Who still believes in Global Warming?

[curious]

if you believe in global warning i have some property in florida i want to sell u

Is this property between the bottom of Florida and the the start of the Florida Keys (underwater)?

[wtf]

UK is in the midst of its coldest winter in 327 years, yea three centuries

[The Madcap]

That's really funny.

And it underscores something important:

Cap and trade isn't mentioned anywhere in the comic. Because it's stupid. And if the global warming pimps would shut the hell up, instead of trying to scare us all into being eco-friendly with their bogus hocus pocus, then maybe more attention could be paid to the simple things we can do that will make the world a cleaner place. But no. They've got to turn this into some righteous crusade. And that's the problem with liberals. They can't ever just do something because it's the right thing to do and set a quiet example. They have to go around holding a big parade and say "Look at me. Notice ME! See, I'm a good human being. I'm not like you evil gas guzzling parasites. I'm more enlightened and sophisticated than you. My culture is superior. I'm a better person."

And that turns people off. So, what I say to you, if you really do care about the planet and want the rest of us to stop polluting it, then you and your liberal friends need to stop walking around with this look of "My shit don't stink and my farts smell like cinnamon biscuits" and maybe we'll start taking you more seriously.

[Turd Ferguson]

Consider yourselves warned-he's not going to say this twice...

[curious]

That's really funny.

And it underscores something important:

Cap and trade isn't mentioned anywhere in the comic. Because it's stupid. And if the global warming pimps would shut the hell up, instead of trying to scare us all into being eco-friendly with their bogus hocus pocus, then maybe more attention could be paid to the simple things we can do that will make the world a cleaner place. But no. They've got to turn this into some righteous crusade. And that's the problem with liberals. They can't ever just do something because it's the right thing to do and set a quiet example. They have to go around holding a big parade and say "Look at me. Notice ME! See, I'm a good human being. I'm not like you evil gas guzzling parasites. I'm more enlightened and sophisticated than you. My culture is superior. I'm a better person."

And that turns people off. So, what I say to you, if you really do care about the planet and want the rest of us to stop polluting it, then you and your liberal friends need to stop walking around with this look of "My shit don't stink and my farts smell like cinnamon biscuits" and maybe we'll start taking you more seriously.

What I tell anyone who wants to discuss this seriously and not just hurl sound bites at me is this:

Let's take the global warming/global cooling/global everything is static argument off the table and just talk about cleaning up the environment.

There are a very large number of things that we could do today with technologies that are on the shelf that would drastically reduce our electricity and natural gas dependency. I am 100% behind all of these things and would support doing them today, right now. Unfortunately the green wackos never mention them, they talk about things that are completely unrealistic, are not affordable, and won't make any difference to the environment.

Now, the things that I support doing, even though they will have a huge impact, I don't believe that this will change anything, climate wise, because the factors that impact our climate the most (by far the most) are external to human activities. What these things will do is drastically reduce our dependency on oil, coal, natural gas, and other items, by drastically reducing our electricity consumption. If the global warming or climate change crowd want to believe that drastically reducing electricity consumption is going to magically improve our environment, okay, let them believe that I don't care. But, I have never, ever talked to one of these global warming / climate change lunatics who wanted to discuss doing any of the immediate things which will have a huge impact. All they want to talk about is closing all the coal fired and natural gas fired electricity generating plants and replacing them with windmills or solar panels. Idiots.

[azimm11]

Global warming is happening. No good for those polar bears.

[The Madcap]

What I tell anyone who wants to discuss this seriously and not just hurl sound bites at me is this:

Let's take the global warming/global cooling/global everything is static argument off the table and just talk about cleaning up the environment.

There are a very large number of things that we could do today with technologies that are on the shelf that would drastically reduce our electricity and natural gas dependency. I am 100% behind all of these things and would support doing them today, right now. Unfortunately the green wackos never mention them, they talk about things that are completely unrealistic, are not affordable, and won't make any difference to the environment.

Now, the things that I support doing, even though they will have a huge impact, I don't believe that this will change anything, climate wise, because the factors that impact our climate the most (by far the most) are external to human activities. What these things will do is drastically reduce our dependency on oil, coal, natural gas, and other items, by drastically reducing our electricity consumption. If the global warming or climate change crowd want to believe that drastically reducing electricity consumption is going to magically improve our environment, okay, let them believe that I don't care. But, I have never, ever talked to one of these global warming / climate change lunatics who wanted to discuss doing any of the immediate things which will have a huge impact. All they want to talk about is closing all the coal fired and natural gas fired electricity generating plants and replacing them with windmills or solar panels. Idiots.

I know. And that's because for most environment wackos, it's not about the environment. It was never about the environment. It's about their hatred. Their hatred of success. Of those that create wealth. Or those that inherit it. It's about getting back at all those people that made them feel uncool in high school. It's about jealousy and envy. It has nothing to do with the issue. It hardly ever does.

That's why when you get into a passionate argument with a liberal, and you keep prodding and poking so that their true emotions boil up, they will unleash some seething tirade against rich people, or the GOP, or Bush, or whatever. It's never about the issue. It's about their hatred of certain people. If it were about the issues, then they'd answer issue related questions. They'd know about the types of things you mentioned above. They wouldn't gravitate towards stupid blanket crap concepts like global warming and the "wealthiest one percent" and the "income gap." They'd be more interested in working to find real solutions that help everybody. But they aren't interested in helping people. They are only interesting in getting back at the people they don't like. That's why they are all pissed at Obama for the tax compromise. It's why they talk all day about raising taxes on the rich, but never about actually drastically reducing taxes for the middle class.

Liberals suck. They've ruined America by making it impossible to do something positive without attaching some needless morality or crap judgment to it. I wish they'd all just shut up and let those of us who don't need to puff ourselves up solve the damn problems. It'd get done faster with none of the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

[curious]

Global warming is happening. No good for those polar bears.

You mean the polar bears who increased in number from 5,000 in the 70s to over 26,000 today? Those polar bears?

[DwightShrute]

[The Madcap]

You think Penguins taste like chicken?

[thechaoz]

Google "The great global warming swindle". It's an hour documentary and will make you see things in a whole new way. It's a complete fraud and science proves that it's complete joke.

[DwightShrute]

Google "The great global warming swindle". It's an hour documentary and will make you see things in a whole new way. It's a complete fraud and science proves that it's complete joke.

[DwightShrute]

[ATTACH]22676[/ATTACH]

[statnerds]

Where did all the libs run off to?

Yes, Virginia, you do have to produce those 'Global Warming' documents







Today, Virginia taxpayers, a state lawmaker and a public interest law firm are asking the University of Virginia to produce important "global warming" records under that state's Freedom of Information Act. These are records the school no longer denies possessing but nonetheless refuses to release, even to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. They address one of the most high-profile claims used to advance massive economic-intervention policies in the name of "global warming."
In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed. However, during Cuccinelli's pre-investigation under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act ("FATA"), a 2007 law passed unanimously by Virginia's legislature, which clearly covers the work of taxpayer-funded academics, U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance. For this reversal, the taxpayers of Virginia owe Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude.
Still, the school has spent upward of half a million dollars to date fighting Cuccinelli's pursuit, now before the Virginia Supreme Court. However, Virginia's transparency statute FOIA gives the school one week to produce the documents, and offers no exemption for claims U.Va. is using to block Cuccinelli's inquiry.
These e-mails and other documents relate to claims made by Michael Mann to obtain, and claim payment under, certain taxpayer-funded grants. Mann worked at the university's department of environmental sciences when he produced what was hailed at the time as the "smoking gun" affirming the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming.
Despite that lofty honorific, persistent controversy led promoters of this notorious "Hockey Stick" graph (principally, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC) to stop advancing it as serious work.
Leaked "ClimateGate" e-mails discussing these same controversies prompted Cuccinelli's pre-investigation. Sadly, in order to keep the taxpayers' advocate from examining the evidence, U.Va. has offered a series of twists on a novel defense of "academic freedom."
Now we with the American Tradition Institute's environmental law center have requested these documents under FOIA and will presumably put an end to these tactics of denial followed by delay.
Importantly, also under FOIA in late 2009, the pressure group Greenpeace sought, and was promised, e-mails and other materials of Patrick Michaels, who also formerly worked in the same university department.
While the university proceeded to compile the material for Greenpeace, one of us, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, thought to ask for records relating to Michaels' former colleague, Mann. Oddly, the university informed Marshall that such records no longer existed because Mann had left the department.
Michaels has stated that the university, in explaining to him these disparate responses, asserted that some people's records are treated differently than others. Mann's were allegedly destroyed; Michaels' were being packaged for delivery to Greenpeace.
One disparity possibly helping to explain the other was that Mann had been an active participant in the IPCC, obtaining many research grants for his work at U.Va. But Michaels had been a very politically incorrect, high-profile "skeptic" of catastrophist claims such as those represented by the IPCC, and particularly Mann's Hockey Stick.
In court in August, U.Va. opted against robustly defending, as a legal argument, its academic-freedom rationale for refusing to produce the records. Yet even this week, it is asking the Virginia Supreme Court to deny Cuccinelli's request for documents possibly showing whether the dense Hockey Stick smoke indeed indicates fire. This does Virginia taxpayers a disservice.
Other records obtained under FOIA reveal that U.Va. has been paying Washington lawyers several thousand dollars per day to deny the requested transparency. As such, in a separate request, we also seek information about this privately underwritten effort to avoid complying with Cuccinelli's inquiry.
The university has previously demanded taxpayers pay thousands of dollars for a FOIA search for Mann's records, on the grounds that it maintains a broadly dispersed record-keeping system. Therefore, we have specifically directed the school to only search the backup server it claimed to the attorney general's office that it finally located as the likely home of the Mann records. As such, demands for huge search fees should not be an obstacle.
We hope for prompt university compliance with FOIA, although we are prepared to fully protect our appellate rights. As Virginia taxpayers, we also hope to see U.Va. rise to its reputation and reflect the highest fidelity toward its statutory and other obligations.
We can then, finally, determine what it is that so many have gone to such great lengths to keep the public from knowing about that for which the public has paid.


Were you also aware that regardless of the numbers you feed into Mann's model, it produces the same hockey stick results?


Or that if we look at the predictions made by models 5 or 10 years, they are obviously incorrect when compared to REALITY?!?!?

[subs]

the world is getting warmer - the climate is changing. almost every scientist agrees. not every scientist agrees that it is man made though. here is the argument.

insurance companies in australia are starting to refuse insurance to beach front homes....last time i looked they were't turning down free money.

get real. we have become a virus on the planet and it is just not sustainable. enjoy ur ignorance i hear its bliss

[Hotdiggity11]

Link Not Working - Removed-)

[curious]

the world is getting warmer - the climate is changing. almost every scientist agrees. not every scientist agrees that it is man made though. here is the argument.

insurance companies in australia are starting to refuse insurance to beach front homes....last time i looked they were't turning down free money.

get real. we have become a virus on the planet and it is just not sustainable. enjoy ur ignorance i hear its bliss

The climate goes through cycles on a predictable scale. No one has shown that the current climate is experiencing swings outside of that cycle. To say that almost every scientist agrees is total nonsense.

Mankind is a virus? What proof can you offer for that statement? if you think you are a virus then you owe it to the rest of the living things on Earth to immediately end your existence.

[losturmarbles]

(Dec. 16) -- While much of the United States and parts of Europe have been shivering through intense early-season cold, NASA records show that this was the warmest climate year on record.

The NASA statistics indicate that the overall global temperature during the climate year (December 2009 through November 2010) was 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 base period, making it the warmest since records began in 1880.

All-time record heat occurred in 19 nations in 2010 -- the highest number of national all-time records established in a single year.

These statistics do not take into consideration this month's cold across the U.S. and Europe; however, they do include the unusually low temperatures in these same regions during December 2009 and January 2010.

The cold during that time, although impressive, was more than compensated for by higher-than-average temperatures across much of the remainder of the globe last winter and widespread intense heat during the past summer. In fact, much of the region that experienced intense cold last winter (and again to start this cold season) experienced intense heat during the summer months.

The southeastern U.S. followed one of the colder winters on record with the hottest summer on record.

A simplistic reading of what is going on with the planet's climate would be to hold that the current weather in a region is the sole determining factor in whether the climate is warming or cooling worldwide, and that global warming was halted last winter and resumed during the summer, only to be halted again this month.

The climate is more complicated than that.

Changes in climate -- warmer, colder, drier or wetter -- are represented by slowly changing long-term averages, not the natural up-and-down cycles of weather from one season to the next. The amount of data needed to make useful assessments of Earth's climate is greater than what could be taken from a month, season or year for any individual region or even an entire continent.

Sponsored Links
The concept of global warming is not one in which every winter would be void of snow and cold and every summer is hotter than the previous. Variations resulting from normal weather processes -- such as extreme cold and snow -- would continue even with global warming.

Some of these normal weather phenomena that account for our short-term weather include (but are not limited to) Pacific Ocean temperature changes (including La Nina and El Nino), Atlantic Ocean temperature changes and the Arctic Oscillation.

One of the many challenges for climate scientists is to determine what effect global warming has had, or might have in the future, on those natural processes. This is much more complicated than making a determination based on the weather at any one time -- and much more open to debate.

130 years/4.54 × 10^9 years = 0.000000000286 % of earth's existence

Sure your sample size is large enough?

[curious]

A .9 centigrade temperature change over 130 years tells us what exactly?

The Earth's temperature has changed much more than that before the technological age that the nutjobs are claiming is "changing" the climate so much. One volcano eruption can change Earth's temperature far more than .9 centigrade.

[Richards]

Statnerds talks about using logic instead of emotion but his posts are the most emotionally charged in this thread.

I like how many people are absolutely sure of their conclusion on either side of the debate.

Many have mentioned there are MANY variables that affect the climate:

9/11 Study: Air Traffic Affect Climate -- strange stuff. True or not, it just illustrates that it's not cut and dried. As has been mentioned by others, most pick and choose the stats that illustrate the conclusion they have already come to, because either Sean Hannity or Al Gore told them so.

It's been brought up that the "Green Energy" movement benefits from Climate Change propaganda. Lets not forget the traditional hydrocarbon energy industry is very well financed and has its own anti-climate change agenda.

Whether or not oil/coal is contributing to climate change there's a huge lobby to make sure their century old technology stays the status quo, I'm happy to pay a little higher price if we can find something better than having to fill the air with VOC's until we all choke.

Yes China burns a lot of coal, but they also are finishing one of the most massive construction undertakings in the history of man, the Three Gorges Dam -- so those in the USA should not be calling the kettle black.

[Hotdiggity11]

130 years/4.54 × 10^9 years = 0.000000000286 % of earth's existence

Sure your sample size is large enough?

You are aware we have means of measuring climatic conditions throughout Earth's history right?

[losturmarbles]

You are aware we have means of measuring climatic conditions throughout Earth's history right?

Exactly. So why produce a graph of data from a little tiny sliver of earth's history and use it as evidence to support faulty claims about the future.

[curious]

Whether or not oil/coal is contributing to climate change there's a huge lobby to make sure their century old technology stays the status quo, I'm happy to pay a little higher price if we can find something better than having to fill the air with VOC's until we all choke.

There won't be any technology for operating automobiles at a "little higher price" for many years, if it ever happens. All of the alternatives have been analyzed from a cost perspective and none of them come close.

Unless someone discovers some totally new science or unless the US lifts the secrecy veils off of the NAZI technology that they stole at the end of WWII and then wrapped in secrecy its not happening in our lifetime.

One thing that would help a lot, if the US would allow the European diesel engine that runs most of the cars in Europe at >50 MPG to be sold in the US. Oh, I forgot the lobbyists keep our diesel fuel dirty so the EPA won't allow the diesel cars to be sold here.

[Hotdiggity11]

Exactly. So why produce a graph of data from a little tiny sliver of earth's history and use it as evidence to support faulty claims about the future.

Because it shows climate change from the time in which many countries throughout the world became industrialized as well as hands-on climate reporting was started. If you can find any other time in history climate has gone up this rapidly in a 130-year period, please show me.

[losturmarbles]

...

[losturmarbles]

Because it shows climate change from the time in which many countries throughout the world became industrialized as well as hands-on climate reporting was started. If you can find any other time in history climate has gone up this rapidly in a 130-year period, please show me.

Funny, none of the graphs mention anything about acceleration of change, nor do they graph increase in industrialization or co2 or whatever else you want to blame.

And if you were going to show a rapid rise in temp that's all the more reason to show a longer time line.

The truth is going back to recent history would reveal that the increase/decrease in temp is no big deal.

[Hotdiggity11]

Funny, none of the graphs mention anything about acceleration of change, nor do they graph increase in industrialization or co2 or whatever else you want to blame.

And if you were going to show a rapid rise in temp that's all the more reason to show a longer time line.

The truth is going back to recent history would reveal that the increase/decrease in temp is no big deal.

It should be just common sense that CO2 emissions has been rapidly accelerating for the past hundred plus years but ok...

[The Madcap]

Statnerds talks about using logic instead of emotion but his posts are the most emotionally charged in this thread.

I like how many people are absolutely sure of their conclusion on either side of the debate.

Many have mentioned there are MANY variables that affect the climate:

9/11 Study: Air Traffic Affect Climate -- strange stuff. True or not, it just illustrates that it's not cut and dried. As has been mentioned by others, most pick and choose the stats that illustrate the conclusion they have already come to, because either Sean Hannity or Al Gore told them so.

It's been brought up that the "Green Energy" movement benefits from Climate Change propaganda. Lets not forget the traditional hydrocarbon energy industry is very well financed and has its own anti-climate change agenda.

Whether or not oil/coal is contributing to climate change there's a huge lobby to make sure their century old technology stays the status quo, I'm happy to pay a little higher price if we can find something better than having to fill the air with VOC's until we all choke.

Yes China burns a lot of coal, but they also are finishing one of the most massive construction undertakings in the history of man, the Three Gorges Dam -- so those in the USA should not be calling the kettle black.

The Three Gorges Dam?

Is that where they are building the secret arks that will save us from the global warming flooding as prophesied by the wise one we call John Cusak?

[nasaki]

Funny, none of the graphs mention anything about acceleration of change, nor do they graph increase in industrialization or co2 or whatever else you want to blame.

And if you were going to show a rapid rise in temp that's all the more reason to show a longer time line.

The truth is going back to recent history would reveal that the increase/decrease in temp is no big deal.

that big sloper upwards on that chart represents acceleration at around the time the industrial revolution started

[losturmarbles]

It should be just common sense that CO2 emissions has been rapidly accelerating for the past hundred plus years but ok...

Now put that on top of a table of temps of the last 2000 years and you'll see how meaningless it is.

[Hotdiggity11]

Now put that on top of a table of temps of the last 2000 years and you'll see how meaningless it is.

Uh what? It shows a correlation of the last 120 years.


And what about 2000 years? Can you find any other time in the past 2000 year that climate has accelerated as quickly as it has in the past 120? I've asked before, I'll ask again.

[losturmarbles]

Uh what? It shows a correlation of the last 120 years.


And what about 2000 years? Can you find any other time in the past 2000 year that climate has accelerated as quickly as it has in the past 120? I've asked before, I'll ask again.

Not my bag. You want to be a graph jockey, have at it.

I have nothing to prove. You do. I'm only here to hold your feet to fire while you make excuses for your bullshit graphs. 130 years is nothing. The data is tainted anyway, or have you not heard?

IPCC admits they just guess the numbers and admits the so-called consensus is bullshit.


The IPCC is the instrument of the UN that perpetuated the global warming scam to scare nations into signing a treaty so the UN would have global control of the earth's energy resources.

In other words, global warming is nothing but a tool the power elites use in their quest for a one world government.
Wake up graph jockey.

[Hotdiggity11]

Not my bag. You want to be a graph jockey, have at it.

I have nothing to prove. You do. I'm only here to hold your feet to fire while you make excuses for your bullshit graphs. 130 years is nothing. The data is tainted anyway, or have you not heard?

IPCC admits they just guess the numbers and admits the so-called consensus is bullshit.

The IPCC is the instrument of the UN that perpetuated the global warming scam to scare nations into signing a treaty so the UN would have global control of the earth's energy resources.

In other words, global warming is nothing but a tool the power elites use in their quest for a one world government.

If you are talking about Climategate, you are a little behind. Investigations showed no wrong doing. Pretty poor excuse to feign ignorance when I ask you a pretty basic question too.

[rthoughton]

Link Not Working - Removed-)

[subs]

The climate goes through cycles on a predictable scale. No one has shown that the current climate is experiencing swings outside of that cycle. To say that almost every scientist agrees is total nonsense.

Mankind is a virus? What proof can you offer for that statement? if you think you are a virus then you owe it to the rest of the living things on Earth to immediately end your existence.

i believe this may help

curious - do u believe that it is possible for the human species to continue as is - or do u believe that we will damage the earth so badly that it will come back and bite us in the ass. BTW that is another A N A L O G Y. or perhaps the continuous greed of our societies will somehow lead to the near extinction of our species? obviously 2 extremes. which 1 curious?

just wondering, if u had to predict the future, would it be rosy-cheeked children, abundant with consumables, playing in penthouses. or something a little more austere?

just wondering if u think this level of living is sustainable for future generations or not?