>>>MOD EDIT: PERSONAL REMARK<<<..larry bell is merely a contributing columnist, he has no expertise in climatology and he doesn't speak for forbes...
what this denierland getting tripped up by it's lies...the latest plot line you guys have been following is "it's natural climate change, it's getting warmer because we're coming out of an iceage" So you present an idiotic claim by fulks that the warming is natural but that warming doesn't cause sea level rise! So in summation we now have deniers claiming the warming is due to natural causes but won't/can't explain what those causes are ( magic apparently)....and now this unexplainable warmth magically can't melt glaciers or cause sea levels to rise, apparently it just isnt happening...that's a difficult contradiction to explain, ice ages magically come and go but according to Fulk and you cause no change in sea levels, it's magic piled upon on even more magic you may want to explain that to the residents of miami who are witnessing the seas slowly invading their streets...apparently that's not happening according to you and fulks http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/0...e-storm-on-climate-change.html?_r=0&referrer= In the future you may want to do background checks into the idiots you cite as experts, Fulk
Here is an example of consensus science from the past which like man made global warming science is paid for by its supporters and has a definite financial stake in the outcome of its research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute
If global warming is so real, they why don't its proponents rally for more nuclear generation plants (0 CO2 emissions) and for Obama to start the ball rolling on natural gas (50% less CO2 emissions) as a vehicle fuel? He could write an executive order that all federal vehicles run on it.
Look at the chart in the following showing global temperatures from 2500 BC to 2040 AD. http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm It makes some obvious points: temperature has cycled up and down throughout history (Al Gore has a chart in his notorious movie with temperatures for the last 600,000 years that shows the same up and down waves); temperatures have often been higher than they are now; despite a recent spike, temperatures are now just about average; statistical models forecast yet higher temperatures - almost as high as in the past. All this is consistent with natural fluctuation. The Climate Change Faithful (it is a religion, after all) are making the common error of over-generalizing from too small a data sample. They see temperatures up over the last 20-30 years and, for them, this could only mean an unlimited and lethal increase. The historical record shows otherwise. Up and down fluctuations in temperature are normal and natural. Such fluctuations often last centuries. But if the Faithful see a warm day, or some flooding in an area near sea level, they say their Faith is confirmed. Again, the error is to make too much of too little, to say that whatever has happened recently will continue indefinitely unless "something is done." This is like the breathless news reports, not just about climate, that X has happened for the last few years and "if trends continue" some awful thing will happen in a number of years. But there's never reason to believe that "trends will continue." The intellectual foundation of the climate change movement is a number of statistical models relating temperature to atmospheric CO2. As someone whose job for many years entailed constructing statistical models, I can assure you that such models can "prove" anything if the assumptions are adjusted accordingly. As we used to say, "garbage in, garbage out." In fact, the data confound these CO2 models, because CO2 has soared to unprecedented levels and temperature has not kept pace. Yes, temperatures have risen, but not nearly as much as the models require. I don't claim to know the reason, but the data make plain that, beyond a certain point, CO2 levels cease to affect temperature. Al Gore even acknowledged this problem in his movie, mentioning that CO2 increases had recently far outstripped temperature. His interpretation was that a huge temperature increase must be near. What's actually happened is that CO2 increased even more while temperature fell. Those statistical models were wrong. There's no other data and no other natural phenomena to make the case. That's why there's no longer a scientific consensus and why the majority of scientists now express reservations. Many are now embarrassed by their premature leaps onto the climate change bandwagon, and that embarrassment is the only reason left for hesitation. Politicians still pursue this issue for the obvious reason that it's a golden ticket to power for them. Energy is fundamental to human life. Every economy rests on a foundation of energy production and consumption. So to control energy is to control everything. That's why so many politicians want to scare the public about "climate change." It's an excuse for them to seize dictatorial power in the name of "saving" the people from a terrible threat. Global warming is to Democrats what the Cold War was to Republicans. Wyly, if you had a solid case to make, you'd make it without resorting to ridicule. Your only argument seems to be that "everyone" knows the truth of global warming, and "of course" it's true. Well, any history book will show you numerous instances of things "everyone" knew that weren't so. Climate change is yet another. Al Gore and other vacuous grasping politicians have a lot to answer for.
Com'on genius explain how warming interglacials don't melt ice or cause sea rise.... Fulks is your new go to guy/champion so explain this magical process....and after you explain that show us the cause of this warming, maybe you wanna call fulks first and get an explanation, I'll wait.... likely forever
Obviously you haven't read the data from the IPCC, which is the basis of this discussion. There have been no temperature increases in over 17 years.
The facts are in the data provided by the IPCC in the article. You need read before regurgitating what you've been told to say. As I said, no temperature increases in 17 years. How do you explain that? >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<.
as predicted no explanation for "natural warming" and not unexpectedly no explanation how "natural warming" doesn't effect sea levels...well done prune picker you're true to type... Here's the IPCC's data you claim to understand but very cleary do not not surprising as you dont know what causes natural interglacial warmings...
If global temperatures rise for any reason it could mean flooding for coastal regions but that does not signal a disaster. Warmists seem to believe that humans are so fragile and backward that they won't have the sense to move from those regions to higher ground. Humans are supremely adaptable which is why they predominate on the Earth but their effect on their environment is not so powerful that they can rewrite the laws of nature. Warmists have seen too many pictures of polar bears sitting on chunks of ice. They're not stranded, they're just resting so they can get to where they're going as they have done for thousands of years. Warmists are types that need a cause. I remember the Clamshell Alliance from the 1970's. It was full of squawking true believers just like on this site.
Well, what happened during previous warming periods such as the Medieval? I don't know the record, but I'd guess waters rose. What of it? As for an explanation of our current warming, first tell me the cause of the many previous warming cycles throughout the Earth's history, including those that happened before human civilization. I'm only guessing, but causes might include slight variations in solar activity, the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, and the rotation of the Earth on its axis. None of these three things is constant, yet they determine the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth.
Not surprising you tried to slip this past me. This isn't from the article, ergo, it's not the data used. Please, read the article, you haven't read, and learn something. Try again? This time AFTER you read the article and study the data.
The phenomena you describe are problematic to warmists because there is no way to assign responsibility for them. They are conveniently dismissed as irrelevant. Don't forget that the thrust of man made global warming is to control the behavior of humans globally so CO2 is the vehicle of choice because it drives the world's economies and presents lucrative possibilities for replacements and political power for those who enforce the new technologies.
So lemme guess. The evil enviros first tried their power grab through acid rain. That didn't work...so they took a stab at it through ozone. Foiled by the Montreal Protocol...but CO2's a sure thing, 'cuz it "drives the world's economies"........how it does that is a mystery, but that just makes the conspiracy that much more...conspiratorial......right?
What do you think of the statistic that 293 cubic miles of ice are being added annually to the central region of Antarctica? http://www.habtheory.com/1/100.php
"ARE"? In what sense can a secondhand report of a scientific conference that took place in 1960 be considered are instead of were? I think it's ridiculous to think that the rate of ice mass change in the 1950's has anything to do with what's happening there today. Because today, the Antarctic is losing ice at a rate of 246 Gt/yr, and the loss is accelerating. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/full
Don't forget the chemtrails spreading all that fall out too. Ha ha You guys inside the bubble are amazing superficial.
Not compared to the billions government is spending to prove CO2 warming and no money to study natural variability.
I'm in the camp that global warming may exists but its not man made and the government shouldn't get involved. Can you name anything that government made better and cost effective? - - - Updated - - - Wasn't there was a incident that a group of scientists got stuck in the ice studying the lack of it?
Here it is. Oh the irony! ;D http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...rapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting.html
