Climate News AccuWeather's Joe Bastardi presses case against global warming theory
|
11 September 2009
Two days ago AccuWeather Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi caused a stir during an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor in which he presented a case against the manmade climate change theory. Bastardi not only challenged the theory itself but also its very foundation and he lamented the lack of any real scientific discussion of the issue.
Today Bastardi pressed his argument even further in a video ‘addendum’ to his appearance on the FoxNews show and in a statement released on AccuWeather.com.
- Video: Watch Joe Bastardi's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor
- Read: An open letter to Accuweather.com viewers from Accuweather.com's tropical and long range weather expert Joe Bastardi
In the video, Bastardi lays out a case that many in the scientific community have come to press – that solar activity is a primary driver of the earth’s climate. Showing charts of solar activity in relation to historical temperatures, he pointed out that there were periods in the not-so-distant climate history that were much warmer than today. Click here to view Joe Bastardi's video on the AccuWeather.com website.
In addressing the case of Arctic ice, Bastardi displayed a photograph of a U.S. Navy submarine surfaced at the North Pole on March 17, 1954. The vessel is not surrounded by ice but by open water. Bastardi said, “Because earth was warmer before man, it can certainly be warmer with man.”
Bastardi pressed for a more open and honest debate on the climate change theory. He explained that he did not dismiss arguments contrary to his and he in fact welcomed them. He said however, “I don't want to drive all this off the table. I just don't want all this nonsense going on that every single weather event is because of global warming. This is preposterous.”
Acknowledging that the views he expressed have become controversial, Bastardi said, “I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] issue.” Rather he said he simply wanted people to “be informed and not simply throw stones.”
Bastardi joined a growing line of meteorologists and scientists that are questioning the manmade climate change theory. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts, has long railed against the manmade climate change theory and specifically against the outrageous claims of its advocates like James Hansen. John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said that he believed global warming was “the greatest scam in history.”
An open letter to Accuweather.com viewers from Accuweather.com's tropical and long range weather expert Joe Bastardi (from AccuWeather.com)
SourceMy appearance on Bill O'Reilly brought up some things that seem to be a shock to people, but to many many people that are looking hard at the weather, are not.
Please remember that I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW issue. I will however take a stand when called upon, on what I believe to be true.
I have always had an open mind on man's input into the climate system. However because I have to be acquainted with long term patterns of changing weather, which is what climate is for any one site, I need to know where we stand against the course of history. Because of that, I have to be acquainted with the global warming issue in much more than a casual way. It is to my advantage as the chief long range and hurricane forecaster here to develop a working knowledge of where we are and where we are going in the overall global pattern.
To be sure, the cooling now is happening faster than it should because it got so warm in the first place via the super nino of 97-98. The last warm cycle reached its peak in the late 50s when we actually surfaced submarines at the north pole in 1959... IN MARCH! I often wonder what global temps would have been measured at then if we had the ways of measuring we do now. The fact that there was so much "shock" at some of the revelations that showed up on the O'Reilly Factor is because people are refusing to understand that so far, this has been a case of been there, done that.
One can pull out as many cases of bad weather in the 30s, 40s and 50s as they can now. I still believe the 3 greatest examples of how bad a hurricane can get in relation to latitude are the 1938 hurricane with 186 mph wind gusts at Blue Hill Mass, the 1944 hurricane that destroyed the Atlantic City boardwalk, and Hurricane Donna which gave hurricane force winds to every state from Florida to Maine. The 1944 hurricane had winds 600 miles in diameter and stripped 50% of the screws from a recon plane into it.
Unlike many people, I am well acquainted and respect the co2 warming idea, but in its pure form, which actually allows for the cooling coming now! There in lies the problem. We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not. The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s. What you see now may just be the beginning. One thing we do know, that we should be skeptical of any future event, no matter what we believe.
I will leave you with this. Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for YOURSELF. If its important enough for you to be happy with what I said, or to be mad as all get out at what I said, you owe it to yourself to go read all sides of the argument. To be informed, and not to simply throw stones.
In the end, for me its all about getting the weather right. 1 day, 1 week 1 year or whatever. That is the bottom line.
What I opine about global warming is not because this is my goal...to be in this debate, it's a by product of the work I put in to do what I was made to do..forecast the weather. But I will not run, nor bow down to people who simply wish to destroy the chance to get the right answer in this debate, for IT IS ABOUT THE WEATHER! it's that simple.
I do not seek to be a spokesman, but my company believes in freedom of speech. Please remember my opinion is my own, but perhaps the reason for my successes in this field are because of the countless hours I spend that no one but me and the good lord above sees in preparing to answer the call. That call comes every day in my forecasts, but if it comes in this matter, I will not back down from what I have prepared myself for.
Thanks for your time,
Joe Bastardi
Comments
1.) "Common sense" does not have as much precedence in science as measurements and data do
2.) Correlation does not imply causation
3.) Global warming started many thousands of years ago causing the end of the last Ice Age, before the advent of man (do a regression analysis on the trend of global population and you'll see that mankind started A LOT later than evolutionary myths purport!)
Sincerely, Rob Campe
Charleston, WV
But you'll never get tenure at Harvard. And forget dating Sheryl Crow.
is pretty much ZERO.
Similarly, Dr. William Gray's attempts at debunking AGW have been repeatedly debunked in the literature.
Bastardi's rant has not a single concrete point against AGW-theory, and he admits as such. If the only proof
against 10,000 published and referred journal articles is a cropped picture from 1954, that's more than a little weak.
But I won't let reality get in the way of the tinfoil hat coalition.
Cheers.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe YOU, and those who fall completely in line with AGW dogma, are in fact the ones who belong to the "tinfoil hat coalition?" I am a degreed meteorologist, and believe me when I tell you -- this is a much less "settled" debate than the mainstream media would have us believe. Of those I work with, I'd say that at least half have serious questions regarding AGW, and for good reason. Weather forecasters work with computer models on a daily basis, using them to predict short-term weather. We all know -- as do those in the public who have to use our often erroneous forecasts -- that despite constant improvements over the years, these models have serious limitations. Even the most state-of-the-art models, running on the top supercomputers, become unacceptably inaccurate beyond, on average, day 6-7. So, I ask you: if computer models used to predict weather become unacceptably inaccurate beyond day 6-7, then why would we blindly put our faith in global climate models, which are attempting to predict the Earth's temperature 50 or 100 years from now? Does it concern you that these climate models fail miserably when trying to model the climate of the past -- a known quantity, obviously? Does it concern you that climate models do not include, within their calculations, future variations in the sun's output? It would seem to me that not considering such a potentially critical influencer of the Earth's climate might be just SLIGHTLY problematic. I could go on and on, but realize that I am basically wasting my time. The truth has indeed become quite "inconvenient" for those who have chosen to stop seeking it, but instead to buy into the politically-correct dogma that is AGW.
Finally, you tossed John Coleman's ideas out due to his lack of a meteorology degree; I trust, therefore, that you have a meteorology degree yourself, right?
Steve G
you do not need a degree to realize what is going on. A little research and you come to understand this is weather 101. I am a 24 year vet in the military forecasting weather and elemantary knowledge in this field is more then enough to know what is going on. That is why if you are a weatherman how can you dispute global warming when you look at the facts. The truth of the matter is hurricanes are more powerful now just look at SE Asia getting whacked every year and more often. We are being protected by the sub tropical jet due to El NINO and you know this. But this will not last forever. When our luck runs out we will be the ones getting whacked. Judging by your comments I will go out on a limb and say you are a conservative who votes Republican down the line. It is a shame this has turned political when our lives are on the line.
First of all, I did not dispute "global warming." I do believe that we likely (though not certainly) have had a small amount of warming over the past 100 years. If you read my post carefully, you will note that what I disagree with is AGW -- ANTHROPOGENIC, i.e. MAN-CAUSED global warming. What I dispute is that any warming can be conclusively and exclusively attributed to man. This, while a POSSIBILITY, is CERTAINLY not a CERTAINTY. Our understanding of climate, and all the things which affect climate, is quite limited. Acting as though we understand climate well enough to be able to conclude that we ABSOLUTELY KNOW the cause of any changes in climate (changes which, I might add, have been happening FOREVER) is simply untrue.
By the way, your statements about hurricanes? Completely wrong, as I understand it. Tropical activity is actually at a very low point, and has been for quite awhile (though I am not a tropical weather expert, this seems to be a fairly well-accepted fact in the tropical community).
Think about something. Early settlers in Greenland named it that for a reason -- and agricultural communities are found, as I understand it, buried beneath ice sheets there. Would this likely have been a very warm time in our history? It was -- the medieval warm period. Look back a bit farther. Much of Canada and parts of the northern U.S. were glaciated -- multiple times. Think it was much colder than imaginable back then? That's why we called them "ice ages." My point is that CLIMATE CHANGES. That's what climate does. And to state with ANY degree of certainty that the reason for any increases in temperature over the past 100 years is due to man's burning of fossil fuels, is nothing but chicanery.
Finally, the politcal B.S. you included at the bottom of your post is nothing but that. No one's "life is on the line," as you put it. Only, ironically, would POLITICIANS THEMSELES want you to believe that. Any good politician knows that the way to get people motivated is through FEAR. Create a crisis, and you can get a whole lot done that otherwise you couldn't.
Let me leave you with one last question, which should support my premise that this whole thing is a fabricated crisis designed to increase FEAR amongst the uninformed. That question is -- have you EVER hear ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to anything POSITIVE which might come from increasing global temperature? Certainly, a warmer planet would be a good thing in some ways. Yet have you EVER heard ONE good thing mentioned? Nope. Just all the talk about cities flooded, animals becoming extinct, violent weather increasing, rampant disease and starvation, etc. etc. etc. Create fear, to control the masses. I only wish more could see this for what it is.
In any case -- as I stated in my original post, I realize that I basically am wasting my time trying to speak out against AGW theory. Swimming against the political current is near impossible with regards to this issue.
Steve G.
So why are the poles warming faster??? Answer: because CO2 is able to concentrate more in the shallower atmosphere. You cannot come up with any other conclusion. There is no sure thing in weather so you must use common sense along with facts. Tropical activity has been lower. In the western hemisphere because of El NINO. Which by the way is caused by warmer then normal water off the coast of South America. But SE Asia has been getting destroyed. Once El NINO ends nobody will be safe on the East Coast of the USA. That you can take to the bank. There are no good things that will come from a warmer planet that is why you do not hear anything about it. Too much of a good thing is never good. So this nonsense of it providing more plant food borders on insanity. The facts are the facts. If the facts said global warming was not happening I would be the first one to dispute it.
I have no agenda other then the best for humanity. Bastardi is trying to get in with FOXNEWS, he has a agenda. Foxnews is a Republican puppet with all those right wingshows that should be obvious to anybody. There is no creating a crisis there is a crisis. Al Gore is not a weather guy but the title of his movie says it perfectly. The Inconvenient truth. The proof is overwhelming, the good news is we have time to change it. Mother nature is giving us some warnings but she hasnt unleashed her true power yet. I am afraid we are ignoring the warnings over a selfish view of afraid to change our way of live and we will pay a huge penalty for this political childishness. Yes Tropical Cyclone activity has been lower in the western Hemisphere because of El NINO a mother nature warning we are ignoring. When El NINO subsides then you shall see. So you people can give me all the thumbs down you want but I know my weather and the facts are facts. I am afraid I have already given up on anyone doing anything about it cause of GREED and that is a fact.
Why do AGW believers resort to name calling when we should be debating the science as professionals. And true scientific debate is never closed. Where is Al Gore's degree, or president Obama's, Nancy Pelosi, Waxman or Markey's. I am a geologist and geophysicist and as one I have studied the earth's history and climate in detail and I don't wear a tin hat. You want some facts, try
1) the earth has had ice caps only 20-25% of our history, and the current total amount of ice on our planet is unchanged since 1979. The arctic has been shrinking while Antarctica has grown
2) the earth was warmer during the recent Minoan, Roman and medieval warms, when culture and human population flourished.
3) The earth has had much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and there was no runaway heating. CO2 is plant food it is not a pollutant.
4) Our current levels of 380 ppm represent a CO2 'famine" in relation the our 4.6 billion year history, and recent history.
5) There is no direct link between CO2 and heating and man-made CO2 is only 5% of natural CO2
6) Arctic ice has been increasing since 2007. It melts a huge amount and refreezes every cold season. Don't expect it to be same year after year.
7) The temperature data used to show recent warming has been HIGHLY manipulated by GISS. Half the 1950-2000 warming is caused by "adjustment" to the data by James Hansen and his group.
9) Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago and have survived periods much warmer that today and survived just fine. Why do you think they have evolved with the ability to swim great distances anyway?
10) Our climate is highly complex and driven by the sun, winds, ocean currents, volcanism, and GHG. It is ridiculous to expect the climate to be static and unchanging, that flies directly against the history of our planet.
Those are just a few of the facts, there are many many more. That said we all recognize that adding emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good thing and we need to reduce those and be as clean as possible. However wind and solar are not the answer as they only work 15-20% of the time, and have huge impact from a surface disturbance and construction standpoint. Just look at how those have failed in Europe. And here we are in the US sitting on an ocean of natural gas that is 50% cleaner than coal, and no mention of it in the Waxman Markey bill??
And finally just the fact that man thinks he can manipulate the earth's temperature shows the true arrogance of our species. We attribute 40 years of minor warming to our impact and want to legislate ourselves into the dark ages to try and cool the planet. It is just laughable. Based on ocean currents and the sun's current slumber we should be cooling the next couple decades on our own, not that it matter to the AGW believers as they will not doubt "blame" the cooling somehow on AGW.
Thanks to Joe for being an honest scientist! Keep up the good work.
Lets be clear on your so called facts.
1. You have been misled on ice not being changed since 1978-79. The Antarctic has benn shrinking also. You need to stop looking at right wing conservative web sites.
2. you could be right about a long time ago but that was natural. We are changing the parameters with our reckless release of CO2 therefore this is not natural climate change so we are throwing off the delicate balance in our atmosphere
3 Just when did we have all this socalled CO2 levels much higher then now could this be when we were not on this planet yet and we really have no idea how to proof this?
4 go to the EPA website and look at the chart of CO2 being released into the air and it is a obvious problem
5. There is no direct link to CO2 and heating. What the heck do you think CO2 does. This is weather 101. Thank God it is only 5% right now at least we still have time to stop this. Mother nature has given us a chance to stop it with her suttle warnings
6. Arctic ice has only been increasing in the winter months and it is thin ice at best which melts quickly in the summer months and then some. Please!!!!
7. The temps have not been highly manipulated go back to 1978 til now using right wing data and the temperature trend is clearly higher when you trow out the trofs and ridges.
8. I am not sure about this one but I do know the hottest 9 out of ten years on record have all ocurred after 1992
9. Tell that to the polar bears that are drowning as we speak
10 as i stated before. We are changing the parameters with our reckless release of CO2
so these are just a few facts and arrogance has nothing to do with admitting we are hurting ourselves with our own selfish views and hiding our heads in the sand like an ostrich rationalizing our behavior. Thanks to Joe he now has made even more people think Globval warming is a farce blindly i might add for his own selfish reasons of maybe getting a cake job on foxnews.
Please do not take offense -- oh, and, by the way, thank you for your 24 years in service of our country; I meant to say that earlier -- but, your facts and logic are really lacking in your post above.
You tried to take Vtourm to task on his or her facts -- but failed miserably. Look at your number 10. You simply stated "we are changing the parameters with our reckless release of CO2" and then said that this is simply "a fact." I hate to say it, but just because you dogmatically state that something is "a fact" does not make it so. Same thing with your point number 2. You state that climate change long ago was "natural," but that this time it is NOT natural. Again, you state this as fact, but simply you stating it as fact does not make it so. Vtourm's whole premise is that global warming is not man made, and he gave some facts to support his position. You then told him or her that his or her facts are wrong. To support YOUR position, though, you offered nothing but dogmatic assertions with no proof whatsoever. You simply say that past warming was natural, this time it is not...what kind of B.S. is that? Can you tell me how you might be so certain that CO2 is in fact responsible entirely for any warming that has occurred over the past century?
Then, look at your number one...as I understand it, Antarctic ice is shrinking ONLY IN A SMALL AREA. Vtourm, as I understand, is correct that, when considering the Antarctic continent as a whole, ice is actually increasing significantly, just as was stated.
Look, you clearly believe in all the hype you have heard; apparently you watched Al Gore's movie a few too many times. Trust me when I tell you that this whole issue is NOT "weather 101" as you put it; in fact, climate is EXTREMELY complex; to claim that we know for certain all the factors that influence climate, and to what degree, is simply hogwash.
I would argue that the only person with their head in the sand is you. Any good scientist would WELCOME good debate on any theory. Unfortunately on this issue, debate is considered verboten. Sort of like back when we believed that the earth was flat, and anyone that challenged that was beheaded. That is NOT the way to advance science, as any good scientist knows.
By the way, I used to work with Joe many years ago, and I can telly you with certainty that his passion is forecasting and studying the weather. I am quite certain that he is not interested in a job on Fox news (unless, of course, to become their weatherperson!)
Steve G.
The PDO has a +/- 60 year cycle. Starting in 1915 to 1940 the temperature of the world rose, from 1940 to 1975 the temperature of the world dropped, from 1975 to 2003 the world temperature rose and now it has headed down. It is turning out the PDO/ AMO affects more world temperatures than thought before. When someone defending the AGW theory uses a 30 year period for comparing temperature, they are being disingenuous.
More Climate Scientists are saying that the world temperature will drop for the next 20 years. NASA is hedging by saying the world temperature will drop for another 6 to 7 years. If CO2 is the major climate driver claimed by the warmists, no cooling would ever occur. The world would only warm.
The ice is returning in the Arctic after a low in 2007. Go to the National Center for Ice and Snow Studies crowd at the University of Colorado.
The ice extent in Antarctica is at its highest point in 20 years. It should be easy to find once you get to the CU site.
The temperature of the oceans have been dropping since 2003. This is the year that the Argos Bouy system was initiated. Over 3000 bouys that record ocean temperatures. Google "Argos Bouys" or you can read a study by Chris Loehle or Josh Willis.
If you want to know where the real warming is, read this blog. www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859
Question: What causes no warming in rural areas, moderate warming in small urban cities, and significant warming in large urban areas. Hint: It's not CO2.
In the IPCC AR4, the proof of CO2 warming was to be temperature increase in the Mid tropospheric zone over the middle tropics. This increase was to be from 2 to 4 times higher than the AGW caused by CO2 at the Earths surface. No such increase has been measured by the Satellites or by balloons.
Everyone needs to ask: Where's the Beef? The world is spending billions for a bogus theory. And by the way; Theories are to be questioned. So ask some questions.
Steve S.
by the way dave p., polar bear population has increased from about 5000 in the 1950's to about 30,000 today.
Let me show you the facts, and they do not come from "right wing websites". There is no reason for you to assume I am a right wing denier because I dont fall in step with AGW claims and scare tactics. I am a scientist and have been one for over 30 years, I believe in research and study before coming to a conclusion, and I dont believe something just because a politican or a news anchor tells me to. I also know the history of of our Earth is 4.6 billion years and there is a lot of data to base current trends on.
1) For Arctic ice check out: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm. This site shows sea ice extend from satellite data on a daily basis. Notice that ice grows and shrinks by 5.5 million square miles every year. Do you expect it to grow and shrink at the same rate every year? Also note that Arctic sea ice has increased in size during the peak melt by about 1,000,000 square kilometers since 2007. Check out sea ice anomalies for Antarctica here: nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png. Note these are not "right wing " web sites. Also note that sea ice mainly melts from ocean currents not from air temperature.
2) I am right about the recent and long term past. Temperatures were much warmer just over the last 5000 years as documented by ice core data and well accepted by scientists and hstorians alike. The Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval periods were all warmer than today with limited polar ice extent. In fact we have been warming since the little ice age about 150 years ago. Our "20th century warm" is consistent will all past warms and on a similar cycle. This chart should help: images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/194_2.jpg
3) The CO2 and temperature history is reconstructed from the rock and fossil record and very well accepted by science. For instance we can take rock samples from Cretaceous aged rocks and determine the climate type, environment and yes even CO2 concentration. Fact is when the Earth had much higher levels of COs the temperature did not increase. And by much higher I mean orders of magnitude over the present. Link to the image and chart below. www.climatephysics.com/images/imgAB.jpg.
4) In my comment I said we should strive to reduce our emissions, but by trying to do it through horrible legislation (Waxman-Markey) is a mistake. We should always use the cleanest fuels we have. The big emission culprits are China and India and they have stated they will not reduce. And by scaring people with AGW claims is not the way either.
5) "What do you think CO2 does?" was your question. It is basically plant food that we cannot live without, we all produce it when we breath out. Many scientists claim a higher level would be beneficial for our planet, however I dont agree that it should come from fossil fuel burning, it needs to be natural. It is also a green house gas (GHG) and a minor one compared to water vapor which is the main GHG. Of our atmosphere GHG make up 1% of the total, of all the GHG CO2 is 3-5%, and of that man made CO2 is 3-5%. That is "weather 101". Do you really think that a trace gas is solely responsible for recent warming? Also be aware that the temperature of effect of increased CO2 is logarithmic not exponential, that means each successive CO2 molecule has less heating effect than the previous. This is based on peer reviewed studies from MIT physicist and atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen
6) Reference the graph in link in #1 above. Of course the ice grows in winter and shrinks in summer, and of course new ice is thin. The thin ice claim is just the latest claim of alarmists to discount the fact that arctic ice has been increasing since the minimum in 2007. Growth and shrinkage of ice is cyclical, dont expect it to be the same year after year.
7) The temperature data is not only manipulate it is bad. Check out meteorologist Anthony Watts website www.surfacestations.org/. This is not baised data either, every station has been inventoried. Here is a link to the NOAA website showing how they have adjusted upward the temperature data by .5 degrees F since 1950 which is almost half of the the so-called 20th century warming. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
9) Do you believe everything John Kerry and Al Gore tell you? Polar bears are not "drowning as we speak" that is ridiculous. The population is much larger and healthier since hunting has been curtailed, and has grown since the 1950s. Polar bears survived periods with little to no ice caps and will survive today.
10) I agree we need to reduce CO2 emissions because as responsible citizens of this planet we need to be as clean as possible. That does not mean we throw out use of fossil fuels because of bad science, or try to scare people by crazy claims of disasters. Right now we can transform our electricity from coal to US owned natural gas generation, we can transform our cars and trucks to run on natural gas. Through that our skies will be cleaner, our jobs abundant and dependence on foreign countries reduced.
Dont believe the BS spewed by news stations and politicians. Research it for yourself and realise the science will never be closed on the AGW debate.
I care about our planet as well and live in the Rockies and love the outdoors. Rampant emissions of anything into the atmosphere is not natural and should be done a little as possibe. But we still need to heat our homes and travel to work and wear clothes, all made possible by fossil fuels, Thats why it puzzles me that Waxman-Markey has little to mention of natural gas which is abundant and 50% cleaner than coal. It forces wind and solar which work at 15-10% efficiency and all the emission give always were given to coal fired plants the biggest CO2 emitters on the planet. Germany and Spain tried the same thing and it failed miserably in fact Germany is still building coal plants and their emissions are higher than they have ever been.
Present these AGW believers with facts and they ignore them. Hit them with facts again and they call you names. They have no facts. All they have are lies, names, fear mongering, and fascist techniques. They do not want to debate because they will get exposed for the scam artists they are. Typical of Marxists.
Pagillo and Hoover are the typical Al Gore Kool-Aid drinkers who ignore the facts. They ignore the fact the earth has not warmed since 1998. It has cooled. They ignore the fact that there has been much warmer periods in the past. There have been much higher levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Their house of cards is crumbling. What do liars and cons do when they are getting busted? They start screaming, deflecting, and pointing blame elsewhere.
Why do you think these con artist have now change their tune to "Climate Change"?
When this fraud is finally exposed along with the fascist techniques used behind doors in an attempt to silence skeptical debate, the Al Gore's of the world are the ones who will be carted off to jail.
You make a very good point that I forgot to mention -- the subtle shift, amongst the AGW types, from the term "global warming," to "climate change." They do, behind closed doors, realize that warming has stopped over the past decade...but to keep the "alarmism" going, they have slowly changed their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change" -- that way, there's no way they can be wrong. If it warms, it's due to global warming. If it cools, it's just the effects of global warming causing the cooling. Got it? ; )
Steve
I've never been a smoker. No drug flashbacks to the 60's either.
But those three years I spent in the eight grade were the best three years of my life. Nah......got a degree in engineering instead. I use my degree sometimes. It comes in handy when the AGW alarmists use pseudo science to try to prove their lame theory. Ever seen the experiment when they warm CO2 laden air with a lamp to prove their point? You can use the same experiment to determine the specific heat of CO2. It's lower than air, meaning it takes less energy to raise the temperature of the CO2 by the same amount as the air. Maybe I could say that better by saying that if given the same energy, CO2 gas will rise to a higher temperature than the same amount of air fed the same amount of energy.
If you understand statistics even a little, you have witnessed how the AGW crowd are torturing the data to get rigged results. As has often been said on these blogs; they torture the data till it confesses.
Nabbed this off another blogger.
These near Arctic temperatures tell a good story.
These temperature records tell another story about Arctic temperatures. Did you know that Greenland was warmer during the 1930's?
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010650000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010250000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010010003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=652060110003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Cheers,
Steve S
www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
10th picture down - Joe only had the date wrong (albeit it was still in the '50s)
it escaped you bastardi claimed the skate surfaced in open water at the north pole,which did not happen in the 50,s.bastardi used a pic from archives that is undated and purported to be from a more southern area,not from the north pole.pics of the skate at the north pole showed it did have to break through the ice to surface at the north pole.bastardi is a fraud....
There really is 6 million pounds of space dust landing on the earth every day. Will it make us fly out of orbit. Of course not. I did what the global warming people did. I got a little bit of truth (the earth may be warming) and built a big lie around it. The teachers believed me. After all I have a masters degree. I must know what I'm talking about. Most people are gullible. The people who want us to believe this may rely on government grants to keep their jobs. The government also likes to create problems to show us what a good job they are doing.
Please, check the facts and who is suppling the facts. Question everything.
Kevin C
Connecticut
Google the words
"Harvard Physicist calls Global Warming a Hysteria"
Its a youtube video.
RSS feed for comments to this post