Welcome to our new beta design! Click here to go back to the old Newschoolers.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Um...yes it does. That's kinda what the inconvenient word "global" means in the term "global warming." But now there's so much counter evidence that the eco-nuts are forced to explain it. Being utterly unable to explain a paradox (and thus reveal the fraud underneath) they dub it “climate change” to cover all bases. This will continue as real scientists get their views out despite political hacks posing as climatologists and their ignorant dupes. In the meantime the kooks that brought you monkey-pox and Y2K are looking to their next apocalypse.
Global warming hoaxers are not merely liars, they're criminals: "The University of East Anglia" breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. Disgraced professor Phil Jones lost his job when it was discovered he pressured others to delete the data."
-The Times of London, 1/28/2010
Climategate e-mails made public in November ’10 that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. Trial lawyers and used car dealers have been replaced by "climate scientists" as the world's most distrusted occupation
Algore, Father Nature himself, admitted before Congress on 3/21/07 that CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age. If CO2 = warming, why was the last Ice Age, with so much higher levels, so much COOLER? Father Nature also talked about water vapor being the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and that's the elephant in the room. If we're really interested in bringing down this mythical global temperature, why are we ignoring water vapor? Is it because you can't tax an ocean?
The idea that CO2 causes global warming is contradicted by weather balloons, satellites, atmospheric surveys, ice core samples, and historical temperature records - in short all scientific data. Even so, volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories, planes and SUVs combined. Shockingly, bacteria produce even more than this; far more than the humans they inhabit. We're left with no reason to believe in global warming and every reason for hippies to finally take a bath.
Thanks, but please don't take my word for it; check out the sources listed in my message.
German über-magazine 'Der Spiegel' writes on 11/19/2009, "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots."
Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, said "[Global warming] is a hoax." The British say “real evidence does point to a possible one degree Centigrade cooling over the next two decades” and Swiss scientists say “whatever slight impact humans might have on the climate is too small to measure.” Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray, in a recent interview with Discover Magazine said "Human-induced global-warming...is grossly exaggerated."
The UN report "proving" man-made GW is rife with forged signatures. The report claimed to be backed by 2,000 leading climatologists. But Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who DISAGREED with its findings. Reiter said his name was removed only when he threatened legal action. Then there's Chris Landsea, a scientist who resigned from the IPCC saying it was "subverted, its neutrality lost."
The co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, finally admits "global warming" is a hoax, and now says African countries should be encouraged to [create] more CO2.
Sorry to sink your iceberg, but sea level has nothing to do with the icecaps. Professor Philip Stott, of the Biogeography Department at the University of London, said "World-wide change of sea level has nothing to do with melting ice. It's through thermal expansion of the ocean - and that's an enormously slow and long process." How slow? Thousands upon thousands of years.
And no one has at yet answered the very simple question asked in my original post: If CO2 = warming, why was the last Ice Age, with so much higher levels, so much COOLER?
There are two reasons it's not answered: 1) It decimates the GW hoax utterly and 2) This was never about GW to begin with. Freeze or fry, the problem is always capitalism and the solution is always socialism. Want proof? Foreign-born billionaire and eco-activist Maurice Strong said in a 1990 interview to WEST magazine: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Neither icecap will have any appreciable effect, and not even the wackiest of climate models predicts a complete melting of either. Please re-read my original post from an actual climatologist (unlike you.) He states, "World-wide change of sea level has nothing to do with melting ice. It's through thermal expansion of the ocean - and that's an enormously slow and long process." How slow? Thousands upon thousands of years.
I realize you Europeans have been steadily brainwashed to believe in both the wonders of socialism and the horrors of global warming (alias "capitalism), but think of how cool a non-conformist you could be to actually know the facts.
Acutally, it means the weather will become more unpredictable in the future and will be harder to forcast.
Climate change NOT global warming
LOL!! Newpapers are no [sic] reliable sources? Well thanks for informing us! I assume we'll just take that wild disclaimer on your word alone with the logic you backed it up with. Oh wait, you provided nothing.
1) No, CO2 concentration today is LOWER than the last Ice Age. I provided facts showing it. Sources listing it. Names of experts saying it. You provided.... Oh wait, you provided nothing.
2) Pre-industrial CO2 did NOT remain steady. It was much higher during the last Ice Age. And volcanic CO2 is far, FAR greater than "anthropogenic emissions." I provided facts showing it. Sources listing it. Names of experts saying it. You provided.... Oh wait, you provided nothing.
Apparently you have a different definition of “reliable source” than the rest of the English-speaking world. I urge you to publish your dictionary; I’d love to see your definitions of “junk science”, “media hoax”, and “eco-nut.”
LOL! Nice try, but all you succeeding in doing was making my point for me! It's well known sea levels have been on a rising trend for CENTURIES, well before those evil SUVs began ruining poor mother earth. The cause? Natural thermal expansion. Your computer guru "climate modeler", Mr. Yin, lumped both thermal expansion and melting ice into his prediction for rising sea levels. That's like a fat man saying carbs are making him fat (melting ice) when he's stuffing himself with twinkies (thermal expansion.)
Even better, your own quote utterly ruins your point when it says, "the contribution from land ice melting was not assessed in this study due to uncertainty." I'm shocked that you even posted it...
You may be interested to know that "climate modelers" like the esteemed Mr. Yin have been 100% wrong about EVERYTHING they've predicted. Did you know these "modelers" work in isolated labs just running numbers through a computer without regard to real-world data? Kind of makes their conclusions a little less chic, eh? These are the same "modelers" who said in 1997 that the Earth would warm for the next 15 years. Um....it actually COOLED. Still believe them? They can't tell us the weather next week but you're ready to surrender to carbon taxes and crushing socialism on the word of a software geek.
Anyway, real scientists eventually became embarassed by these fools and called their bluff. On 2/26/2010 NASA climatologist Roy W. Spencer said nearly all warming models IGNORE precipitation. Rain lowers atmospheric temperature, but none of the models account for it. How much is the temperature lowered by precipitation? We don't know. Has the level or frequency of precipitation changed? We don't know that either. We don't even know the total amount of global precipitation! Thus global warming alarmists advocate a useless theory with a hole big enough to drive my SUV through.
If you're trying to look stupid you are putting exactly the right amount of effort into it.
So there's a "should" now with the climate? What "should" the Earth's correct temperature be? And if it's actually warming (which it's not), how do we know it's not warming to a "more correct" temperature? We hear no answer from the GW alarmists. Only that "it's too hot and we need to tax you." The same thing we heard in the 70's when they said "it's too cold and we need to tax you."
The main source of this nonsence is the UN's IPCC reports, little more than junk science opinion papers rife with forged signatures. Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who DISAGREED with its findings. Reiter said his name was removed only when he threatened legal action.
I don't know where that fraudulent temperature chart came from, probably from some kid's PowerPoint class at his public high school, but it's an utter fraud. And of course there's no citation attached to it. As stated before, the Earth has been COOLING for the last 15 years, not warming: 'Der Spiegel' writes on 11/19/2009, "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots."
It's been said over and over again by REAL climatologists that there's no temperature correlation with CO2. Rather, "it's the sun stupid." Noted climatologist R. Timothy Patterson (along with countless others) says, "Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the sun’s brightness and climate indicators is not unique. Hundreds of other studies — from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile — show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Um...totally "repliable." See my above post on your made-up PowerPoint chart with zero references.
It's facsinating that a supposed "engineering student" has total disregard for both grammar and evidence (um, that would be the quoted sources from real climatologists I listed. Still waiting for an actual argument against them; ANY of them. ) Perhaps you'd like to go for the trifecta and dismiss logic as well. Oh wait, I think you just did...
I think the real question here is what kind of "engineering school" does a person like you attend? (Psst: community colleges and internet diploma mills don't actually count.)
And for someone disdainful of those literate enough to craft an intelligible sentence, you're awfully quick to point out what you think is an error. But with your endless repetition of bits of my own thread it's clear to the rest of us that you have little to offer beyond copying the strategies of your betters. And that is indeed the sincerest form of flattery.