Russia has coldest winter in 70 years---global warming is a hoax

I love how enviro-nuts think I'm kicking their dog when I decide to drive a gas guzzler, like it's any of their business.... lol

 

That would be a good question if we haven't seen these climate changes as far back as we can look. Over an d over the climate has changed even before we knew how to build a fire so all of a sudden thinking that this slight change is my HEMI Dodge's fault is crazy.

We aren't sure what happened right before the Medieval Warm Period but we know that it was warmer than it is today and we know that the climate was so stable and predictable that humans were able to switch from a hunting and gathering culture to one of agriculture all over the planet. That is why astrology was so important to all of the prehistoric religions/cultures. If they knew when the shortest day of the year was they could calculate the best time to plant so not only did the MWP foster agriculture but it fostered astrology, modern science and mathematics. So is a little warming something to fear??

No you just proved that you will believe the most laughably ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*) that the progressives can pump out for you to eat.

 

Okay ...about 12,000 years ago the earth was in an ice age and this is what happened.

Volcanic eruptions released ....get ready for it!!!!....CARBON into the atmosphere. The resulting GREENHOUSE EFFECT warmed the planet and brought about the balmy temps. we enjoy today. This is more evidence that CO2 does in fact warm the planet.

In fact if you research climate change throughout history CO2 plays a major role.

No one denies the fact that nature can affect climate....but to argue that CO2 does not....well...

 

Climate is a whole bunch of weather all lined up.

If the summers and winters get warmer every year (on average) you could say the climate is getting warmer.

 

Well... no. Over and over we've had mass deaths, even before people learned how to organize into countries, so all of a sudden thinking that the 26 Million dead in the 1940s was because of Hitler is just silly. It's probably just because of some disease or something.

...Of course, we know that the mass die-offs of the 1940s were not "natural", despite the fact that we've had natural die-offs before of that magnitude or greater. What your claim is missing is the scientific research. Specifically we have research documenting the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. We have research documenting how much of that is from humans, both through radiometric testing and the more simple but less accurate method of guesstimating based on CO2 emission figures from around the world (which still gives a good ballpark). There is considerable research into the effects of CO2 forcing and insulation, as well as whether or not CO2 has saturated. There is considerable research into feedback loops. And lastly, there has been a fair amount of research into both the causes and effects of the MWP. At the moment, it seems like it was caused by natural CO2 increase, caused primarily through volcanic activity.

"A little warming" might have been good in pre-industrial society. It might even be good in the long run, who knows? What we do know is that during the medieval warm period, many of the places we consider to be major agricultural centers were wracked with drought. We know that rising temperatures invite insect-borne infectious diseases to travel further north. We know that it leads to more powerful hurricanes. We know that it basically stacks the deck in terms of climate disasters.

I'm sorry, was there some contention about the CFC-ozone link I didn't hear about? Because it seems like you're saying, "Ha, shows how much you know, Relativity is actually completely wrong!"

 

We also know that during the Little Ice Age millions starved because of reduced food production.

I don't think libs can reverse the natural cycle of warming and cooling but they can reduce our standard of living in a futile effort to do the impossible.

 

In 2011 they had rain in Riyahd when the temperature was 110%.. That is an anomaly..

 

Do whatever you want, but don't complain about the price of petrol because you chose to drive an inefficient, costly to run vehicle.

 

You must be joking!

This is like something from The Onion. It's climate, not weather that matters. We just had 5 days of over 40c (104) days. This does not often happen. It was 44c (111F) in Sydney a few days back. Is this proof of global warming? This sort of logic makes no sense in either case.

 

This is so irrelevant that it hurts my brain trying to figure out what logical contortions you're making to try to make this sensible to throw into the conversation.

 

Ah yes, here we have a little hint of the real reasoning behind the conservative position on global warming. They're terrified it's a left-wing plot to relieve them of their money! Doesn't matter what the science says; that's irrelevant-it's the cash which they think they're going to lose which is at the bottom of all this. Thanks for confirming that.

 

Which we have learned from bitter experience is always the ultimate goal of liberals.

Libs seek the political power to take from the most productive and give it to the least productive.

The man-made global warming hoax is just one of the ways they hope to acquire that power.

 

LOL..."on record"

Here, this line is the assumed lifespan of the planet:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Mankinds entire existance is the red bar in the middle, our timeline of actually keeping records are the smaller blue notches.

Yes, I know you they are so small you cannot see them. Put that in perspective to what we think we know about what the earth is doing.

 

Try broadening your shallow mind to include other explanations that may have nothing to do with Global Warming.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...-doesnt-disprove-global-warming/#.UO66POQ70uc

 

For liberals caught up in the man-made global warming hysteria any explaination will do as long as it does not conflict with their most cherished beliefs.

 

I never do.


my life mission... to make the largest carbon footprint imagineable.... since it's all meaningless crap anyways

I have chosen my religion, and it's not the Man-made global warming religion

 

I never do.


my life mission... to make the largest carbon footprint imagineable.... since it's all meaningless crap anyways

I have chosen my religion, and it's not the Man-made global warming religion

 

Cherished beliefs? Oh, I get it.Your talking about someone who keeps an open mind.This is their cherished belief right? I couldn't agree more. Having a little knowledge to go with those cherished beliefs has a way of separating the open mind from a closed minded vegetable, don't you think?

 

When you baselessly assume things about the conscience of people you don't know, especially when they explicitly tell you that you are wrong, you set yourself up to be completely and utterly wrong about just about everything.

 

I don't know. And I don't think anyone does. When I look at the ice core sample data, showing tens of thousands, and some, hundreds of thousands of years of heating and cooling trends, knowing that the epoch were in is a relatively hot one, and I remember the hysteria from the '80s and early '90s over the devastating effects of acid rain that everyone seems to have forgotten about (I guess we checked, and found that rain ph levels were acceptable?), knowing that a decade before that the "scientific consensus" was agreed to be an eminent ice age, and I hear people predicting that, New York City will be wiped out by giant waves, even though we know that New York has been covered many times, though not in liquid water, but ice, knowing that carbon dioxide was the atmosphere's proverbial arch enemy over most of the last two decades, and I'm expected to reconcile that with the fact that the base of the food chain thrives in a carbon dioxide rich environment, and, with all this, I'm supposed to forget about the giant fire ball in the sky that has its own unpredictable and potentially devastating fits, I guess you could say I'm jaded.

The fashionable thing is to say there is no debate on the matter. That's usually a silly thing to say about the future. But, in this case, it's laughable. The scientists who disagree with the consensus (a notion, by the way, that has no place in scientific method) are not kooks, and their not liars. Sallie Baliunas, for example, and Willie Soon are not crazy, they're not dishonest, and they don't posit any competing predictions. They are saying that the predictions that are being made are unjustifiable. They're saying that the other guys (who happen to get a lot more grant money) don't have enough information to predict what they want to predict.

The answer to this is to say that, because the stakes are so high, we ought to take action anyway. But to act is not the best thing to do when information is lacking. If the action suggested and promulgated were easy and cheap, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the action being taken and planned for, by governments and the government's faithful followers is a huge monkey wrench in the economy. Regulations, especially these that affect every kind of production and much of the service sector slow advancement, and are just one more especially difficult barrier to entry. A few jobs are created to staff the bureaucracy of regulators but, for everyone else in the market, it's devastating. And it's done in ignorance.

 

Knoxville, TN ice storm of 85
All Time Lowest Temperature -24 F January 21, 1985
and I was working in a parking garage...........

 

So you have an open mind do you? Here, read this and get back to me:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...ld-account-for-almost-all-warming-since-1973/

The bastards didn't adjust down for heat islands in urban areas, they adjusted the rural areas up to meet those!

 

Right wingers believe in God and don't believe that climate changes. Amazing.

 

It's cold because the Earth is warming.

 

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. The idea that there was a scientific consensus that we were going into a new ice age is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It's a classic myth trotted out by denialists that does not hold water at all. There are approximately 70 papers published on climate change in the 70s; 7 of those pointed not to a new ice age but to cooling. 42 pointed to warming. That's kind of the opposite of what you're saying, ain't it? Please stop propagating this myth. It's wrong. Who was predicting that NYC would be wiped out by giant waves? The scientists, or sensationalized news media? Also, plants do not necessarily do better with higher CO2 in the atmosphere, for the same reasons we don't necessarily do better with higher oxygen content. And nobody has said to ignore the sun, it is included in literally every model as one of the most important factors. Jesus, dude, get you (*)(*)(*)(*) straight. I'm just tired of explaining these same things over and over. Will you be one to listen or am I wasting my breath?

They're also very bad examples, as the most famous piece they published led to indignant resignations on the editorial board of the journal it was published in - it was that bad. There are skeptics, be it those who reject AGW altogether (Svensmark, Christensen, etc.), or simply those who think the current models are too extreme (Muller before BEST is the best example I can come up with of that). But there are biologists who are skeptical of the current theory of evolution. There are doctors who are skeptical of the HIV-AIDS link. And here's the thing: those few skeptics have gotten taken apart in peer-review. The most recent leaked version of the IPCC report dedicates a large section to debunking the claims of the aforementioned skeptics, and pointing out how, although their hypotheses were interesting and worth looking into, investigation (and articles also published in the peer-reviewed literature) showed them to be wrong. There is very little serious debate on whether or not human emissions are the primary climatological forcing mechanism.

It isn't lacking. Specifically, we have research documenting the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. We have research documenting how much of that is from humans, both through radiometric testing and the more simple but less accurate method of guesstimating based on CO2 emission figures from around the world (which still gives a pretty good ballpark). There is considerable research into the effects of CO2 forcing and insulation, as well as whether or not CO2 has saturated. There is considerable research into feedback loops. And lastly, there has been a fair amount of research into both the causes and effects of the MWP. At the moment, it seems like it was caused by natural CO2 increase, caused primarily through volcanic activity. You cannot just assert "We lack knowledge" when, in fact, we don't.

Oh ****.