Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[XU 87]

We sat around the '87 fire pit last night to stay warm. My only concern- the fire burned for several hours. Since we were burning carbon based wood, how much CO2 did we release?

[xu82]

Ii
Yes,

Let's base opinions and billions of dollars of wasted resources on a few decades of measurements- actually in reality a couple of decades of flawed computer model predictions- rather than looking at the globe over thousands or millions of years. Then, let's take those flawed models and predict the most dire, catastrophic outcome.

Man's hubris over how much he thinks he controls- both negative and positive- is amazing.

I've found this also applies to raising children.

[Masterofreality]

We sat around the '87 fire pit last night to stay warm. My only concern- the fire burned for several hours. Since we were burning carbon based wood, how much CO2 did we release?

Probably less than you all exhaled.

[Masterofreality]

Yes,

Let's base opinions and billions of dollars of wasted resources on a few decades of measurements- actually in reality a couple of decades of flawed computer model predictions- rather than looking at the globe over thousands or millions of years. Then, let's take those flawed models and predict the most dire, catastrophic outcome.

Man's hubris over how much he thinks he controls- both negative and positive- is amazing.


Ii

I've found this also applies to raising children.

And this is verrrrrrrrry true.

[bobbiemcgee]

We sat around the '87 fire pit last night to stay warm. My only concern- the fire burned for several hours. Since we were burning carbon based wood, how much CO2 did we release?

If you were all drinking beer, I'd be more worried about the methane released.

[X-man]

Just back from a trip to Glacier National Park. If you have never been to that part of the world and love the great outdoors, I strongly suggest you go there. But go soon if you want to actually see any glaciers. The number of glaciers is down to 25 from about 150 in the late 1800's, and the park people estimate that they will all be gone in the next 15 to 20 years.

[NY44]

Just back from a trip to Glacier National Park. If you have never been to that part of the world and love the great outdoors, I strongly suggest you go there. But go soon if you want to actually see any glaciers. The number of glaciers is down to 25 from about 150 in the late 1800's, and the park people estimate that they will all be gone in the next 15 to 20 years.

Do you even know how cold it is in Cincinnati!!??

[Strange Brew]

Just back from a trip to Glacier National Park. If you have never been to that part of the world and love the great outdoors, I strongly suggest you go there. But go soon if you want to actually see any glaciers. The number of glaciers is down to 25 from about 150 in the late 1800's, and the park people estimate that they will all be gone in the next 15 to 20 years.

I'm glad you took a plane or car to go see a glacier that is disappearing because people are taking non-essential trips in cars and planes.....

[XU 87]

I'm glad you took a plane or car to go see a glacier that is disappearing because people are taking non-essential trips in cars and planes.....

"Do as I say, not as I do."

[SemajParlor]

We sat around the '87 fire pit last night to stay warm. My only concern- the fire burned for several hours. Since we were burning carbon based wood, how much CO2 did we release?

Smore's?

[SemajParlor]

Do you even know how cold it is in Cincinnati!!??

To be fair to X-Man, most renowned scientists from nearly every developed country have also failed to check in on XU 87's backyard temp daily, thus rendering their overwhelmingly unanimous conclusions on the world's climate change invalid.

[XU 87]

Smore's?

No, just beer and cigars.

P.S. it's 61 degrees today in Cincinnati. Brrrrrrrr.

P.P.S. It is now a balmy 66 in Cincinnati.

[bobbiemcgee]

No, just beer and cigars.

natural gas?

[X-man]

I'm glad you took a plane or car to go see a glacier that is disappearing because people are taking non-essential trips in cars and planes.....

What is a "non-essential trip" anyway? Would the fact that I was visiting family, as well as attending a friend's wedding in Steamboat, make the trip more "essential"? Inquiring minds wish to know.

[X-man]

"Do as I say, not as I do."

WTF? You have no idea what "I do" on the energy conservation front. But why would I think you know anything about anything at all, given your continuing string of uninformed and ludicrous posts on this subject as well as topics involving gay rights. Since you claim to know what God thinks on this latter topic, given the fact that it appears at odds with the Pope's position, perhaps you are a Mormon. The elders in that faith claim to actually talk to God on a regular basis.

[X-man]

Do you even know how cold it is in Cincinnati!!??

Yeah, I kept in touch with friends. However I can tell you that it is way above normal out west.

[XU 87]

What is a "non-essential trip" anyway? Would the fact that I was visiting family, as well as attending a friend's wedding in Steamboat, make the trip more "essential"? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Steamboat is about 900 miles from Glacier Park. Unless you traveled by canoe, or some other non-motorized form of travel, I for one am a little upset about the non-essential carbon footprint you left in such a pristine area. Np wonder the glaciers are melting- people like you are warming things up with all of your unnecessary travel.

http://www.distancebetweencities.net/steamboat-springs_co_and_glacier-park_west-glacier_montana/

Upon further review, I absolve you from your sins of unnecessarily destroying the glaciers with your senseless travel. The glaciers have been melting in Glacier Park for the last 12,000 years. However, if we keep up with this second coming of the ice age, as we are seeing in Cincinnati, you may get all those glaciers back in just a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

[Strange Brew]

WTF? You have no idea what "I do" on the energy conservation front. But why would I think you know anything about anything at all, given your continuing string of uninformed and ludicrous , because they actually talk to God on a regular basis.

What? Someone please decode this incoherent mess.

[X-man]

What? Someone please decode this incoherent mess.

Please see my edited version above. For some reason, a lot got left out of my original post....hence the gibberish.

[X-man]

Steamboat is about 900 miles from Glacier Park. Unless you traveled by canoe, or some other non-motorized form of travel, I for one am a little upset about the non-essential carbon footprint you left in such a pristine area. Np wonder the glaciers are melting- people like you are warming things up with all of your unnecessary travel.




So you know where my family members live, eh?

[Snipe]

Those Glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. Scientists have always believed that they would continue to melt and be gone. Nobody ever said that they would be there forever. That is the direction we have been headed for millennium. Ohio used to have more glacial ice than Glacier National Park. Thank God that ice pack is gone. So I should be alarmed that glaciers are going away that we have known will go away because SCIENCE!

You watch some of the news campaigns with that knowledge and you see what a clever promotional tool this is. They have had an uptick in tourism, which is worth a billion dollars a year now. Why? Because they have "made several top 10 lists" and the reason to visit is to come and see the glaciers before they are gone. It is brilliant, I tip my hat off to them.

As with anything in regards to Global Warming, follow the money.

[SemajParlor]

Some of these posts are laugh out loud funny. Lumping slow and gradual melting for 10,000 years (which is factually incorrect by the way) into distinct and clear cut heightened melting in the last few decades into one category as if nothing conclusive can be drawn is a personal favorite.

[SemajParlor]

Those Glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. Scientists have always believed that they would continue to melt and be gone. Nobody ever said that they would be there forever.


current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind by glaciers, known as moraines (Key, 2002), which provide a scientific baseline for comparison to current glacial extent.

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

[XU 87]

current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind by glaciers, known as moraines (Key, 2002), which provide a scientific baseline for comparison to current glacial extent.

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

According to your article, they've been melting since 1850.

[Snipe]

Some of these posts are laugh out loud funny. Lumping slow and gradual melting for 10,000 years (which is factually incorrect by the way) into distinct and clear cut heightened melting in the last few decades into one category as if nothing conclusive can be drawn is a personal favorite.


current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind by glaciers, known as moraines (Key, 2002), which provide a scientific baseline for comparison to current glacial extent.

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

What about the first sentence?


While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind by glaciers, known as moraines (Key, 2002), which provide a scientific baseline for comparison to current glacial extent.

So I was wrong, the glaciers have been melting for 12,000 years. So sue me. And all of the older ones that sculpted out the valley are gone. Looking at the trees and the beauftiful vista, I am glad that those glaciers are gone. Not much life on a glacier, but plenty of life in those glacial carved valleys and lakes.

And what of the LIA, the Little Ice Age? It goes for 450 years from your article of ice expansion. And then they have been melting for the last 165 years. And what does this have to do with man made climate change? It seems you are documenting natural cycles that ebb and flow over hundreds and thousands of years. Montana became a State in 1889. It was first settled in the 1860s. Those glaciers have been melting since before we got there, and it is part of a process that is beyond our power.

And what is factually incorrect that I said? Are you going to point to the fact that glaciers haven't melted consistently over the past 12,000 years as your proof? Is that the point that you are making? I agree that you that the "Little Ice Age" is real and happened. Michael Mann is a famous alarmist scientist who studied tree cores, and his "Hockey Stick" diagram totally ignores the Little Ice Age. It is a complete fabrication from a man who made adjustments to the climate record. "Mikes Nature Trick" to "hide the decline".

I realize that history of climate isn't linear. But 12,000 years ago their were huge glaciers in what is now Glacier National Park. From your research they are already all gone today, and seem to have vanished hundreds of years before the Europeans ever set foot on this continent. I for one think this is a promising development. A warmer and wetter world will be a much better place to live. I am glad that most of Ohio is still not covered with ice, because I doubt I would live here.

[Snipe]

And would anyone want to visit Glacier National Park if it was just one huge Ice Pack? Are the mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes and cliffs park of the spectacular beauty? If it was all ice, what fun is that. If that is what you want, go to Antarctica. You can go there and enjoy the beauty of a whole landscape covered with ice. And nothing lives there either. What fun that would be. Antarctica has actually been gaining ice for decades of global warming. Funny thing that is, that global warming.

[XU 87]

It's 67 in Cincinnati today. I'm concerned about seeing glaciers in Cincinnati in the next year or two if the weather doesn't warm up.

[waggy]

Gonna have to change the Cincy mascots to The Eskimos.

Unless that's racist.

[paulxu]

The increase in "sea ice" in Antarctic is more than offset by the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

The more pressing concern is the glacier melt down there, and the possibility of large sheets dropping off raising sea levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/18/stop-using-antarctic-sea-ice-to-claim-nothings-wrong-at-the-south-pole/

[X-man]

It's 67 in Cincinnati today. I'm concerned about seeing glaciers in Cincinnati in the next year or two if the weather doesn't warm up.

What part of Cincy do you live in, or are you simply loose with the data? According to AccuWeather, it was 80 when the storms hit today, and is 77 now. It has been above 70 since early this morning. Is AccuWeather part of the "climate change conspiracy"?

[Strange Brew]

are you simply loose with the data?

Nah, he doesn't work for NASA or NOAA.

[XU 87]

What part of Cincy do you live in, or are you simply loose with the data? According to AccuWeather, it was 80 when the storms hit today, and is 77 now. It has been above 70 since early this morning. Is AccuWeather part of the "climate change conspiracy"?

My bad. It's not 67. It's currently 64. Gotta go. I'm heading over to Macy's to buy some ear muffs.

https://www.google.com/#q=cincinnati+weather

I'm not looking forward to that low of 63 tomorrow morning. You wouldn't happen to know where I could get a good deal on an electric blanket?

P.S. I see it's warmed back up to 67. I don't think I'll need that electric blanket now.

[X-man]

My bad. It's not 67. It's currently 64. Gotta go. I'm heading over to Macy's to buy some ear muffs.

https://www.google.com/#q=cincinnati+weather

I'm not looking forward to that low of 63 tomorrow morning. You wouldn't happen to know where I could get a good deal on an electric blanket?

P.S. I see it's warmed back up to 67. I don't think I'll need that electric blanket now.

Answer my question. Is AccuWeather part of some climate change conspiracy, or are you simply consistently wrong in reporting the temperature in Cincinnati?

[X-man]

Nah, he doesn't work for NASA or NOAA.

Then why does he so consistently underreport the temperature in Cincinnati?

[GoMuskies]

It's 98 in Wichita. Please give me some of that global cooling.

[XU 87]

Answer my question. Is AccuWeather part of some climate change conspiracy, or are you simply consistently wrong in reporting the temperature in Cincinnati?

https://www.google.com/#q=cincinnati+weather

That big black "67" means it's currently 67 degrees in Cincinnati.

[X-man]

https://www.google.com/#q=cincinnati+weather

That big black "67" means it's currently 67 degrees in Cincinnati.

FYI, the actual high in Cincy has been above normal for half the days of June so far...just sayin'.

[X-band '01]

Answer my question. Is AccuWeather part of some climate change conspiracy, or are you simply consistently wrong in reporting the temperature in Cincinnati?

I could be wrong, but doesn't Accuweather only take into account weather readings at places like CVG or other smaller airports?


FYI, the actual high in Cincy has been above normal for half the days of June so far...just sayin'.

Mean temperatures for the month are just slightly above normal (and by that, I mean about 1 cooling degree day above normal per day). No biggie here, but it's noticeably warmer this month if you live in the Pacific Northwest.

[Strange Brew]

Mean temperatures for the month are just slightly above normal (and by that, I mean about 1 cooling degree day above normal per day). No biggie here, but it's noticeably warmer this month if you live in the Pacific Northwest.

We're all going to die in the next 100 years if we don't stop producing CO2 now!!!! :)

[XU 87]

It's 62 today in Cincinnati. Bundle up Cincinnatians.

[X-man]

It's 62 today in Cincinnati. Bundle up Cincinnatians.

Normal low is 64, and forecast high is 81. Get the AC cranked up, Cincinnati.

[Snipe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

Say it ain't so Spock!

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Vote for SCIENCE!

[XU 87]

Normal low is 64, and forecast high is 81. Get the AC cranked up, Cincinnati.

The average low is 65 and the average high is 85. Just more evidence that we are experiencing global cooling. I think I just saw an iceberg float down the Ohio River. Scary times.

It's -92 in Antarctica right now. Did global warming skip there too, just like it has skipped the Midwest and Northeast?

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole

[X-man]

The average low is 65 and the average high is 85. Just more evidence that we are experiencing global cooling. I think I just saw an iceberg float down the Ohio River. Scary times.

OMG...today Cincinnati is a couple of degrees below the averages. But of course the many recent days when the temperatures were above average offset this. I guess that's why we call the temperatures "averages". needless to say (as you know full well), all this has absolutely nothing to do with whether global temperatures are changing or not. With your XU education, I trust that you are competent enough to understand that.

[X-man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

Say it ain't so Spock!

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Vote for SCIENCE!

And given your love of science, please tell us all what the vast majority of climate scientists have to say on the subject?

[XU 87]

OMG...today Cincinnati is a couple of degrees below the averages. But of course the many recent days when the temperatures were above average offset this. I guess that's why we call the temperatures "averages". needless to say (as you know full well), all this has absolutely nothing to do with whether global temperatures are changing or not. With your XU education, I trust that you are competent enough to understand that.

It feels like -137 in Antarctica with the wind chill.

[muskiefan82]

Alaska is; however, presently on fire.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/30/alaska_wildfires_climate_change_is_helping_spark_b ig_fires_at_a_record_pace.html

[GoMuskies]

Today was the hottest day in the 138 year history of Wimbledon.

[Strange Brew]

Today was the hottest day in the 138 year history of Wimbledon.

By how much? You'd think it would have to be at least 10 degrees C above the temp 138 years ago due to all the added CO2. I wish we could all stop producing it....

[XU 87]

Today was the hottest day in the 138 year history of Wimbledon.

The cooling in the Midwest and Northeast is causing Britain to heat up a bit.

[GoMuskies]

I believe the old record was set in 1976.

[94GRAD]

Mini Ice-Age coming in the next 15 years?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

[xu82]

Mini Ice-Age coming in the next 15 years?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

The pictures make the story. A vision of our future.

[Masterofreality]

Mini Ice-Age coming in the next 15 years?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

Wait just one minute. How dare you publish anything that conflicts with the Imperial President's decree that "climate science is settled" and man made global warming is a fact? Don't you know that by 2035 Ohio will be another Sonoran Desert and Pennsylvania will have oceanfront property?

I won't stand for such heresy!

[GoMuskies]

Mini Ice-Age coming in the next 15 years?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

Everyone knows that the University of Northumbria is nicknamed "Harvard on the Tyne".

[X-man]

Wait just one minute. How dare you publish anything that conflicts with the Imperial President's decree that "climate science is settled" and man made global warming is a fact? Don't you know that by 2035 Ohio will be another Sonoran Desert and Pennsylvania will have oceanfront property?

I won't stand for such heresy!
MOR, you of all people shouldn't confuse a cycle with a trend! That is all you have been spewing on this thread, and now you are claiming a cycle is a trend? Oh, the hypocrisy!

[Xville]

i guess we don't have to worry about this anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=X

I'm glad to see you that you're finally coming around to our way of thinking.

[DC Muskie]

Wait just one minute. How dare you publish anything that conflicts with the Imperial President's decree that "climate science is settled" and man made global warming is a fact? Don't you know that by 2035 Ohio will be another Sonoran Desert and Pennsylvania will have oceanfront property?

I won't stand for such heresy!

You mean the Holy Father?

Interesting.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Did you even read it? The article is talking about the radiation that the sun emits. Please post something, actually anything, that says humanity has an affect on how much solar radiation the sun emits.


Mini Ice-Age coming in the next 15 years?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

[X-band '01]

Could this be an explanation for the "Ice Age cycle" in the 1970s?

In time, we'll also get better at predicting hurricane and tornado outbreak cycles as more data accumulates over time.

[94GRAD]

Did you even read it? The article is talking about the radiation that the sun emits. Please post something, actually anything, that says humanity has an affect on how much solar radiation the sun emits.

Didn't read it at all. Just love stoking the fire on this thread!

[X-man]

[QUOTE=X

I'm glad to see you that you're finally coming around to our way of thinking.

Are you also guilty (along with MOR) of confusing a cycle with a trend? The phenomenon described in the linked article, if true, is manifestly a cycle. It has absolutely nothing to do with the trend in global temperature change (if it is happening), nor is it in any way related to what effect, if any, increased atmospheric GHG levels (which are happening) may have on global temperatures. Stop confusing the discussion with your sophomoric and hypocritical "contributions" to the conversation...please.

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=XU 87;509392]

Are you also guilty (along with MOR) of confusing a cycle with a trend? The phenomenon described in the linked article, if true, is manifestly a cycle. It has absolutely nothing to do with the trend in global temperature change (if it is happening), nor is it in any way related to what effect, if any, increased atmospheric GHG levels (which are happening) has on global temperatures. Stop confusing the discussion with your sophomoric and hypocritical "contributions" to the conversation...please.

1) Read your own words about cycles and trends. I respect a person (you) who admits when he is wrong.

2) I am concerned though that the global cooling in the midwest and northeast are more of a trend than a cycle.

[XU 87]

Did you even read it? The article is talking about the radiation that the sun emits. Please post something, actually anything, that says humanity has an affect on how much solar radiation the sun emits.

My guess is that given enough time, you lefties will find some evidence that humans are causing this and will demand we immediately stop all activities which cause this increased radiation.

[Strange Brew]

[QUOTE=XU 87;509392]

Are you also guilty (along with MOR) of confusing a cycle with a trend? The phenomenon described in the linked article, if true, is manifestly a cycle. It has absolutely nothing to do with the trend in global temperature change (if it is happening), nor is it in any way related to what effect, if any, increased atmospheric GHG levels (which are happening) may have on global temperatures. Stop confusing the discussion with your sophomoric and hypocritical "contributions" to the conversation...please.

How long does something have to occur to be considered a trend? Because right now CO2 is increasing and temps are trending flat. Combine this with the coming solar cycle and climatologists/leftists will have to switch back to threatening global cooling will kill us all unless we pay more taxes. To quote Ellen Griswold's mother, "I hope you children can see what an incredible waste of resources this was".

[X-man]

[QUOTE=X-man;509411]

1) Read your own words about cycles and trends. I respect a person (you) who admits when he is wrong.

2) I am concerned though that the global cooling in the midwest and northeast are more of a trend than a cycle.

Read my words, and you will discover the following. (1) I do not claim to know if the current pattern of global temperature changes is a cycle or a trend, (2) my position on policy is based upon the cost of being wrong (either way), and therefore I view carbon policy like a would an insurance policy, and (3) I don't continue to make fatuous and counterproductive claims (like you do all the time) that global temperatures can be measured by sticking a thermometer out your window. Grow up.

And frankly, I hope that I am wrong about this.

[X-man]

[QUOTE=X-man;509411]

How long does something have to occur to be considered a trend? Because right now CO2 is increasing and temps are trending flat. Combine this with the coming solar cycle and climatologists/leftists will have to switch back to threatening global cooling will kill us all unless we pay more taxes. To quote Ellen Griswold's mother, "I hope you children can see what an incredible waste of resources this was".
WTF?

[muskiefan82]

My guess is that given enough time, you lefties will find some evidence that humans are causing this and will demand we immediately stop all activities which cause this increased radiation.

Clearly, the sun used to shine brighter and hotter when there were more of us outside sunbathing. The increase in knowledge and awareness of cancer caused by sunbathing has decreased the amount of people outside basking in the suns glory which has made the sun sad and cold inside.

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=XU 87;509413]

Read my words, and you will discover the following. (1) I do not claim to know if the current pattern of global temperature changes is a cycle or a trend, (2) my position on policy is based upon the cost of being wrong (either way), and therefore I view carbon policy like a would an insurance policy, and (3) I don't continue to make fatuous and counterproductive claims (like you do all the time) that global temperatures can be measured by sticking a thermometer out your window. Grow up.

And frankly, I hope that I am wrong about this.

He must be an angry elf.

[X-man]

[QUOTE=X-man;509423]

He must be an angry elf.

Now there is a great response. Keep those trenchant and insightful comments coming!

[MuskieCinci]

i guess we don't have to worry about this anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I don't want to go too far into this 'debate' where seemingly every post is regarded by every other poster as an attack on their political position, how they spend their money, or the current temperature outside of their home, so I just thought I would link this article about the 'mini ice age'.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

For those that aren't interested in the entire article, according to Zharkova (the person whose research all of this is based off of), the sun's magnetic fields should change in the semi-near future. With this she expects a drop in temperature. The concluding paragraph has this to say:


However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

So basically pick and choose anything about this story you want to support your specific agenda.

[Masterofreality]

I don't want to go too far into this 'debate' where seemingly every post is regarded by every other poster as an attack on their political position, how they spend their money, or the current temperature outside of their home, so I just thought I would link this article about the 'mini ice age'.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

For those that aren't interested in the entire article, according to Zharkova (the person whose research all of this is based off of), the sun's magnetic fields should change in the semi-near future. With this she expects a drop in temperature. The concluding paragraph has this to say:


However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

So basically pick and choose anything about this story you want to support your specific agenda.

But see, isn't this the point? There are so many variables and so much natural phenomena that makes up the "climate" of this planet that it is absolutely an irresponsible and arrogant position to say that Man has the major responsible position in any "change" of climate.

The science isn't settled and the models are flawed.

[Strange Brew]

[QUOTE=Strange Brew;509416]
WTF?

Temps have been flat for nearly 20 years despite increased CO2. Is 20 years a trend?

Reality is discrediting computer models predicting calamity so I will assume the debate will switch once again to scare people into paying more taxes/more for energy. Remember, the fear mongering has gone from the population bomb to global cooling to briefly global warming to deforestation and the ozone layer back to global warming to climate change to climate disruption. I'm just guessing the next great environmental fear requiring tax dollar indulgences will be the one derived from the current conditions of the time ridiculously extrapolated to predict catastrophic events that will inevitably occur at a point in the future long after any of us are alive to remember or care about the predictions.

[PM Thor]

Do you guys think humans affect the climate, yes or no.

[X-man]

But see, isn't this the point? There are so many variables and so much natural phenomena that makes up the "climate" of this planet that it is absolutely an irresponsible and arrogant position to say that Man has the major responsible position in any "change" of climate.

The science isn't settled and the models are flawed.

Uh, who says that? Here I thought all we are saying is (i) atmospheric GHG levels appear linked to global temperature levels, and (ii) human activity that burns carbon likely has an impact on GHG levels. End of story.

[XU-PA]

I don't want to go too far into this 'debate' where seemingly every post is regarded by every other poster as an attack on their political position, how they spend their money, or the current temperature outside of their home, so I just thought I would link this article about the 'mini ice age'.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

For those that aren't interested in the entire article, according to Zharkova (the person whose research all of this is based off of), the sun's magnetic fields should change in the semi-near future. With this she expects a drop in temperature. The concluding paragraph has this to say:
.

always important to look further at tany "study". This one has been completely cast aside by the scientific community, though it had it's several day run. Always beware of exactly what kind of scientist put together a study you are looking at. Zharkova is a mathematician who admitted ""she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/14/cnn-advances-debunked-claim-that-changes-in-sun/204412

[X-man]

always important to look further at tany "study". This one has been completely cast aside by the scientific community, though it had it's several day run. Always beware of exactly what kind of scientist put together a study you are looking at. Zharkova is a mathematician who admitted ""she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/14/cnn-advances-debunked-claim-that-changes-in-sun/204412
You must realize that people like MOR, XU 87, and Strange Brew, don't give a damn about what the scientific community has to say on this. They already "know" that climate warming isn't happening because Cleveland and Cincinnati are both cooler than normal...at least some of the time.

[XU 87]

You must realize that people like X-Man don't give a damn about what the scientific community has to say on this if their data doesn't confirm X-Man's global warming beliefs. X-Man already "knows" that climate warming is happening because some places on earth are warmer than usual....at least some of the time. In addition, people like X-Man don't care when scientists purposely falsify their data to support their global warming claims. People like X-Man were the same people worrying about global cooling in the 70's and the second coming of the ice age.

I fixed that for you for more accuracy.

[Strange Brew]

You must realize that people like MOR, XU 87, and Strange Brew, don't give a damn about what the scientific community has to say on this. They already "know" that climate warming isn't happening because Cleveland and Cincinnati are both cooler than normal...at least some of the time.

The data says no warming for nearly 20 years Despite the rise in CO2.

Predictions of an increased number and intensities of hurricanes have turned out to be false.

The predictions of ice free polar caps have not happened.

And on, and on, and on. When these scientists get something right I'll consider altering the entire energy grid. Until then, I'm for providing cheap, reliable energy like nuclear, natural gas and yes, coal with scrubbers, so that poor people can afford to heat and cool their homes and drive to work.

[XU 87]

The data says no warming for nearly 20 years Despite the rise in CO2.

Predictions of an increased number and intensities of hurricanes have turned out to be false.

The predictions of ice free polar caps have not happened.

And on, and on, and on. When these scientists get something right I'll consider altering the entire energy grid. Until then, I'm for providing cheap, reliable energy like nuclear, natural gas and yes, coal with scrubbers, so that poor people can afford to heat and cool their homes and drive to work.

Yea, what he said!

[muskiefan82]

So, the weather is changing. In some places, on some days, it is colder. sometimes it is warmer. Some days are the same as they were last year, the year before, and every year for the last 20. I would be silly to think that the earth is not changing over time and that we, as an industrialized planet full of pollutants, aren't contributing to change across the globe, but to me it isn't warming or cooling, it's just changing. That means its colder for some and warmer for others on any given day. The earth would be changing whether we were here or not. It just might change differently or at a different pace.

[X-man]

I fixed that for you for more accuracy.

Pray tell, what is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on the climate issue? And give me your source. Here is a link that might enlighten you as to where the scientific community stands on this issue...http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

[X-man]

The data says no warming for nearly 20 years Despite the rise in CO2.

Predictions of an increased number and intensities of hurricanes have turned out to be false.

The predictions of ice free polar caps have not happened.

And on, and on, and on. When these scientists get something right I'll consider altering the entire energy grid. Until then, I'm for providing cheap, reliable energy like nuclear, natural gas and yes, coal with scrubbers, so that poor people can afford to heat and cool their homes and drive to work.

I rest my case.

[XU 87]

Since you asked, we'll start with this article. And don't get mad and call me names after you read it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

Or this one may help:

http://www.qando.net/?p=6080

OR this one:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/UN_AGWscam.htm

Or this one:

http://legalanalytics.com.ua/en/zakonodavstvo0/mizhnarodnidogovory0/58-kyoto.html


I don't expect you to agree with these articles, but I would hope these would tell you that I'm not the only person in the world who feels this way. And remember, no name calling when you disagree.

X-Man- You asked me the same question last year.

And I advise you of our previous agreement from last year - no calling me names or telling me to "grow up" just because you don't agree with me.

[XU 87]

I didn't want to get into Obama being a slave to his base. That is really a different subject.

I actually never said he was a "slave to his base." What I said was that he has an agenda when it comes to global warming. His base likes it and it plays well to his base. And while he is talking about global warming, he doesn't have to answer questions about Obamacare. That's his agenda.

I linked you to the Kyoto treaty- did you see the part where China and India don't have any requirements? Did you read the links about how global warming is really just about income redistribution? A guy from the IPCC made that comment. But here's another article for you to read, which discusses America's role v. other countries like China and India:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-global-warming-folly/2013/07/04/a51c4ed0-e3fc-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

I also didn't say the scientists are shills (some are just dishonest- see below). But again, I said they have an agenda. One of their agendas is to get more government funding for their "research".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professor-slams-global-warming-science-calls-manns-hockey-stick-a-very-very-nasty-fabrication/




I also said Al Gore has made millions off his global warming crusade.

http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit

Here's an interesting article:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6783/global-warming-fear-is-about-money-not-science/

How about answering one question for me- how do you feel about scientists who manipulate their data so it supports their theories?


Here are some more articles for you. You apparently didn't read them when I posted them last year.

[X-man]

X-Man- You asked me the same question last year.

And I advise you of our previous agreement from last year - no calling me names or telling me to "grow up" just because you don't agree with me.

None of your cited articles has anything to say about climate change itself, and particularly about where the scientific community stands with respect to this issue. I have no doubt that carbon reduction policies have costs and therefore potential income redistribution implications. Of course there are also income distribution implications from doing nothing as well. Come to think of it, every time a price changes there are income distribution implications. But that misses the point of my basic question...what does the scientific community have to say on this subject. Again, give me a source that suggests that there is no consensus. So far, you have produced nothing.

[XU 87]

None of your cited articles has anything to say about climate change itself, and particularly about where the scientific community stands with respect to this issue. I have no doubt that carbon reduction policies have costs and therefore potential income redistribution implications. Of course there are also income distribution implications from doing nothing as well. Come to think of it, every time a price changes there are income distribution implications. But that misses the point of my basic question...what does the scientific community have to say on this subject. Again, give me a source that suggests that there is no consensus. So far, you have produced nothing.

I have produced plenty, but you don't (won't) agree with it. I am at work right now, but tonight I shall post additional articles about this global warming hoax.

[X-man]

Here are some more articles for you. You apparently didn't read them when I posted them last year.

I did, but they also have nothing to do with the basic question...where does the scientific community stand on this issue. And of course I would place no credibility on work where scientists deliberately modified results they new to be false or adopted suspect methodologies to get grant money. But nothing in your links actually suggests that this is happening (for example, all your "godfather" link really says that of course scientists are like everyone else and need money; that doesn't imply that they falsify their work). Again...where does the scientific community stand on this issue?

[X-man]

I have produced plenty, but you don't (won't) agree with it. I am at work right now, but tonight I shall post additional articles about this global warming hoax.

Where are they? Articles on income redistribution, articles by the handful of climate skeptics, or articles that suggest that scientists are motivated by funding are not evidence that bears on this basic question.

[XU 87]

Here are 1350 of them.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

I knew I had researched this once before. You need to read my posts instead of yelling "Grow up 87!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at your computer screen.

[X-band '01]

It's a good thing LH hasn't dipped into this thread.

[Strange Brew]

I rest my case.

On what? Are you saying the predictions and models that have been presented are accurate? Jeez, if I had a financial advisor that was as bad as these scientist at forecasting I'd be broke. The hypothesis has been proven inaccurate by the data. When this happens a scientist would adjust theory or drop it all together. Unless what we're discussing here isn't science.

[X-man]

I knew I had researched this once before. You need to read my posts instead of yelling "Grow up 87!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at your computer screen.

That Forbes article in particular is very strange. They describe the findings of a survey done of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (Canada), and represent these finding as illustrative of where the scientific community stands on the climate change issue. Talk about misrepresenting results!

[XU 87]

That Forbes article in particular is very strange. They describe the findings of a survey done of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (Canada), and represent these finding as illustrative of where the scientific community stands on the climate change issue. Talk about misrepresenting results!

The Forbes article says that based on the "Peer Review Study", your views are only accepted by a minority of scientists. As such, I didn't expect you to agree with the article.

But you kept challenging me to find articles from the scientific community that say "global warming is not real", as though such articles don't exist. You're wrong again.

[X-man]

The Forbes article says that based on the "Peer Review Study", your views are only accepted by a minority of scientists. As such, I didn't expect you to agree with the article.

But you kept challenging to find articles from the scientific community that say "global warming is not real", as though such articles don't exist. You're wrong again.

Tell me how a survey of geologists, engineers, and geophysicists in any way is representative of the global scientific community. Take a look at the referenced article in the Forbes citation, and you will discover exactly what I am talking about.

[XU 87]

It's -55 in Antarctica today.

[ChicagoX]

I knew I had researched this once before. You need to read my posts instead of yelling "Grow up 87!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at your computer screen.

You do enjoy citing the 1,350 cherry-picked reports. Here are some even bigger numbers:

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.

Source: http://theconsensusproject.com/index.php

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The sad thing is this surely isn't the dumbest thing I will read today since my office plays a fox channel in the lobby.


My guess is that given enough time, you lefties will find some evidence that humans are causing this and will demand we immediately stop all activities which cause this increased radiation.

[XU 87]

You do enjoy citing the 1,350 cherry-picked reports. Here are some even bigger numbers:

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.

Source: http://theconsensusproject.com/index.php

According to Forbes and the "peer review article" cited, more scientists agree with me than you.

Is it still cold in Chicago? I was there last month and people were wearing winter coats to the Reds/Cubs games. Global cooling has fallen on Chicago, just like Cincinnati and Cleveland (and the rest of the Midwest and Northeast.)

[ChicagoX]

According to Forbes and the "peer review article" cited, more scientists agree with me than you.

Is it still cold in Chicago? I was there last month and people were wearing winter coats to the Reds/Cubs games. Global cooling has fallen on Chicago, just like Cincinnati and Cleveland (and the rest of the Midwest and Northeast.)

Yep, still cool in Chicago and throughout the Midwest and Northeast, which makes us fairly unique compared to the rest of the world: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501-201505.gif

[XU 87]

Yep, still cool in Chicago and throughout the Midwest and Northeast, which makes us fairly unique compared to the rest of the world: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501-201505.gif

I hope you're not a global cooling denier.

[Kahns Krazy]

It's going to be hot this weekend. I have done some back of the envelope calculations and it's like 80 degrees hotter than it was six months ago. At that rate, earth will be hotter than the sun in less than 22,000 years.

Zoinks.

[Strange Brew]

You do enjoy citing the 1,350 cherry-picked reports. Here are some even bigger numbers:

The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.

Source: http://theconsensusproject.com/index.php

Ha, you do realize the findings of that report should actually read, "~33% of scientist agree that humans are responsible for global warming (which has stalled for nearly two decades) and 97% either agree or have no opinion". The 97% consensus as presented by that report is bunk and would get you laughed out of a statistics or market research class.

[X-man]

According to Forbes and the "peer review article" cited, more scientists agree with me than you.

Is it still cold in Chicago? I was there last month and people were wearing winter coats to the Reds/Cubs games. Global cooling has fallen on Chicago, just like Cincinnati and Cleveland (and the rest of the Midwest and Northeast.)

Ha, you do realize that those "scientists" you are referencing are engineers, geologists, and geophysicists that belong to an Alberta, Canada trade group associated with the petroleum industry and therefore hardly a representative group. But according to your logic and that cited in several of your "sources", of course they agree with you because all scientists are sellouts to where their money comes from.

[XU 87]

Just one more example of the global cooling we're experiencing.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/16/how-much-has-rained-more-than-144-years/30233675/

[ChicagoX]

I hope you're not a global cooling denier.

Tried to rep you for this one but the man wouldn't let me.

[bjf123]

Do you guys think humans affect the climate, yes or no.

To some extent? Probably. To the extent the alarmists are saying? Doubtful. In the last 2000 years, the planet has been much warmer and much cooler. When the population was a fraction of what it is today, I doubt man had much impact on those changes.

What's the main function of all the scientists doing this research? Hint, it ain't science. It's all about raising funds for the research, and nothing gets funds faster than a predicted global catastrophe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94GRAD]

We're Fucked.- Best first sentence in any article ever!!!

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/07/james-hansen-sea-levels-rising?utm_campaign=complexmag+socialflow+07+2015&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[GoMuskies]

How do you know a news story is real, credible, hard-hitting journalism? It starts like this: "We're fucked. The entire planet is fucked...in about 50 years"

Thankfully, my outside expiration date is about 50 years.

[xu82]

This is awesome news! No way in hell I make it another 50 years. Ya me! I was afraid they were thinking in a few weeks or months, in which case I'd be pissed.

[X-band '01]

How do you know a news story is clickbait? It starts like this: "We're fucked. The entire planet is fucked...in about 50 years"



Fixed that for you.

[bjf123]

Someone sent this to me.

http://patriotnewswire.com/2015/07/whats-happened-to-polar-ice-will-amaze-you/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94GRAD]

A link to nowhere?

[bjf123]

I copied and pasted the link again. It's working for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xu82]

It worked for me. I read a bit, then got distracted by the young lady on the right who cures erectile dysfunction. I bet that's very effective.

[XU 87]

Buffalo is definitely seeing global cooling.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/snow-piles-from-record-breaking-buffalo-storm-still-melting/ar-AAdCQYx?ocid=HPCDHP

[Masterofreality]

Our Imperial President is wrong again, and again......and again....

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22372

But just keep trying to assess those carbon penalties, there, Mr. B.O.

[mohr5150]

I found this from NASA. I'm sure there are some of you who discredit this organization, though.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[SemajParlor]

i found this from nasa. I'm sure there are some of you who discredit this organization, though.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

liberal bias!

[ChicagoX]

The Great Lakes and Northeast regions of North America and the North Atlantic have continued to be anomalies compared to the rest of land on Earth. Here are land and ocean temperature percentiles for the first half of 2015: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501-201506.gif

After seeing multiple observations on temperature departures from the norm, I have come to the conclusion that the Earth must be a registered Democrat, because all of these maps clearly show liberal bias. If only the Earth would start getting its daily news from FOX News and listen to politicians without an inkling of scientific background, we clearly wouldn't see the above normal temperatures throughout the majority of the land masses around the entire planet.

[Smails]

After seeing multiple observations on temperature departures from the norm, I have come to the conclusion that the Earth must be a registered Democrat, because all of these maps clearly show liberal bias. If only the Earth would start getting its daily news from FOX News and listen to politicians without an inkling of scientific background, we clearly wouldn't see the above normal temperatures throughout the majority of the land masses around the entire planet.

Bleeep!...foul on ChicagoX

We all know that only XU 87 posts snarky, smart-assed retorts on this thread! These types of things cannot be tolerated from the 'right' side of this debate as that side only reports findings based in 100% scientific fact! How dare you ChicagoX?

Two shots...87

[Masterofreality]

Buffalo is definitely seeing global cooling.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/snow-piles-from-record-breaking-buffalo-storm-still-melting/ar-AAdCQYx?ocid=HPCDHP


Our Imperial President is wrong again, and again......and again....

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22372

But just keep trying to assess those carbon penalties, there, Mr. B.O.


I found this from NASA. I'm sure there are some of you who discredit this organization, though.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Dueling articles...

But according to the Imperial President, the "debate is over!"

Uh, yeah......

[ChicagoX]

Looks like the Earth is going all liberal on us again with this global warming BS:


NOAA: Hottest July on record confirmed, warmest year possible (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-climate-analysis/index.html)

The Earth needs to get the memo that it needs to stop demonstrating this type of blatant liberal bias with these record-breaking temperatures. I bet the Earth reads The Huff Post to get its news every day and that's why it keeps increasing its temps...just to piss off conservatives who disagree with it.

[X-band '01]

Washington Post: Global Warming Worsened the California Drought, Scientists Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/20/scientists-say-global-warming-has-made-californias-drought-25-percent-worse/)

They cite a study from Columbia University's Earth Institute; the study claims that global warming is responsible for up to 25 percent of the increase of California's dry conditions.

With an intense El Nino expected over the coming months, it remains to be seen how much of a dent is expected to be made in California's drought. It is also worth noting that Texas has almost completed its comeback from one of their more exceptional droughts a few years ago.

[Strange Brew]

Looks like the Earth is going all liberal on us again with this global warming BS:


NOAA: Hottest July on record confirmed, warmest year possible (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-climate-analysis/index.html)

The Earth needs to get the memo that it needs to stop demonstrating this type of blatant liberal bias with these record-breaking temperatures. I bet the Earth reads The Huff Post to get its news every day and that's why it keeps increasing its temps...just to piss off conservatives who disagree with it.

OMG! That's terrible! Let's only hope the EPA doesn't try to fix it

[XU 87]

Similar to other past occasions, they were probably using faulty data:


http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffle_1397.html

[ChicagoX]

Similar to other past occasions, they were probably using faulty data:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffle_1397.html

The author this article is Patrick J. Michaels. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.

I'm guessing there was absolutely no bias or agenda whatsoever in this article. The Earth, on the other hand, is a left-wing libtard inflating its temperatures and causing catastrophic climate events simply for political gain. The Earth is clearly a socialist.

[XU 87]

The author this article is Patrick J. Michaels. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.

I'm guessing there was absolutely no bias or agenda whatsoever in this article. The Earth, on the other hand, is a left-wing libtard inflating its temperatures and causing catastrophic climate events simply for political gain. The Earth is clearly a socialist.

Instead of attacking the messenger, please attack his message, if possible. Is what he wrote incorrect? Did they use inaccurate temperature readings for their data? And after learning of this, did they refuse to correct their error?

[X-man]

Similar to other past occasions, they were probably using faulty data:


http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffle_1397.html

I had no idea that global temperature measurements were based solely on the temperatures in DC. What an illuminating article!

[ChicagoX]

Instead of attacking the messenger, please attack his message, if possible. Is what he wrote incorrect? Did they use inaccurate temperature readings for their data? And after learning of this, did they refuse to correct their error?

The entire article proves absolutely nothing at all of any significance. The writer is pissed because temperatures for DC are recorded by the National Weather Service at Washington National Airport (which is actually in DC), and those temperatures are slightly higher than they are at Dulles Airport due to the fact that DC is a warmer location than it is 19 miles outside of the city. That would be like me getting pissed that Chicago's temps are recorded at O'Hare, because if they recorded them slightly further south at Midway Airport, that would prove temperatures are higher than normal since Midway typically comes in as slightly warmer average high temps than ORD.

The article is a huge turd sandwich that is pure manufactured outrage over absolutely nothing.

[Strange Brew]

I had no idea that global temperature measurements were based solely on the temperatures in DC. What an illuminating article!

Reread the last three paragraphs. The issue at Reagan is a symptom of a larger illness of data manipulation at NOAA.

[Strange Brew]

a huge turd sandwich that is pure manufactured outrage over absolutely nothing.

You just summed up the entire sorry climate change argument here in one sentence.

[X-man]

Reread the last three paragraphs. The issue at Reagan is a symptom of a larger illness of data manipulation at NOAA.

I did read the whole article. The only evidence presented is the Reagan story. The evidence is overwhelming that the climate is warmer. The real question is whether that is a cycle or trend. This story sheds no light on the real issue. It is just another red herring for those unwilling to see what is going no around them.

[Strange Brew]

I did read the whole article. The only evidence presented is the Reagan story. The evidence is overwhelming that the climate is warmer. The real question is whether that is a cycle or trend. This story sheds no light on the real issue. It is just another red herring for those unwilling to see what is going no around them.

Did NOAA edit the temperature record as stated in the last 3 paragraphs of the story? Yes or no?

[X-man]

Did NOAA edit the temperature record as stated in the last 3 paragraphs of the story? Yes or no?

I know what the author claims. I don't see anything to back up his claim. And given your assertion that people make shit up all the time, why are you taking this skeptic's statement about NOAA's action at face value? Please enlighten me.

[X-band '01]

Washington Post: Global Warming Worsened the California Drought, Scientists Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/20/scientists-say-global-warming-has-made-californias-drought-25-percent-worse/)

They cite a study from Columbia University's Earth Institute; the study claims that global warming is responsible for up to 25 percent of the increase of California's dry conditions.

With an intense El Nino expected over the coming months, it remains to be seen how much of a dent is expected to be made in California's drought. It is also worth noting that Texas has almost completed its comeback from one of their more exceptional droughts a few years ago.

Here's a local follow-up article:

Cincinnati Enquirer - Why were we cool as world had hottest month ever? (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2015/08/21/july--hottest-month-ever-not--ohio/32106009/)

One of the reasons cited for a cooler July in Ohio was a very wet June. There was ground moisture that helped alleviate some of the typical summer heat; this is something that has helped exacerbate some of the heat in the western US, for example. I'd be really interested to know if it was a drier month globally or not.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

For the life of me I cannot understand why people can't accept that climate change is happening. Literally the lion's share of climate scientists study it and confirm it, really only those that world for conservative think tanks deny it. Only morons think it's alright to keep polluting our world for short term profits at the expense of the long term livability of our world.

I guess I cannot understand why the lay person can't get by the fact that climate change was incorrectly labeled as global warming and go nuts when their outside temps are cold. This is not the first global problem misnamed at it's first discovery and won't be the last.


Here's a local follow-up article:

Cincinnati Enquirer - Why were we cool as world had hottest month ever? (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2015/08/21/july--hottest-month-ever-not--ohio/32106009/)

One of the reasons cited for a cooler July in Ohio was a very wet June. There was ground moisture that helped alleviate some of the typical summer heat; this is something that has helped exacerbate some of the heat in the western US, for example. I'd be really interested to know if it was a drier month globally or not.

[XU 87]

This is not the first global problem misnamed at it's first discovery and won't be the last.

I agree. When all those scientists declared "global cooling" and the "second coming of the ice age" in the 70's, they were wrong too.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I really wish we had two planets, I would head to the one with the rest of the people who don't crap on our world. You can live on the one with high carbon emissions, fracking, chemical dumping, and loads of plastic floating through it's oceans.


I agree. When all those scientists declared "global cooling" and the "second coming of the ice age" in the 70's, they were wrong too.

[vee4xu]

I haven't visited the site but a handful of times since February and one thing is for sure. This thread is still hot enough to melt glaciers and there's no science necessary to prove that.

Carry on climateers!!!

[mohr5150]

I found this from NASA. I'm sure there are some of you who discredit this organization, though.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I'll repost this site. Those damn liberals at NASA!!! Why in the hell would they use real world data?!?!

[Strange Brew]

I'll repost this site. Those damn liberals at NASA!!! Why in the hell would they use real world data?!?!

So Arctic ice is slightly lower than a 29 year average and Antarctic ice is slightly higher? Interesting to know, not sure what it proves.

Question, if the globe is warming at a dangerous rate how is it possible for 2012 to be the record low year for Arctic ice extent? I thought last year was the hottest on record? Seems there may be a few gaps in the logic at play here.

[X-man]

So Arctic ice is slightly lower than a 29 year average and Antarctic ice is slightly higher? Interesting to know, not sure what it proves.

Question, if the globe is warming at a dangerous rate how is it possible for 2012 to be the record low year for Arctic ice extent? I thought last year was the hottest on record? Seems there may be a few gaps in the logic at play here.

There is a lot of material out there on the web that deals precisely with your concerns. I suggest you take a look at some of it. Should you do that, you will discover that these "gaps in the logic" (as you call them) are in fact not gaps at all but rather completely consistent with the global warming hypothesis.

[XU 87]

Why isn't Antarctica sharing in this global warming? It's part of the globe. Similar to the Midwest and Northeast, maybe global warming is also skipping Antarctica.

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole

[muskiefan82]

Carry on climateers!!!

I think GWU should change their nickname to this. The George Washington Climateers. I like it.

[X-man]

Why isn't Antarctica sharing in this global warming? It's part of the globe. Similar to the Midwest and Northeast, maybe global warming is also skipping Antarctica.

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole

Why would you think that the global climate and the climate in one part of the globe have to be the same thing? Did anyone teach you the concept of "average" when you were in school? Using your approach, it is impossible for the batting average of a baseball team to increase if any of the individual players are experiencing a decrease in their batting average.

[XU 87]

Why would you think that the global climate and the climate in one part of the globe have to be the same thing? Did anyone teach you the concept of "average" when you were in school? Using your approach, it is impossible for the batting average of a baseball team to increase if any of the individual players are experiencing a decrease in their batting average.

If that's the case, maybe we should call "global warming" "global some parts are getting a little warmer, some parts are getting a little cooler, and some parts are staying the same".

[X-man]

If that's the case, maybe we should call "global warming" "global some parts are getting a little warmer, some parts are getting a little cooler, and some parts are staying the same".

So you would also say that a baseball team's batting average should not be called "increasing" if one player has a falling average? Would you call it "some averages are going up, some are going down, and some are the same"? How do you feel about statements on the Dow these days? I am pretty confident that whatever direction the Dow goes on any given day, there are some stocks within the Dow headed in the other direction. You are either deliberately being obtuse (not the first time) or you inhabit a very strange world where nothing "happens" unless it happens to everyone.

[XU 87]

You are either deliberately being obtuse

What did you call me?

30 days in solitary for you.

[Strange Brew]

There is a lot of material out there on the web that deals precisely with your concerns. I suggest you take a look at some of it. Should you do that, you will discover that these "gaps in the logic" (as you call them) are in fact not gaps at all but rather completely consistent with the global warming hypothesis.

Believe me, I've read it. Just not buying it and there really is no point in arguing with a true believer like yourself.

[X-man]

Believe me, I've read it. Just not buying it and there really is no point in arguing with a true believer like yourself. You remind me of those people who were stunned when Y2K fizzled.

Of course you, with all the wisdom of the ages, have a completely open mind on these issues. Only those who believe the overwhelming consensus of opinion in the scientific community that climate change is happening have closed minds on these things. You remind me of the people who were stunned when they found no WMD in Iraq.

[Strange Brew]

Of course you, with all the wisdom of the ages, have a completely open mind on these issues. Only those who believe the overwhelming consensus of opinion in the scientific community that climate change is happening have closed minds on these things. You remind me of the people who were stunned when they found no WMD in Iraq.

By the way, I tentatively supported the Iraq war (as I would with any war) but I did and still celebrate my close friends and family who served there.

Just so you know.

WMDs in Iraq from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0.

Yellow cake uranium was also found and removed as well but I'll let you research that one yourself.

All that knowledge dropped on you said, I do believe the intel on WMD was incorrect however that's easy to say having the advantage of hindsight.

Anything else you'd like to learn about today?

[X-man]

By the way, I tentatively supported the Iraq war (as I would with any war) but I did and still celebrate my close friends and family who served there.

Just so you know.

WMDs in Iraq from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0.

Yellow cake uranium was also found and removed as well but I'll let you research that one yourself.

All that knowledge dropped on you said, I do believe the intel on WMD was incorrect however that's easy to say having the advantage of hindsight.

Anything else you'd like to learn about today?

Because you are so "educated" on the topic of Iraq and the WMD, you no doubt also know that the Times' reporting (along with a lot of the rest of the press) was compromised by the reporters they were using who were effectively mouthpieces for the Iraq warmongers. In that Wolfowicz and Cheney orchestrated run-up to the war, I remember feeling as if we were living in a third world country with the press simply doing whatever the government wanted. But I guess that you are saying that you really were astounded that they found no WMD in Iraq. Most of the people I knew would have been shocked if they had found anything.

Anything else I can help you out with?

[Strange Brew]

Because you are so "educated" on the topic of Iraq and the WMD, you no doubt also know that the Times' reporting (along with a lot of the rest of the press) was compromised by the reporters they were using who were effectively mouthpieces for the Iraq warmongers. In that Wolfowicz and Cheney orchestrated run-up to the war, I remember feeling as if we were living in a third world country with the press simply doing whatever the government wanted. But I guess that you are saying that you really were astounded that they found no WMD in Iraq. Most of the people I knew would have been shocked if they had found anything.

Anything else I can help you out with?

I'm hoping you didn't actually read the Times article I linked to before you wrote this.

[X-man]

I'm hoping you didn't actually read the Times article I linked to before you wrote this.

I did and if you also read it, then you know that the article states quite clearly that the stuff found did not fit the rationale used to go into Iraq. For example, there is this from the article..."The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale." Anyone as wise and learned as yourself surely is capable of understanding what these words mean.

Any other reading comprehension tricks that I can help you with?

[Strange Brew]

I did and if you also read it, then you know that the article states quite clearly that the stuff found did not fit the rationale used to go into Iraq. For example, there is this from the article..."The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale." Anyone as wise and learned as yourself surely is capable of understanding what these words mean.

Any other reading comprehension tricks that I can help you with?

I'm not sure you're capable. At no point did I say nor insinuate that the presence of the WMDs mentioned in the article justified the invasion. In fact, I wrote that I believe, based on what we know now, the intel was faulty. I posted the article in response to your assertion that "they found no WMD in Iraq". Which the article proves to be inaccurate.

[X-man]

I'm not sure you're capable. At no point did I say nor insinuate that the presence of the WMDs mentioned in the article justified the invasion. In fact, I wrote that I believe, based on what we know now, the intel was faulty. I posted the article in response to your assertion that "they found no WMD in Iraq". Which the article proves to be inaccurate.

And here I thought you had an open mind. Clearly all you want to do is to justify the Iraq invasion, which was not justifiable for the reasons given by the Bush administration. You might recall that my throw away line was that you were no doubt one of those stunned by the fact that no WMD were found. That fact remains regardless of what your article states. Of course any "open minded" reader would agree. Sadly, you are not a member of such a group in spite of your lame attempts to represent yourself otherwise. If you were, you would not use the NYTimes article to justify your position.

[XU 87]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/29/flashback-abc-news-envisioned-apocalyptic-world-triggered-by-climate-change-video/#ixzz3kGG02y3L


Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and a bunch of other democrats voted to go to war in Iraq.

But let's get back to our discussion of global cooling in the Midwest and the effects it will have on our economy.

[xeus]

I just bought a house with a swimming pool, and I am closing it early this season due to global cooling.

[XU 87]

I hear you, Xeus. Due to global cooling, I'm watering my lawn for the first time all summer today.

Maybe you should come over to my house and we'll burn some fossil fuels to warm things up.

[muskienick]

This is one of the most exasperating threads ever on this site. It has all the earmarks of others that deal with Religion, what kind of ice cream tastes best, and others of that ilk.

Neither side of the issue will convince the other no matter how many facts there are available or how much faith one has in his take on the matter. So why the hell continue arguing the issue when the only actual effects are to get pissed off, call the other side names or otherwise disparage them, and drive a wedge between yourselves and others with whom you otherwise should be friends due to our mutual love of all things XAVIER.

For we who are Xavier grads, we are not doing a very good job of using the minds that the Jesuits taught us to develop. If futility, irritation, disgust, and disbelief that others can't see our unbelievably wonderful and logical stance on the issue (whichever side you're on) are the on-going results of this discourse, then we have lost our Jesuit focus. We should have walked away from this damn process over 1,000 posts ago.

Seemingly, I'm as guilty of that failure as the rest of you who are still plodding through this "road to nowhere"!

[Strange Brew]

And here I thought you had an open mind. Clearly all you want to do is to justify the Iraq invasion, which was not justifiable for the reasons given by the Bush administration. You might recall that my throw away line was that you were no doubt one of those stunned by the fact that no WMD were found. That fact remains regardless of what your article states. Of course any "open minded" reader would agree. Sadly, you are not a member of such a group in spite of your lame attempts to represent yourself otherwise. If you were, you would not use the NYTimes article to justify your position.

X-man, take a deep breath. At no point did I try to justify the invasion. In fact, I stated based on what we know now it was not the right decision. That said, the article states that chemical weapons, which are WMDs, were found in the region known as Iraq in a time after the war started. That is a FACT. Period. End of story. Can you agree with the following: There were some WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion however the amount and type found do not justify the invasion?

[X-man]

X-man, take a deep breath. At no point did I try to justify the invasion. In fact, I stated based on what we know now it was not the right decision. That said, the article states that chemical weapons, which are WMDs, were found in the region known as Iraq in a time after the war started. That is a FACT. Period. End of story. Can you agree with the following: There were some WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion however the amount and type found do not justify the invasion?
Strange Brew, take a deep breath. You may recall that my comment about you being shocked to find no WMD's in Iraq was a response to your comment that I was probably shocked that Y2K fizzled out. It really has nothing to do with our fundamental disagreement about climate change, although you claim to have an open mind but accuse me of not having one. That said, if you really focus hard on what my comment about WMD's and your surprise meant, I think you might be able to figure out that I was referring to the WMD rationale pushed by the nation-building Bush administration to justify its plan to Westernize Iraq. You have admitted that you believed that rationale, and so I am guessing that you were surprised that no such WMD's were found. And for the record, I was not one of those terrified by the Y2K issue. But that's neither here nor there. Climate change is the issue here, and you refuse to acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community might not be a left-wing conspiracy or just a money grab. Talk about a closed mind.

[Strange Brew]

Strange Brew, take a deep breath. You may recall that my comment about you being shocked to find no WMD's in Iraq was a response to your comment that I was probably shocked that Y2K fizzled out. It really has nothing to do with our fundamental disagreement about climate change, although you claim to have an open mind but accuse me of not having one. That said, if you really focus hard on what my comment about WMD's and your surprise meant, I think you might be able to figure out that I was referring to the WMD rationale pushed by the nation-building Bush administration to justify its plan to Westernize Iraq. You have admitted that you believed that rationale, and so I am guessing that you were surprised that no such WMD's were found. And for the record, I was not one of those terrified by the Y2K issue. But that's neither here nor there. Climate change is the issue here, and you refuse to acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community might not be a left-wing conspiracy or just a money grab. Talk about a closed mind.

X-man, as the article states WMDs were found in Iraq. Your denial doesn't change that fact. I really don't care that you think I have a closed mind and I'm going to bow out of this thread for a while. I look forward to discussing Xavier basketball with you in the future.

[xeus]

It has all the earmarks of others that deal with ... what kind of ice cream tastes best

Well, what IS your favorite?? And don't give me some liberal flavor that's supposed to save the planet, like "Vegetarian Fruitcake".

[bobbiemcgee]

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d21/unsecured/media/1033249144001/1033249144001_2016616738001_900944612-131-1354822726495.jpg?pubId=1033249144001

I like vanilla with mine.

[muskienick]

Well, what IS your favorite?? And don't give me some liberal flavor that's supposed to save the planet, like "Vegetarian Fruitcake".

F*#k you Zeus! I like chocolate best. What is your freaking point?!

And here I proved my post (what was it - #1,162?) correct. You have reduced it to the most banal level possible. And that's where we all belong --- at the point of banality!!!

[xu82]

Chocolate.

But my real weakness is Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia frozen yogurt. I am helpless against it's powers.

[xeus]

Maybe you should come over to my house and we'll burn some fossil fuels to warm things up.

That makes me slightly uncomfortable.

[XU 87]

That makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Upon further review, that does read a little odd. So there's no confusion, please stay away from my house.

[bjf123]

This is one of the most exasperating threads ever on this site. It has all the earmarks of others that deal with Religion, what kind of ice cream tastes best, ....

All religions are f'd up, and Graeter's strawberry chip. You're welcome! 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kahns Krazy]

This is one of the most exasperating threads ever on this site. It has all the earmarks of others that deal with Religion, what kind of ice cream tastes best, and others of that ilk. ...

-1 for the use of "ilk".


Well, what IS your favorite?? And don't give me some liberal flavor that's supposed to save the planet, like "Vegetarian Fruitcake".

I'm a classic Graeters chocolate chip if I have to name a favorite, but there are plenty of other flavors I don't want to live without. Black Raspberry Chip, Haagan Dazs Chocolate Peanut Butter, Ben and Jerry's Karamel Sutra. I could go on but I'm getting hungry.


That makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Upon further review, that does read a little odd. So there's no confusion, please stay away from my house.

It was just slightly. Talk about overreacting.

[MuskieCinci]

http://i.imgur.com/8ssm4IL.jpg

[Milhouse]

Woah get that smart satire out of here. NOT THE PLACE

[ArizonaXUGrad]

To call them WMDs, is akin to calling the sour cream my girlfriend leaves in my fridge after taco night for the next taco night. Yes it was sour cream, yes it is long past it's expiration date and can no longer be considered usable sour cream.

That is a fact, end of story!


X-man, take a deep breath. At no point did I try to justify the invasion. In fact, I stated based on what we know now it was not the right decision. That said, the article states that chemical weapons, which are WMDs, were found in the region known as Iraq in a time after the war started. That is a FACT. Period. End of story. Can you agree with the following: There were some WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion however the amount and type found do not justify the invasion?

[bobbiemcgee]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/see-glaciers-melt-before-your-eyes/vi-AAdPz45?ocid=U219DHP

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't know what Xeus and 87 are burning, but it's freaking hot out there.

[xeus]

I don't know what Xeus and 87 are burning, but it's freaking hot out there.


87 scored some pretty good "fossil fuels" at the Issue 3 rally today. I have a great picture of him hugging Buddie.

[XU 87]

I'm really hungry.

[xu82]

I'm really hungry.

Does Graeters deliver? They really should deliver....

[principal]

Because you are so "educated" on the topic of Iraq and the WMD, you no doubt also know that the Times' reporting (along with a lot of the rest of the press) was compromised by the reporters they were using who were effectively mouthpieces for the Iraq warmongers. In that Wolfowicz and Cheney orchestrated run-up to the war, I remember feeling as if we were living in a third world country with the press simply doing whatever the government wanted. But I guess that you are saying that you really were astounded that they found no WMD in Iraq. Most of the people I knew would have been shocked if they had found anything.

Anything else I can help you out with?

I don't intend to take sides on either WMDs in Iraq (I did not support the war and would not have supported the war even if they had WMDs) nor man-caused global warming (I am skeptical, but lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to have a solid opinion), but I would like to point out a glaring inconsistency in your approach. On the one hand you recognize that the government will lie to us, as needed, to further their ends. You state:

"Because you are so "educated" on the topic of Iraq and the WMD, you no doubt also know that the Times' reporting (along with a lot of the rest of the press) was compromised by the reporters they were using who were effectively mouthpieces for the Iraq warmongers. In that Wolfowicz and Cheney orchestrated run-up to the war, I remember feeling as if we were living in a third world country with the press simply doing whatever the government wanted. But I guess that you are saying that you really were astounded that they found no WMD in Iraq. Most of the people I knew would have been shocked if they had found anything."

On the other hand, you believe everything the government tells you about global warming:

"Of course you, with all the wisdom of the ages, have a completely open mind on these issues. Only those who believe the overwhelming consensus of opinion in the scientific community that climate change is happening have closed minds on these things."

I trust you realize the government (and the ultra-rich, ultimately one-in-the-same) funds virtually all of the global warming research. Given your admission that the government lies to us when it fits their purpose, and assuming you are well aware of the control given to the government under the guise of saving the warming earth, that you would be equally skeptical, yet you are not. So two questions:

1. Why the willingness to believe the government in regards to global warming (but not on other issues) when they are proven liars?
2. Why the willingness to believe the WMD expose and not the global warming expose (East Anglia, for one)?

I think the answer is that people tend to regard the data that agrees with their opinion and disregard the data that disagrees with their opinion. I don't think most people are interested in the truth, they are interested, for whatever reason, in continuing to believe as they already do. I think that is why people will cite government studies when they support their opinion and will dismiss government studies when they do not support their opinions.

Principal

[chico]

Well, what IS your favorite?? And don't give me some liberal flavor that's supposed to save the planet, like "Vegetarian Fruitcake".

I can't actually believe people talk about their favorite ice cream flavors when frozen custard is so much better. Ice cream is so overrated.

[ChicagoX]

1. Why the willingness to believe the government in regards to global warming (but not on other issues) when they are proven liars?
2. Why the willingness to believe the WMD expose and not the global warming expose (East Anglia, for one)?


1.) Global warming/climate change has been researched by scientists internationally who have come to a near-consensus that human activity and usage of fossil fuels affects the Earth's climate.

2.) The case for WMDs in Iraq was carefully orchestrated by a single nation's government, and not internationally. The United Nations and Hans Blix did not support the argument made by the Bush administration that Iraq having WMDs was a slam-dunk, and much of the evidence (eg. yellowcake from Niger) was either fabricated or completely false. While we had allies such as Great Britain support us, the entire global community was not nearly as supportive as they are compared to scientists around the globe opining on climate change.

The difference between the two is that one is an international near-consensus by the scientific community based on mountains of research while the other was purely manufactured by one nation's military-industrial complex manipulating a country's fears following 9/11.

[chico]

1.) Global warming/climate change has been researched by scientists internationally who have come to a near-consensus that human activity and usage of fossil fuels affects the Earth's climate.

2.) The case for WMDs in Iraq was carefully orchestrated by a single nation's government, and not internationally. The United Nations and Hans Blix did not support the argument made by the Bush administration that Iraq having WMDs was a slam-dunk, and much of the evidence (eg. yellowcake from Niger) was either fabricated or completely false. While we had allies such as the Great Britain support us, the entire global community was not nearly as supportive as they are compared to scientists around the globe opining on climate change.

The difference between the two is that one is an international near-consensus by the scientific community based on mountains of research while the other was purely manufactured by one nation's military-industrial complex manipulating a country's fears following 9/11.

I'm not going anywhere near any of these "discussions" but it always seemed odd to me that when faced with the choice of certain death and destruction, and simply letting some inspectors in to check for WMD's, Saddam Hussein chose certain death and destruction.

[X-man]

I don't intend to take sides on either WMDs in Iraq (I did not support the war and would not have supported the war even if they had WMDs) nor man-caused global warming (I am skeptical, but lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to have a solid opinion), but I would like to point out a glaring inconsistency in your approach. On the one hand you recognize that the government will lie to us, as needed, to further their ends. You state:

"Because you are so "educated" on the topic of Iraq and the WMD, you no doubt also know that the Times' reporting (along with a lot of the rest of the press) was compromised by the reporters they were using who were effectively mouthpieces for the Iraq warmongers. In that Wolfowicz and Cheney orchestrated run-up to the war, I remember feeling as if we were living in a third world country with the press simply doing whatever the government wanted. But I guess that you are saying that you really were astounded that they found no WMD in Iraq. Most of the people I knew would have been shocked if they had found anything."

On the other hand, you believe everything the government tells you about global warming:

"Of course you, with all the wisdom of the ages, have a completely open mind on these issues. Only those who believe the overwhelming consensus of opinion in the scientific community that climate change is happening have closed minds on these things."

I trust you realize the government (and the ultra-rich, ultimately one-in-the-same) funds virtually all of the global warming research. Given your admission that the government lies to us when it fits their purpose, and assuming you are well aware of the control given to the government under the guise of saving the warming earth, that you would be equally skeptical, yet you are not. So two questions:

1. Why the willingness to believe the government in regards to global warming (but not on other issues) when they are proven liars?
2. Why the willingness to believe the WMD expose and not the global warming expose (East Anglia, for one)?

I think the answer is that people tend to regard the data that agrees with their opinion and disregard the data that disagrees with their opinion. I don't think most people are interested in the truth, they are interested, for whatever reason, in continuing to believe as they already do. I think that is why people will cite government studies when they support their opinion and will dismiss government studies when they do not support their opinions.

Principal

My view on climate change has nothing to do with what the government or the Obama administration says. It has to do with the science and the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that climate change is likely happening and is connected to GHG emissions. Neither I nor the scientific community knows this with any certainty though, so my concerns arise out prudence and the costs of being wrong on this issue. I have written about this elsewhere, but briefly here is the basis for my position on climate change.

If we take no action and climate change does occur, all evidence suggests huge costs not only to the countries already arid and hot, but also to US coastal cities and because of extreme weather related problems. If instead we do take action and climate change isn't happening, the costs of reducing GHG emissions and moving toward energy production from renewable resources seem likely to be much lower. And since we don't price energy to include all the costs associated with both using a nonrenewable resource and discharging acidic gases into the air even without the climate change issue, I come down on the side of working to reduce our use of such resources and the emission of GHG. I think of climate change policy like insurance. You have it and pay for it while hoping that you don't "use" it.

[paulxu]

I'm not going anywhere near any of these "discussions" but it always seemed odd to me that when faced with the choice of certain death and destruction, and simply letting some inspectors in to check for WMD's, Saddam Hussein chose certain death and destruction.

That's a very good point. Faced with it as you note, he did in fact let the inspectors in to check for WMD's.
They were there, on the ground, scouring for them in the last few months before we invaded.
They weren't finding anything. The administration recommended that they leave before we invaded. Which they did.

[chico]

That's a very good point. Faced with it as you note, he did in fact let the inspectors in to check for WMD's.
They were there, on the ground, scouring for them in the last few months before we invaded.
They weren't finding anything. The administration recommended that they leave before we invaded. Which they did.

I thought that Hussein at first let the inspectors in then barred them. He was then warned to let them back in but he refused, at which point it was decided to invade. I could probably look it up if I really wanted to but I'm feeling lazy today.

[Masterofreality]

1.) Global warming/climate change has been researched by scientists internationally who have come to a near-consensus that human activity and usage of fossil fuels affects the Earth's climate.

The difference between the two is that one is an international near-consensus by the scientific community based on mountains of research while the other was purely manufactured by one nation's military-industrial complex manipulating a country's fears following 9/11.

Nothing like going out there and showing your "progressive" stripes.

No, there is no "near consensus" that human activity is affecting the earth's climate. Hell, the "research" abounds with faulty models. There are plenty of reputable scientists out there who are NOT in agreement that the earth is warming, and even more that are uncertain that man is anyway responsible.

Just keep beating that "debate is over" drum though.

Oh, and nice use of the old "military-industrial" complex card. You and Abbie Hoffman must have had a good time together in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

[MuskieCinci]

1. Why the willingness to believe the government in regards to global warming (but not on other issues) when they are proven liars?

Your question 1 doesn't make any sense. That is like asking: The government tells us that the Earth is round, not flat. Are you just going to believe everything the government says?

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology isn't exactly trumpeting man made climate change anyways. Granted it is run by a Texas Republican who considers climate change ridiculous and is slashing NASA's earth science budget so that they will quit looking into it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/house-science-climate-budget_n_7225848.html

[MuskieCinci]

Nothing like going out there and showing your "progressive" stripes.

No, there is no "near consensus" that human activity is affecting the earth's climate. Hell, the "research" abounds with faulty models. There are plenty of reputable scientists out there who are NOT in agreement that the earth is warming, and even more that are uncertain that man is anyway responsible.

Just keep beating that "debate is over" drum though.

Oh, and nice use of the old "military-industrial" complex card. You and Abbie Hoffman must have had a good time together in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

MOR, what would a "near consensus" look like to you then? 97.1% of scientists that have an opinion do seem to think that man has made a contribution. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming

Let's say we were to ask sportswriters around the world who would win the men's CBB national championship this year. A lot of them might say they aren't sure because they don't follow college basketball very closely, but of the ones who do have an opinion 97.1% think that Xavier will win it all. Would that be enough of a consensus for you to feel good about Xavier's chances?

[Masterofreality]

MOR, what would a "near consensus" look like to you then? 97.1% of scientists that have an opinion do seem to think that man has made a contribution. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming

Let's say we were to ask sportswriters around the world who would win the men's CBB national championship this year. A lot of them might say they aren't sure because the y don't follow college basketball very closely, but of the ones who do have an opinion 97.1% think that Xavier will win it all. Would that be enough of a consensus for you to feel good about Xavier's chances?

66.4% expressed "No Opinion". in other words, they probably did not believe it, or at least don't have enough solid information to judge, but those who do "REALLY" Do.

Not only that, the article is from May, 2013 before the studies came out that the temperatures had not appreciably changed for 15 years.

But let's go back to an old discounted article to try to make a point, let us?

[ChicagoX]

66.4% expressed "No Opinion". in other words, they probably did not believe it, or at least don't have enough solid information to judge, but those who do "REALLY" Do.

What are you basing this statement on? Out of 11,944 climate abstracts, 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Do you really think that the nearly 4,000 scientists from around the world who stated their position that endorsed AGW are doing so to either trick people or because they're full of shit?

You're stating that the 66.4% who did not state a position did so because they didn't believe it. I'm having a hard time following your logic because it sounds like you just made that up. What is your source that the 66.4% who did not opine did so because it wasn't true or they didn't have enough solid information? I would think that would be a major talking point for the GOP if it were true.

[XU 87]

According to Forbes, more scientists agree with me than you. You need to get on the side of the scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Masterofreality]

According to Forbes, more scientists agree with me than you. You need to get on the side of the scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Well, well, well.......

[ChicagoX]

According to Forbes, more scientists agree with me than you. You need to get on the side of the scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Yet another full-of-shit article. The author is a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute. If you want actual facts, try reading the comments section that refutes this clearly biased article:

"The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?"

"The scientists who were polled for this survey are all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in Alberta. According to the study’s authors, “The petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta…These professionals and their organizations are regulated by a single professional self-regulatory authority –APEGA.”

"Given that the vast majority of participants in the poll are directly employed not just by the petroleum industry, but by a sector of the industry involved in one of the dirtiest methods of petroleum extraction (tar sands), it doesn’t seem at all surprising that an inordinate number of them would doubt the danger of climate change, or feel that it’s unlikely to impact them personally."

[paulxu]

I thought that Hussein at first let the inspectors in then barred them. He was then warned to let them back in but he refused, at which point it was decided to invade. I could probably look it up if I really wanted to but I'm feeling lazy today.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

[XU 87]

Yet another full-of-shit article.

I am confused by your use of the term "another". According to you global warmers, I thought you claim there is no other scientific literature out there that says "there is no global warming". Since you are aware of other articles, could you kindly reference them for me to save me the research time?

Thank you in advance.

P.S. Never mind. I just found 1350 peer reviewed scientific articles that say there is no global warming.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You need to get on the side of science.

[X-man]

According to Forbes, more scientists agree with me than you. You need to get on the side of the scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Jesus, I debunked that fraudulent "reseach" a number of posts back. It's garbage. Why bring that back when the "scientists" surveyed are oil industry engineers?

[XU 87]

Jesus, I debunked that fraudulent "reseach" a number of posts back. It's garbage. Why bring that back when the "scientists" surveyed are oil industry engineers?

Just because you are angry about the contents of that article and the other 1350 articles doesn't mean you should take the Lord's name in vain. (See Third Commandment)

[paulxu]

Time for some humor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjuGCJJUGsg

[Masterofreality]

Just because you are angry about the contents of that article and the other 1350 articles doesn't mean you should take the Lord's name in vain. (See Third Commandment)

But don't you know, '87? The Imperial President states that the debate is over....or "settled"....or..... over man's abhorrent behavior with nature.

[X-man]

Just because you are angry about the contents of that article and the other 1350 articles doesn't mean you should take the Lord's name in vain. (See Third Commandment)

I'm not angry about the article contents. I just don't understand why you continue to misrepresent those contents. If this is how you read and interpret what you read, you need to think about a lifelong learning option.

[chico]

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

Interesting. I did do a little reading last night on the topic. After his capture, Hussein apparently said he kept up the impression having WMD's because he didn't want Iran to know that he didn't have them. But when the writing was on the wall as to us invading, why not at least try to strike a deal with us? I wold think that having an ally right next door to Iran would've appealed to us, but who knows seeing as how the world was just after 9/11.

[X-man]

Interesting. I did do a little reading last night on the topic. After his capture, Hussein apparently said he kept up the impression having WMD's because he didn't want Iran to know that he didn't have them. But when the writing was on the wall as to us invading, why not at least try to strike a deal with us? I wold think that having an ally right next door to Iran would've appealed to us, but who knows seeing as how the world was just after 9/11.
Even if he wanted to "strike a deal", the warmongers in the Bush administration certainly would not have been interested. They were on a nation-building mission to convert Iraq to a Western style democracy that would serve as a beacon of light to all those heathen countries (the ones producing oil, at least) in the Middle East. Nothing Saddam could do short of resigning would have furthered that goal, one pushed by Wolfowicz and the other neo-cons in charge of Cheney's mind.

[XU 87]

I'm not angry about the article contents. I just don't understand why you continue to misrepresent those contents. If this is how you read and interpret what you read, you need to think about a lifelong learning option.

At least you didn't curse this time.

[principal]

Your question 1 doesn't make any sense. That is like asking: The government tells us that the Earth is round, not flat. Are you just going to believe everything the government says?

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology isn't exactly trumpeting man made climate change anyways. Granted it is run by a Texas Republican who considers climate change ridiculous and is slashing NASA's earth science budget so that they will quit looking into it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/house-science-climate-budget_n_7225848.html

No, actually, it makes perfect sense, you just haven't thought through it. These are two totally different kinds of information:

1. Information you can personally verify
2. Information you cannot personally verify

And this is my whole point. The government can't lie to me about the shape of the earth because I can verify it myself, more or less, in a variety of ways. For one, I can get in a car and drive to the ocean. From there I can take a boat to Eurpoe, etc. I can make my way East until I end up back in the US. It is impossible for you and I to verify global warming. Is the WMD situation more like the shape of the earth, which we can verify, or more like WMDs, which we cannot verify? So there it is. For the entire history of the world, governments have always lied to their people for various reason, most of which come down to power and money and restricting freedoms. Our government has done exactly this with WMDs (and hopefully you are not so naive that you think that this was the first time, or that it is only Republicans or only Democrats).

So again, I ask, why are so many so willing to believe the government in such cases (those that cannot be verified, and where ther is money, power, and/or loss of freedom at stake), and not in others? People are being selective, why? Why is the government data regarding global warming persuasive to so many of you, but the data regarding WMDs was not (at the time)? Why do you jump on the WMD expose, but ignore the global warming expose (of which there have been many)? It is inconsistent. Science is not driving people because people are taking someone else's word on it, they don't know the first thing about the science, they only what someone is telling them about the science. Something else is driving poeple, not science.

Principal

[Edit: Sorry to those of you who had to read that befor I could correct the 4000 typos.]

[Smails]

Even if he wanted to "strike a deal", the warmongers in the Bush administration certainly would not have been interested. They were on a nation-building mission to convert Iraq to a Western style democracy that would serve as a beacon of light to all those heathen countries (the ones producing oil, at least) in the Middle East. Nothing Saddam could do short of resigning would have furthered that goal, one pushed by Wolfowicz and the other neo-cons in charge of Cheney's mind.

No war for oil
Racists
Rednecks
They want dirty air and water
Tax breaks for the super rich

I mean common....if you're going to use lazy conservative clichés to back your stance, at least use them all.

[94GRAD]

I'm now a believer, It's been hot as balls all week here in Cincy!

[bobbiemcgee]

Even if he wanted to "strike a deal", the warmongers in the Bush administration certainly would not have been interested. They were on a nation-building mission to convert Iraq to a Western style democracy that would serve as a beacon of light to all those heathen countries (the ones producing oil, at least) in the Middle East. Nothing Saddam could do short of resigning would have furthered that goal, one pushed by Wolfowicz and the other neo-cons in charge of Cheney's mind.

I wish we could dig up Saddam and guide his boney fingers over a check for 2 trillion+. He was feared in Irag and Iran. If Saddam was still around, no Isis. We did the iranians a huge favor.

[X-man]

No war for oil
Racists
Rednecks
They want dirty air and water
Tax breaks for the super rich

I mean common....if you're going to use lazy conservative clichés to back your stance, at least use them all.
I'm just telling what happened. If you have a problem with that, it doesn't change anything.

[XU 87]

I'm just telling what happened. If you have a problem with that, it doesn't change anything.

I wonder why all those democrats in the Senate such as Kerry, Clinton, and Biden all voted to go to war against Iraq...................

[bobbiemcgee]

I wonder why all those democrats in the Senate such as Kerry, Clinton, and Biden all voted to go to war against Iraq...................

They listened to the colin powell lies at the UN?

[X-man]

I wonder why all those democrats in the Senate such as Kerry, Clinton, and Biden all voted to go to war against Iraq...................

I fault them as much as the media for being so uncritically supportive of the Bush administration's rush to war. I said earlier that I felt like I was living in a third world dictatorship during that time period because everyone was so "on board" with the Rummy-Wolfie-Cheney cooked intel. There were flags all over the place about the true reasons for going in and the ambiguities about the quality of the admin "intel", but none of the politicians or members of the third estate had any stomach for doing a critical assessment. We are all paying the price for this, and will continue to for the foreseeable future IMHO.

[XU 87]

I fault them as much as the media for being so uncritically supportive of the Bush administration's rush to war. I said earlier that I felt like I was living in a third world dictatorship during that time period because everyone was so "on board" with the Rummy-Wolfie-Cheney cooked intel. There were flags all over the place about the true reasons for going in and the ambiguities about the quality of the admin "intel", but none of the politicians or members of the third estate had any stomach for doing a critical assessment. We are all paying the price for this, and will continue to for the foreseeable future IMHO.

So you think there was some great governmental conspiracy to falsify the intelligence to get us into a war with Iraq? Besides the three you mentioned above, who else was involved? The conspiracy would have needed multiple people from the CIA, who supplied the intelligence. They also relied on foreign intelligence. Were foreign governments in on it too?

And if you knew the information and intelligence were false, why didn't Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Edwards and the other 25 Senate democrats who voted to go to war know this?

[X-man]

So you think there was some great governmental conspiracy to falsify the intelligence to get us into a war with Iraq? Besides the three you mentioned above, who else was involved? The conspiracy would have needed multiple people from the CIA, who supplied the intelligence. They also relied on foreign intelligence. Were foreign governments in on it too?

And if you knew the information and intelligence were false, why didn't Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Edwards and the other 25 Senate democrats who voted to go to war know this?

I don't know. The questions were definitely out there, and there were plenty of articles documenting Wolfie's master plan to nation-build Iraq. And there were sure lots of questions about the WMD intel as well. Nobody in the major press or on Capitao Hill raised any questions about any admin case. That's why I'm so pissed at them.

[XU 87]

I don't know. The questions were definitely out there, and there were plenty of articles documenting Wolfie's master plan to nation-build Iraq. And there were sure lots of questions about the WMD intel as well. Nobody in the major press or on Capitao Hill raised any questions about any admin case. That's why I'm so pissed at them.

So were the 29 Senate democrats who voted to go to war just war mongers who were just interested in nation building? Were they involved in the mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence?

If not, who else was involved in this mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence?

[Lamont Sanford]

Don't blame me...I voted for Kanye West back then.

More hope. More change we can all believe it.

[ChicagoX]

So were the 29 Senate democrats who voted to go to war just war mongers who were just interested in nation building? Were they involved in the mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence?

If not, who else was involved in this mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence?

Spare me the BS. The Iraq War was, is, and always will be Bush's baby. They were pushing for a link of Saddam and 9/11 the day after the attacks. The administration wanted this war and wanted it badly, regardless of the fact that inspectors weren't finding any weapons. It was a war of choice and one of the worst foreign policy blunders in this nation's history. If you want to keep Americans safe, then the chickenhawks in the GOP need to stop sending our own troops to die in pointless wars that should have never been started in the first place. They love war so long as it doesn't involve their own children having to fight.

[Smails]

I'm just telling what happened. If you have a problem with that, it doesn't change anything.

No...you are sharing your opinion on what you think happened based on your sources. You most certainly are not telling what happened.

[XU 87]

Spare me the BS. The Iraq War was, is, and always will be Bush's baby. They were pushing for a link of Saddam and 9/11 the day after the attacks. The administration wanted this war and wanted it badly, regardless of the fact that inspectors weren't finding any weapons. It was a war of choice and one of the worst foreign policy blunders in this nation's history. If you want to keep Americans safe, then the chickenhawks in the GOP need to stop sending our own troops to die in pointless wars that should have never been started in the first place. They love war so long as it doesn't involve their own children having to fight.

Was Hillary a chicken hawk? Does she love war? How about the 28 other senators who voted to go to Iraq war? How about the 90 plus democratic congressmen who also voted to go to war? Were they all chicken hawks who love war?

You might call it "BS" they all those democrats voted to go to war. I call them "facts".

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

And can you tell me who was all involved in this mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence? I can't get an answer from X-Man.

Was George Tenet, the Clinton appointed CIA director who told Bush this was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's, was he involved in the mass conspiracy?

[ChicagoX]

Was Hillary a chicken hawk? Does she love war? How about the 28 other senators who voted to go to Iraq war? How about the 90 plus democratic congressmen who also voted to go to war? Were they all chicken hawks who love war?

You might call it "BS" they all those democrats voted to go to war. I call them "facts".

Facts are messy sometimes, aren't they?

And can you tell me who was all involved in this mass conspiracy to falsify the intelligence? I can't get an answer from X-Man.

Was George Tenet, the Clinton appointed CIA director who told Bush this was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's, was he involved in the mass conspiracy?

There are certainly Democrats to blame, too, for not doing their homework and realizing that this war was a sham. Still, this is, was, and always will be Bush's baby. He, Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed the narrative for this war right after 9/11, and it would never have happened if they weren't so adamant about Saddam possessing WMDs that he didn't actually possess. They took advantage of a nation's fear after 9/11 to start a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack and was not a threat to our nation's national security, which is something that was stated ad nauseum in the lead-up to the war. The buck stops at Bush in this case, and he'll shoulder the blame for it in the history books.

Bottom line: This war never would have happened if the Bush administration didn't try so hard to push for it and cherry-pick the evidence used to finally get their war of choice.

[paulxu]

You might want to read the Downing St. memo sometime. It's from July before the war.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html

Here's a critical paragraph:


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action

Things to note:
1 - intelligence and "facts" were being fixed around the policy
2 - The NSC (assumedly the National Security Council) is a lot more than 3 people
3 - The administration used every available means to gin up the war; media, scare tactics, etc.
4 - It's a shame more people in congress didn't stand up to it, but when you "fix" the facts and intelligence, it becomes difficult to sustain a position seemingly in opposition to "facts" . I'm not sure that makes you a war monger.
5 - The administration really had no idea what to do after the invasion.

The real answer was to leave the inspectors on the ground, no viable WMD's existed, and all of the resulting death and chaos might have been eliminated.
Sad.

[ChicagoX]

It's amazing to me the number of people who still defend this sham of a war. It never should have happened, and yet, some people will never admit that. We lost 4,500 service men and women to rid a country of WMDs that never had them and depose a dictator that posed absolutely no threat to us. The end result was destabilizing a region and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. To say that this war was immoral and perhaps even criminal is only scratching the surface.

[X-man]

There are certainly Democrats to blame, too, for not doing their homework and realizing that this war was a sham. Still, this is, was, and always will be Bush's baby. He, Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed the narrative for this war right after 9/11, and it would never have happened if they weren't so adamant about Saddam possessing WMDs that he didn't actually possess. They took advantage of a nation's fear after 9/11 to start a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack and was not a threat to our nation's national security, which is something that was stated ad nauseum in the lead-up to the war. The buck stops at Bush in this case, and he'll shoulder the blame for it in the history books.

Bottom line: This war never would have happened if the Bush administration didn't try so hard to push for it and cherry-pick the evidence used to finally get their war of choice.
Don't forget Wolfowicz. He arguably was the primary architect of the underlying plan to create a "model free market democracy" in Iraq, one that would be so attractive that the other oil producing dominos would fall into line. 87 either doesn't get it or is so blinded by his partisan loyalties that he refuses to acknowledge the fact that this was Bush's war, that the cooked up intel to justify the invasion would sell on Capitol Hill because of 9/11, and the administration was also able to browbeat major media outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post (ordinarily papers that critically evaluate policy) into going along. So 87, it wasn't a "grand conspiracy", as you keep calling. It was instead a war of convenience at a point in time when those wanting war were able to bully the opposition into not being to careful in examining what was going on.

[XU 87]

It's amazing to me the number of people who still defend this sham of a war.

You're wrong again. I'm not defending the war. It was a huge error based on bad intelligence.

I'm just pointing out to you that this was a bi-partisan blunder. I am also pointing out to you that we didn't go to war because a bunch of "warmongering chicken hawk republicans" wanted to go to war, unless you also think the 130 democrats who voted to go to war are also warmongers and chicken hawks. I am finally pointing out to you that the claim that there was some vast conspiracy to falsify the intelligence is fantasy, unless democrats and numerous others were all involved in this illegal and deadly conspiracy.

In short, I'm just noting how your left wing diatribes are wrong, both factually and intellectually.

P.S. To be fair, it was X-Man, not you, who previously claimed some vast conspiracy to falsify the intelligence.

[X-man]

You're wrong again. I'm not defending the war. It was a huge error based on bad intelligence.

I'm just pointing out to you that this was a bi-partisan blunder. I am also pointing out to you that we didn't go to war because a bunch of "warmongering chicken hawk republicans" wanted to go to war, unless you also think the 130 democrats who voted to go to war are also warmongers and chicken hawks. I am finally pointing out to you that the claim that there was some vast conspiracy to falsify the intelligence is fantasy, unless democrats and numerous others were all involved in this illegal and deadly conspiracy.

In short, I'm just noting how your left wing diatribes are wrong, both factually and intellectually.

P.S. To be fair, it was X-Man, not you, who previously claimed some vast conspiracy to falsify the intelligence.

87, you continue to show serious reading comprehension problems. Where did I posit some "vast conspiracy" to falsify intelligence? I was quite specific in identifying several key Bush administration people who worked very hard to establish the case for war using faulty intel on WMD as the basis for their argument because the real reason (nation-building, as laid out quite specifically in a paper by Wolfowicz to Camp David attendees during the run-up to war BTW) wouldn't fly. And as I also said, I blame both the media and Capitol Hill Democrats for uncritically accepting this rationale during the panic period following 9/11...something I believe was cynically exploited by the neo-cons to get away with their WMD con job. No vast conspiracy here at all. If you can't understand this, take a course on reading comprehension.

[94GRAD]

THIS THREAD HAS COME OFF THE RAILS!!! Let's get back to Climate Change, been sweating my balls off all week.

[X-man]

THIS THREAD HAS COME OFF THE RAILS!!! Let's get back to Climate Change, been sweating my balls off all week.

I agree. And I think I am to blame for this problem because I threw in a reference to being "surprised" when no WMD were found in Iraq in response to someone telling me that I no doubt was surprised when no Y2K problems developed. I will stop all posts on the Iraq war, and I urge the rest of us guilty of this detour to do so as well. And I apologize to everyone for throwing this conversation "off the rails".

[xu82]

THIS THREAD HAS COME OFF THE RAILS!!! Let's get back to Climate Change, been sweating my balls off all week.

Getting the conversation back on track might hurt more than help - it's mostly more hot air!

Winter will come, and I will miss this heat... but not this discussion.

[X-band '01]

When Xavier inevitably loses their first game this season, there will be outcries for a return to normal and endless climate change discussion. Can we all agree on that?

[nuts4xu]

THIS THREAD HAS COME OFF THE RAILS!!! Let's get back to Climate Change, been sweating my balls off all week.

I am sure X-man will blame the "neo cons" and George Bush for the fact you're balls are producing fromunda cheese by the pound the past few days!

It was a right wing conspiracy, and the liberals couldn't think critically enough to stop the furnaces and dragons from blowing flames towards BJ'S under carriage!

I want a full investigation! xu87 should be up against the wall first!

[XU 87]

Even the former President of Greenpeace thinks Obama is wrong.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-half-baked-alaska-1441321015

I think the former Greenpeace president's views on current environmentalism are interesting- that the environmental movement "has abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

[paulxu]

I think Obama is going along with the Pope on climate change.

[94GRAD]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

[paulxu]

BJ, I looked at those 2 articles, and frankly I'm really confused.

If you read the NASA report, it says from the late 70's till now, the Artic has been losing 20,000 sq. miles of ice per year, and the Antarctic gaining 7,000.
That would seem to be a net loss for the planet.

The Forbes article says that the total ice hasn't receded at all since 1979.

Something is just not right with all that.

[xu82]

BJ, I looked at those 2 articles, and frankly I'm really confused.

If you read the NASA report, it says from the late 70's till now, the Artic has been losing 20,000 sq. miles of ice per year, and the Antarctic gaining 7,000.
That would seem to be a net loss for the planet.

The Forbes article says that the total ice hasn't receded at all since 1979.

Something is just not right with all that.

"New Math".

[XU 87]

It's really cold today in Cincinnati. I hope it doesn't snow.

[xu82]

It's really cold today in Cincinnati. I hope it doesn't snow.

Soon, all too soon.

[XU 87]

Another example of left wingers wanting to forcibly silence the opposition.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj

[ChicagoX]

The Earth continues to show blatant liberal bias:

Bloomberg Business: Scorching Year Continues With the Hottest Summer on Record (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-09-17/scorching-year-continues-with-hottest-summer-on-record)

[Masterofreality]

Oh my. Where are all the Hurricanes? Where oh where?

Once again, despite dire predictions of how much terrible activity there would be because of "Global Warming" by all of the Doomsayers in the past, this season is proving to be another fizzle- just like last year, and just like the year before that, etc.

Well, well.

[ChicagoX]

Oh my. Where are all the Hurricanes? Where oh where?

Once again, despite dire predictions of how much terrible activity there would be because of "Global Warming" by all of the Doomsayers in the past, this season is proving to be another fizzle- just like last year, and just like the year before that, etc.

Well, well.

Well, first of all, we are only halfway through hurricane season, so let's hope that a major hurricane doesn't make landfall between now and the end of November. Right now, there are three category 4 hurricanes churning in the Pacific, so it's not as if they completely have disappeared from the planet this year.

Secondly, a lack of hurricanes in one particular year does not disprove the fact that the planet is warming as a trend. Excessive heat and drought have burned more than 8.2 million acres of land in the U.S. alone this year.

Here's another example of the planet going all liberal on us again in 2015: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201501-201508.gif

[X-band '01]

This wasn't expected to be a busy year for hurricanes in either the Atlantic or the eastern Pacific zone this year, anyhow. This is because of a strong El Nino; we're more likely to see different types of severe weather associated with it this season. Most of the drought that ChicagoX is talking about is in California and other Western states. El Nino is expected to bring more rainfall over the next few months to California and the western US; a big question here is will there be times when Cali has to possibly deal with mudslides and flooding during the rainy season? Let's not forget that Texas and other areas in the Southwest have started to recover from what was an exceptional drought a few years ago. Droughts and record high temperatures do tend to be cyclical in nature.

You're never going to have a year of weather without incident on Earth.

[X-band '01]

Well, first of all, we are only halfway through hurricane season, so let's hope that a major hurricane doesn't make landfall between now and the end of November. Right now, there are three category 4 hurricanes churning in the Pacific, so it's not as if they completely have disappeared from the planet this year.

ChicagoX, where are the three Cat-4 Hurricanes/Typhoons? (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/)

There are currently 3 active tropical storms along with 2 other low pressure systems. Where are you getting your data?

[ChicagoX]

ChicagoX, where are the three Cat-4 Hurricanes/Typhoons? (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/)

There are currently 3 active tropical storms along with 2 other low pressure systems. Where are you getting your data?

I stand corrected, this was a few weeks ago. I was on the Weather Channel's web site yesterday to look at weather for my trip to South Carolina this weekend and saw this link to a previous story: Three Category 4 Hurricanes in the Pacific Ocean: How Rare Is That? (http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/three-category-4-hurricanes-pacific-kilo-ignacio-jimena)

These storms happened at the end of August and into the first week of September.

[X-band '01]

You're probably talking about Ignacio and Jimena; I don't remember what the other one was named. I think they were close enough to Hawaii that they had tropical storm-force winds not too far from the Hawaii coastline.

[XU 87]

http://www.sott.net/article/277349-Top-scientist-resigns-from-post-admits-Global-Warming-is-a-scam

Mr. Lewis pretty much sums things up about what a fraud global warming is and the revenue generated for so-called scientists who "study" it.

I wonder if those left wing professors think he should be criminally prosecuted.

Here is the entire letter which goes into detail the steps Mr. Lewis took to correct this fraud, to no avail:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

[GoMuskies]

How did you unearth this 5 year old letter? Any updates on what became of Prof. Lewis?

Apparently he died about 6 months after writing the letter.

[XU 87]

How did you unearth this 5 year old letter?

"Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know."