Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[Mr.Vicchio]

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but it's got nothing to do with what man is doing. "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air." Bryson's comments were among a long list of doubters of "global warming" assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate committee on environment and public works. Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10 environmental problems.

And it gets better.

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists. "If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said. "Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast. "Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

WorldNetDaily: Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[thx1138]

I can't believe the level of Ignorance about the world that goes on in the U.S.

Yes there are opportunistic people trying to take advantage of global warming for political reasons and that is wrong. But to ingnore the fact that the earth is warming is just as wrong. Stop playing whose fault it is and start trying work together to find some answers.

Get you head out of the sand.

[PatrickHenry]

The Age Of Warming, 60 Minutes Goes To The Bottom Of The World And To The Top of A Glacier To See The Fastest Warming Place On Earth - CBS News

If you were waiting for the day global warming would change the world, that day is here. It’s happening, far from civilization’s notice, in a place about as remote as you can get. Scientists believed Antarctica, at the bottom of the world, was too vast, too remote, to be bothered by climate change any time soon. But now glaciers are setting speed records for melting and whole colonies of penguins are disappearing.

There's more, Vicchio. A scientific controversy. Why do you have a dog in this fight?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: thx1138 I can't believe the level of Ignorance about the world that goes on in the U.S. Yes there are opportunistic people trying to take advantage of global warming for political reasons and that is wrong. But to ingnore the fact that the earth is warming is just as wrong. Stop playing whose fault it is and start trying work together to find some answers. Get you head out of the sand.

The answer is MOTHER NATURE. Durrrrr

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The Age Of Warming, 60 Minutes Goes To The Bottom Of The World And To The Top of A Glacier To See The Fastest Warming Place On Earth - CBS News There's more, Vicchio. A scientific controversy. Why do you have a dog in this fight?

Global warming claims are nothing more then a catalyst for enacting socialism and a global government...

Things I oppose. That's all.

Besides, it's damned retarded science at that.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Global warming claims are nothing more then a catalyst for enacting socialism and a global government... Things I oppose. That's all. Besides, it's damned retarded science at that.

Spoken like a true believer in George Bush Jr.

Your so called 'new study' is all old stuff that has already been concidered and factored into the current scientific warning.

The actions suggested only effect a couple of capitalistic businesses, namely the fosil fuel business. This does not mean that socialism will replace capitalism. And governments around the world working together to solve international problems will not result in a "one world government" otherwise Bush would have supported it (with his self as the "King of global democary", of course).

[thx1138]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Global warming claims are nothing more then a catalyst for enacting socialism and a global government... Things I oppose. That's all. Besides, it's damned retarded science at that.

You sure it's the science and not you?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio And it gets better.

No, it doesn't, what was said below is a blatant lie. An increase from 280ppm to 380ppm does not equate to less than 3%. We know from radiometric readings that the CO2 increase is predominately man-made.

I'm sure you've seen this graph before.Pray tell, what is causing this steady increase in global CO2? It looks pretty constant to me, what's causing it?

I'm afraid that just because they repeat the same lies, doesn't make them true.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

Global Warming Fears: Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just retarded and not me.

Moose on Norway, more dangerous then man to the WORLD! OMG!

That's all carry on.

OH POOEY! Yes, please post graphs, charts what ever, I posted a counter to global warming, that's been published by real scientists, in a peer reviewed journal. I am NOT, like you with the IPCCC, basing my arguement on a "consensus" that is put together by bureacrats from the UN.

[xyzer]

NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim | News | E-Team
Just to rub it in pooey, I like this article because it's so succinct!
The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

According to NASAs recent data..What does this do to the "hockey Stick" that you defend? Could it just be that inspite of the anthropogenic contribution to C02 something else has caused warming in the past...and could be causing it in the present?

When one considers this from Vicchios post..
"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Does it not strain reality to claim that this small change to such a minute fraction of C02 in the atmosphere will result in climate change?

[thx1138]

How funny it is that the three people on this blog that are pro-war also have their heads in the sand about global warming.

Is there a link?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio OH POOEY! Yes, please post graphs, charts what ever, I posted a counter to global warming, that's been published by real scientists, in a peer reviewed journal.

Your so called experts just regurgitate the same lies and misinformation. It's quite sad really that they've forgo their scientific integrity for some media exposure.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I am NOT, like you with the IPCCC, basing my arguement on a "consensus" that is put together by bureacrats from the UN.

The IPCC compiles their reports based on peer reviewed journals. The scientific consensus is based on the joint statements by all the National Academies of science in the world, in addition to all other major organisations that are involved in climate science. Your denial cannot change that fact.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim | News | E-Team Just to rub it in pooey, I like this article because it's so succinct! The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998; The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006; Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred. According to NASAs recent data..What does this do to the "hockey Stick" that you defend? Could it just be that inspite of the anthropogenic contribution to C02 something else has caused warming in the past...and could be causing it in the present?

The minor correction does not make a difference to the overall picture because the US does not equate to the entire Earth, even the skeptic is worked out the mistake admitted to that. I would ask you to read this up but I know I'm talking to a brick wall.

[xyzer]

Sad commentary this...

Your so called experts just regurgitate the same lies and misinformation. It's quite sad really that they've forgo their scientific integrity for some media exposure

Those who challenge the doubtful causes of the climate warming cycle dogma have no "scientific integrity"? They are "so called experts" rather than equally trained and informed scientists and practical thinkers questioning a growing speculative orthodoxy? No matter what the proof or lack of it, one is not allowed to question the current orthodoxy of anthropogenic influences?

Shades of Nazi Germany? It didn't matter what their status and or position in society was, Jews were relegated to the trash heap of society?
Shades of the days of the "Inquisition", heretics were chastised and even punished because they questioned the orthodoy of the time? Had different beliefs?

I detect this thinking in those who desperately cling to the 'doom and gloom' climate scenario that is being exposed as questionable rubbish,

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Sad commentary this... Those who challenge the doubtful causes of the climate warming cycle dogma have no "scientific integrity"? They are "so called experts" rather than equally trained and informed scientists and practical thinkers questioning a growing speculative orthodoxy? No matter what the proof or lack of it, one is not allowed to question the current orthodoxy of anthropogenic influences? Shades of Nazi Germany? It didn't matter what their status and or position in society was, Jews were relegated to the trash heap of society? Shades of the days of the "Inquisition", heretics were chastised and even punished because they questioned the orthodoy of the time? Had different beliefs?

If you mean by question as in repeating the same tired refuted arguments and misleading information then you got me there. After all, you're a master of that yourself, as evidence by the never ending thread on Global warming.

Quote by: xyzer I detect this thinking in those who desperately cling to the 'doom and gloom' climate scenario that is being exposed as questionable rubbish,

I've never issued a message of doom in this regard, unlike yourself who prophesied that any attempt on moving away from fossil fuels and being more energy efficient will bring economical ruin to the world. I've always argued for a reasoned approach to this problem, one where we'd benefit either way of whether GW is anthropogenic or not.

[thx1138]

I detect this thinking in those who desperately cling to the 'doom and gloom' climate scenario that is being exposed as questionable rubbish,

This level of Ignorance is why nothing will be done in the U.S. until you have a few more CAT 5 hurricanes, flash floods, and Glacier National Park melts away.

[xyzer]

Hmm?

This level of Ignorance is why nothing will be done in the U.S. until you have a few more CAT 5 hurricanes, flash floods, and Glacier National Park melts away

It may very well be? But in any case it may not approach the concocted futility of chasing windmills..proposing unproven expensive solutions to invented problems and their alleged causes?

Sure there will be more CAT 5 hurricanes, glacial melts and climate change..isn't that what the records indicate has been happening over the eons of earths dynamic existence? Are you suggesting that the earth hasn't been gradually warming since the last ice age carved the valleys we inhabit? 10 or 15 thousand years ago it was damn cold and the Neanderthalls were worrying about climate change? 1200 or so years ago the Scandanavians were farming on Greenland? We are still dredging the wrecks of Spanish treasure ships that sank in hurricane winds several hundred years ago...well before the industrial revolution and anthropogenic creation of extra C02?

The danger lies more in human folly and overreaction to imagined threats, than it does to the history of species adaption to changing environmental conditions?

[xyzer]

Pooey..I'm amused

If you mean by question as in repeating the same tired refuted arguments and misleading information then you got me there. After all, you're a master of that yourself, as evidence by the never ending thread on Global warming.

You ignore the fact that you haven't varied in your argument or approach to climate change? I'm the one who has posted a number of scientifically backed refutations to the tired old argument about anthropogenic influences on climate. I'm the one who early on challenged the "hockey stick" nonsense and yet you are still posting charts showing C02 increases on Mauna Loa and other illogical rationalizations for climate change? Ignoring facts about temperature measurement and flawed interpretations, the importance of natural causes influencing the earths climate ad infinitum?

Each little bit of evidence that the C02 theory is shakey is met with denial, questiong the honesty of the sources, or blaming big oil or some other 'strawman" for influencing data and opinion? It's almost unreal? But I remain undaunted..rave on if you please...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..I'm amused You ignore the fact that you haven't varied in your argument or approach to climate change? I'm the one who has posted a number of scientifically backed refutations to the tired old argument about anthropogenic influences on climate.

I've yet to see these scientifically backed refutations, where are they? Do you mean those misleading articles with misconstrued claims and bad arguments?

Quote by: xyzer I'm the one who early on challenged the "hockey stick" nonsense

I have already refuted your unjustified claim on the validity of the hocket stick graph

Quote by: xyzer and yet you are still posting charts showing C02 increases on Mauna Loa and other illogical rationalizations for climate change?

I posted it in response to the misinformation that we have caused little CO2 increase. Because that is a lie.

Quote by: xyzer Ignoring facts about temperature measurement and flawed interpretations, the importance of natural causes influencing the earths climate ad infinitum?

No, I have never ignored those factors, I have asked you many times over to present evidence to explain the current warming. For which I have seen you produce zilch of any value.

Quote by: xyzer Each little bit of evidence that the C02 theory is shakey is met with denial, questiong the honesty of the sources, or blaming big oil or some other 'strawman" for influencing data and opinion? It's almost unreal? But I remain undaunted..rave on if you please...

All you can do is crawl away at the edges because that's all you have. If you're so certain, why don't you mail your concerns to the National Science Academy of America? That's just one amongst many organisations in the US alone that you're opposing.

[Chancellor]

And to think that when I was a kid people were worried about a coming ice age:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...FireandIce.pdf