" or "disproving" anything in a truly scientific sense.
Liar. No serious climatologists that I am aware of have ever cited short term weather as evidence of global warming, they point to the actual evidence, the long term temperature readings, ice core data, tree ring data, etc. The only people who claim that global warming supporters use weather information as evidence of climactic change are deniers who spout the same straw man over and over again because eventually, people will believe it if they hear it over and over again. Your straw man has been set on fire, but that shouldn't matter, you did the same thing to your own pants with this post.
That is true it isn't but generally it is the one with the most evidence behind it. It can be wrong at times and as noted the viewpoint changes, such as the change from the idea of global cooling to global warming. That said by nature the hurdle is higher for the minority viewpoint as it is the one challenging the prevailing view. Just claiming it is a minority viewpoint that is being supressed doesn't necessarily make it right and crying repression isn't scientific proof. I'm all for the minority view being heard but that doesn't exuse it from scrutiny and in most cases more scrutiny than an established majority view that has already gone through testing to become the majority view in the first place.
This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day. Every day I wake up and it's more of the same. It's like reading the GARM with the GW deniers playing the role of the TMAC apologists. By the way, have we traded Tmac yet?
Global warming makes blizzards worse.......for now Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming? By Bryan Walsh As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven't we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer — and the past decade was the hottest on record — major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that's what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of the massive blizzard in Washington, D.C.) Brace yourselves now — this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely. But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.) Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive. (Comment on this story.) But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen — but probably not for a while. In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and, as long as the temperature remains below 32°F, it will result in blizzards rather than drenching winter rainstorms. And while the mid-Atlantic has borne the brunt of the snowfall so far this winter, areas near lakes may get hit even worse. As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region, according to a 2003 study in the Journal of Climate. (Read "Climate Accord Suggests a Global Will, if Not a Way.") Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate(that means you shovel face) change (or to prove it; some environmentalists (and shovel face's straw man) have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn't help you much when you're trying to locate your car under a foot of powder. http://www.time.com/time/health/art...ign=Feed:+time/topstories+(TIME:+Top+Stories)
