Go to ADMIT GLOBAL WARMING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! - Add a comment - Go to Of course, Antarctica isn't losing ice! (lol)

Re:

regarding 1918 -- 1940, cities were blanketed with ah haze of coal smog.

and in the 50's, coal was less used as a fuel source

so there might well be a reason for the warming and subsequent cooling --

and this very scenario should provide reasonable proof that reducing emissions will make a great change

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm???

It's not my reasoning at all -- it's cold, hard data from the Natoinal Weather Service -- NASA -- now, unless you think all this data is somehow wrong -- temperature readings from around the globe,ice shelfs and sea ice melting, warmer ocean temperatures around the world, lower water levels due t o decreased rain due to the warmer  air, etc. . . .

unless you think someone is lying to us and providing us with doctored satellite images . . .

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm???

ROTFLMAO..........Have you ever read what you type??????  Do you realize how ridiculous your reasoning is here.......see ya......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5

what i am saying is that i have weighed the evidence and all the evidence points to the climate getting warmer -- all you have to is look

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 10:33 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm???

the con't count because they are limited in scope and not thentire picture

what I have presented is overwhelming evidence

I have read writeroflight's informatoin and it is found faulty.

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 10:32 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Hmmmm???

Sure you would....just like you've written the countless other ones stating the same points....which are countered by just as many organization and scientists,  but they don't count because they differ with your and other GLO-warmers' positions......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5, 2008 at 8:53 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5

So what you are saying is that just because there is two differing views.....only yours is right........now there's true "MoonBat" thinking for you........You are a mess.....

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Hmmmm???

thing is, Corbin, these past years have averaged warmer than average.  so a year a little cooler would still be warmer than average -- again, check out my earlier posts -- the facts are right there.

If they weren't, I wouldn't be writing this blog.

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5

Please read farther down, Corbin -- the facts presented by NASA  are quite opposite what yo uhave just posted here.

posted by Xeno-x on December 5, 2008 at 8:26 AM | link to this | reply

Hmmmm???

2008 will be coolest year of the decade

Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C.

From the Guardian UK

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

And that is in spite of all of the hot air coming from the GLO-warmers.......LOLOLOLOL

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5, 2008 at 8:10 AM | link to this | reply

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter
The Telegraph of London

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 5, 2008 at 4:39 AM | link to this | reply