Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Every warming event with any verifiable evidence, every one, has been followed by a moderate to major cooling period, several of these were ice age events. We have about peaked this one, we already had a cold winter 2 years ago in the lower 48, the northern areas such as Alaska and Europe had record cold and snow this past year and we are not far from seeing cold winters such as the 60's-70's and early 80's. Maybe colder longer, we don't know, now do we?

 

[Rainbody]

Green is the new Red
http://m.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/g...ses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674

People are onto this. here's more

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/?page=all

And from the here they are saying it.

Havel Wolf, member of the Seattle Audubon Society says “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.” --1998

Gus Hall, National chairman of the Communist Party, USA in 1972. “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits [...] Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Louis Proyect, of Columbia University, “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

An article about global warming and socialism is not complete without the comments of false prophet Al Gore (1992), “We must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.”

I would think the land owners on this site would know when to call a duck a duck.

 

[patrick_g]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45403011/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-are-climate-change-skeptics-still-skeptical-about/?__utma=14933801.1726355807.1343335133.1343335133.1344354365.2&__utmb=14933801.0.10.1344356141&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343335133.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|us%20news|usnewsfranchise=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=usnews.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=112767364

 

[toppop52]

Green is the new Red
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

People are onto this. here's more

Obama climate czar has socialist ties - Washington Times

And from the here they are saying it.

Havel Wolf, member of the Seattle Audubon Society says “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.” --1998

Gus Hall, National chairman of the Communist Party, USA in 1972. “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits [...] Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Louis Proyect, of Columbia University, “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

An article about global warming and socialism is not complete without the comments of false prophet Al Gore (1992), “We must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.”

I would think the land owners on this site would know when to call a duck a duck.

Not if Dear Leader says it's a goose!

You are spot on though, the whole international building codes, arms treaties, Kyoto agreement, all aimed at bring us down to them. We now have leaders willing to aid and comfort them on the way.

 

[toppop52]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45403011/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/what-are-climate-change-skeptics-still-skeptical-about/?__utma=14933801.1726355807.1343335133.1343335133.1344354365.2&__utmb=14933801.0.10.1344356141&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1343335133.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|us%20news|usnewsfranchise=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=usnews.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=112767364

MSNBC, now there's a non biased source of liberal thinking!
Anyway, source aside, why do you guys keep insisting on citing Muller as your savior? Yes he did sort of change his mind, but he gets paid by Berkley University, so duh! But even tossing that out, all said was, now he thinks we "may warm at faster rate", however currently AGW effects are "tiny", and that current weather such as heat waves and drought are unrelated.
Not sure how that helps the Gore worshipers!

 

[EE_Bota]

I'm guessing that you would not believe that man has an effect on climate change no matter who suggested such a thing regardless of their qualifications or his/ her education.
Would I be correct?

Your question is a bit tricky. Look at it carefully: You seem to be starting out to say you are guessing I would disregard the science, but then you wound up asking if I would believe a person based on their qualifications and education. How should a person like myself who has worked with so many scientists both excellent and poor answer such a question? I will take the opinions of the scientists I trust and know to be good scientists sometimes. I will have to rely on the actual science of those I do not know, and look for signs the science is done well or poorly. Just because the work is out of my area doesn't mean science itself is out of my area, but it does mean I don't feel I can comment with any real authority on areas outside of my training and experience.

In my experience, the scientists I know to be good ones don't come back and claim they were "too optimistic" as optimism and pessimism doesn't really seem to figure into it for those folks. When I said similar earlier, I thought you understood. Apparently not, and according to the unwritten rules of this thread, I can't be critical of a scientist's statements or his work or I am what...a denier? I have not said what I believe about AGW because I don't wish to participate in a religious argument. If it were my area, I'd fill these pages. But it's not my area, so why should any of us care about such an opinion? I do have respect for a good scientist, and I resent it when others get into the media and make scientists look like political hacks.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I bet the 5 other liberals think you're just hilarious!

If I actually thought you could comprehend I could reply to you.

The tactic is to insist on absolute proof of the unprovable. ... Then insist that the premise is false because only highly cohesive supportive information can be offered as proof. A wholly science free nit pic tactic, great for those who are fooled into believing that it is valid. ... but very bad for everybody if the "unprovable" was right.
larry

Would be nice to know why the green house effect of CO2 is unprovable.
Knowing the effects of CO2 would help in managing man effects (if significant). That project would be a black hole for money with clearly defined measurable objectives.
How would it be for everyone if the unprovable is wrong?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not unprovable. It is known to exist because it can be shown and measured in a lab in a bounded system. In a comparatively unbounded system such as presented by the earth there are just too many other things happening for anyone to separate out the effect with surety. They can only focus on the correlation and explore how well it hangs together.
..To know, they ultimately have to figure out how finely balanced the system is and how big a crowbar is this molecule.
... Since the oceans absorb it and the trees bind it for whatever time, what is the ultimate effect of all this carbon sequestration as the climate starts to tip. - will it be released?
... How may billion tons of carbon have we tied up in the structures of the world?
...What about latent heat - is world absolute humidity rising?
... Are such natural and incidental factors preserving an oscillation just short of tip?
... How easy might it be to miss perceiving the balance point as we geometrically escalate known debalancing factors? ... And point at previous oscillations, some of which lasted long enuf for the outcome to be academic.
:confused3:

 

[toppop52]

But we know the previous events were not AGW with absolute certainty. So why couldn't this just be natural as all others have been? Seems that history should be the first measuring stick, not agendized science.

 

[SPYDERLK]

NO, what you say is exactly what you do, there is science that explains the earlier warmings and it applies quite nicely today, it just doesn't fit into the AGW agenda. By this time next year you guys will be speaking to empty halls, so enjoy the little stage you have left.

There are instances where I do that? ... Please name two so that we can look at them together.
...Under the inuendoed microscope applied to todays efforts at the problem yesteryears science would crumble - right or wrong. There would be excommunication, imprisonment, and selected beheadings.
larry

 

[toppop52]

Who is talking about Galileo? I'm talking modern scientific studies of past warming events.