No global warming?

Look at these numbers:

- The average temperature in the contiguous U.S. was 51.1 degrees Fahrenheit (10.6 Celsius), or 8.6 degrees, above the 20th century average and 0.5 degrees more than the previous all- time high set in 1910.

- “Only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012,” according to a NOAA statement. NOAA’s climate records began in 1895. [i.e. this was the SECOND most-extreme month for weather in U.S. recorded history]

- Temperatures in the heating season, which runs from October to March, were 3.8 degrees above average, making it the second- warmest on record behind 1999-2000

- Across the U.S., 15,292 warm temperature records were set or tied, according to NOAA.

- Every U.S. state set a daily record and 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains had their all-time hottest March, according to NOAA. In addition, 15 states had monthly temperatures in the top 10.

- The warm weather also contributed to 223 reported tornadoes in the U.S., more than the 80 normally seen during the month.

It SHOULD have been enough to convince people of global warming when we saw GLACIERS all over the world shrinking at the fastest rate in modern history, the polar ice-caps have been melting, and sea levels have been rising (Hint: what causes ICE to melt?).

However, THE most intensive propaganda-campaign in this entire Fascist era has now duped MANY people into considering global warming some sort of scientific "hoax" (yes, those tricky scientists have just FAKED the disappearance of the famed Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier in Africa).

For all of you confused skeptics, LOOK AT these numbers closely, THINK ABOUT the vanishing glaciers, and then ask yourself whether you want to be part of the same "team" that includes Big Oil and the entire U.S. Senate - who voted UNANIMOUSLY that global warming doesn't exist.

Lol - ONLY in the U.S. can you have people "voting down" science (like they did when many states wanted "creationism" taught along side "evolution")...





"U.S. Set More Than 15,000 March Temperature Records, NOAA"

More than 15,000 temperature records were broken in the U.S. last month and the country had its first $1 billion weather disaster of 2012, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The average temperature in the contiguous U.S. was 51.1 degrees Fahrenheit (10.6 Celsius), or 8.6 degrees, above the 20th century average and 0.5 degrees more than the previous all- time high set in 1910, according to NOAA.

“Only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012,” according to a NOAA statement. NOAA’s climate records began in 1895.

Temperatures in the heating season, which runs from October to March, were 3.8 degrees above average, making it the second- warmest on record behind 1999-2000, according to NOAA. Natural gas prices have fallen 30 percent this year partially because of the warmer weather and rising production.

Across the U.S., 15,292 warm temperature records were set or tied, according to NOAA.

Every U.S. state set a daily record and 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains had their all-time hottest March, according to NOAA. In addition, 15 states had monthly temperatures in the top 10.

The warm weather also contributed to 223 reported tornadoes in the U.S., more than the 80 normally seen during the month.

A tornado outbreak on March 2 to March 3 across the Ohio Valley and the Southeastern U.S. killed at least 40 people and caused more than $1.5 billion of damage, according to NOAA. It is the first $1 billion weather-related disaster of the year. Last year, the U.S. experienced 14 weather-related disasters that caused $1 billion in damage or more, according to NOAA.

The first three months of 2012 had an average temperature of 42 degrees, which is 6 degrees above average and the warmest on record, according to NOAA. A more detailed analysis of March’s weather will be released at 11 a.m. New York time, according to NOAA.

Jeff, if you look at historic temperature charts then you will see that temperatures rising and falling are the trend and quite normal on earth in the form of cycles, what people like me oppose is the western elites propaganda spin on this to make money out of this phenomena by calling it human induced and then levying fines.

I would like to clearly state that I am not against curbing big corporations that pollute the earth and it's environment, it's the way the elites have put together a entire spin around it just to make money and control businesses in the developing world that irks me.

Do you know they also started a futures market for carbon credit tradings ?

I would highly recommend that you take some time and watch "The great global warming swindle" which does not deny the fact that humans pollute or that temperatures fluctuate, but sheds light on the elite propaganda with respect to the way they have used normal weather patterns and turned them into a big science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical[1] documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming exists.

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

The film won best documentary at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

Jeff, millions of people believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, so I am not surprised that many people don't believe in climate change. Chop down all the rain forests, pollute like mad the fall out seems pretty obvious to me.

samix wrote:
Jeff, if you look at historic temperature charts then you will see that temperatures rising and falling are the trend and quite normal on earth in the form of cycles, what people like me oppose is the western elites propaganda spin on this to make money out of this phenomena by calling it human induced and then levying fines.

I would like to clearly state that I am not against curbing big corporations that pollute the earth and it's environment, it's the way the elites have put together a entire spin around it just to make money and control businesses in the developing world that irks me.

Do you know they also started a futures market for carbon credit tradings ?

I would highly recommend that you take some time and watch "The great global warming swindle" which does not deny the fact that humans pollute or that temperatures fluctuate, but sheds light on the elite propaganda with respect to the way they have used normal weather patterns and turned them into a big science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical[1] documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming exists.

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

The film won best documentary at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647


Samix, as I continually remind the Skeptics, this is all about PROPORTIONALITY and WHOSE TEAM you want to belong to.

For more than a DECADE, Big Oil spent (literally) $BILLIONS buying-off scientific shills and getting them to crank out TOTAL FICTION.

So we IMMEDIATELY were presented with TWO questions which Big Oil was never able to answer when this "debate" began:

1) If the TRUTH was on their side then WHY resort to blatant deceit?
2) If the TRUTH was on their side, then why did they FAIL in their quest to convince people, despite their 10-1 (or 100-1) funding advantage?

You're talking about "scientific flaws", and I'm comparing that to the DELIBERATE fiction cranked-out by Big Oil.

You speak of "vested interests" in the $MILLIONS or $BILLIONS, while Big Oil has a "vested interest" in the $TRILLIONS. It wants to DRILL-OUT vast quantities of DEEP petroleum, which will not only devestate the environment but DRAMATICALLY crank-up greenhouse gas emissions - since ALL of this un-economical oil requires MASSIVE energy expenditures which will USE UP virtually as much oil/energy as is produced.

BUT in order to be ALLOWED to reap $10's of TRILLIONS in revenues (over the next several decades) producing all of this un-economical oil they must QUIET the "global warming" revolution.

How big of an effort would YOU make with $10's of TRILLIONS at stake...???

So now that I've dealt with the issue of proportionality, we come to to TEAMS. Do you REALLY believe that ANYTHING which has the RABID support of Big Oil and the UNANIMOUS support of the U.S. Senate could be LEGITIMATE...???

P.S. Samix, one of the thing which any/every decent law student learns is that it is a THOUSAND TIMES easier to attack the position of one's opponent than to POSITIVELY put forward one's own position.

So what we saw was that when Big Oil attempted to COMPETE against the scientific community, it LOST BADLY - despite its 10-1 (or 100-1) funding advantage. So having TOTALLY FAILED to establish its own position it has simply GIVEN UP.

Now ALL of that funding advantage goes into ATTACKING the scientific community. Big Oil no longer even ATTEMPTS to deny that the Earth is warming up; instead it tells us NOT TO WORRY because THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS. Gee, where have we heard THAT line before ("Don't worry, be happy!")?

Note also that Big Oil has TWISTED the whole debate. The issue is NOT "proving that greenhouse gases CAUSED global warming". It has NEVER been necessary to prove that. Instead, here is the REAL issue:

a) Do vanishing glaciers and ice-caps and rising sea levels mean that the planet is getting warmer? Yes.

b) Will those rising sea levels cause CATASTROPHIC harm (not to mention all the ultra-extreme WEATHER events which accompany it)? Yes.

c) Do greenhouse gases CONTRIBUTE to this general warming trend? While it has not yet reached the point of being scientifically conclusive, we KNOW these greenhouse gases act like an insulating layer in the atmosphere AND these gases are PRODUCED through activities which generate TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF HEAT/ENERGY. So as a simple principle of common sense, we expect it to be only a matter of time until ENOUGH DATA exists to PROVE what is just common sense.

d) Can CURBIING greenhouse gases (and heat output) mitigate or even stop this trend? UNKNOWN.

e) As human beings, who live COLLECTIVELY in communities (including the "global community"); is it our nature to SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING while disaster approaches, OR is it our nature to try to OVERCOME that disaster????

...The one thing we DO know with 100% certainty is that if Big Oil SUCCESSFULLY manages to put the sheep to sleep on Global Warming, then their PAST rape of the environment in search of more oil to DRILL FOR (which is where all the money is) will be seen as mere FOREPLAY...

Seb1 wrote:
Jeff, millions of people believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, so I am not surprised that many people don't believe in climate change. Chop down all the rain forests, pollute like mad the fall out seems pretty obvious to me.


Seb, the problem is that MANY people who generally don't allow themselves to get FOOLED by propaganda have allowed themselves to get "lawyered" on this issue. That is, they have OVERLOOKED the fact that global warming has not been DISPROVEN in any sense whatsoever. Rather, the ENTIRE Skeptics' position is simply that it has not been "proven beyond reasonable doubt".



MURDERERS walk free every day because we lacked enough evidence to PROVE their guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - even though we knew they were guilty. (Are you listening O.J.?)

So we have Big Oil engaging in their "lawyering" routine, telling us we should all just IGNORE Global Warming (and go back to sleep) simply because it has not YET been proven beyond a reasonable doubt...something which takes a LONG TIME with legitimate science.

The Catch-22 is that by the time that enough data has been collected to say (IN HINDSIGHT) that Global Warming is now PROVEN that it will be TOO LATE to do anything about it.

An analogy to this occurred in "The Great Gold Debate" between Bill Murphy (of GATA) and Jeffrey Christian. Christian "lawyered" Murphy. That is, he spent almost no time trying to establish his own position - and virtually all of his time ATTACKING Murphy (including numerous personal attacks).

The day after, the prognosis WITHIN the precious metals community was that Bill Murphy had "lost the debate" - because they allowed themselves to be influenced by all of the ATTACKING done by Christian. I saw a DIFFERENT debate. Stripping away all of the attacking done by Christian, I observed that virtually every time Christian opened his mouth to actually address the subject that he CONFIRMED gold manipulation.

It might be a good mental exercise for all of the Skeptics to read my series on The Great Gold Debate - so that you can see PRECISELY the same analogy, but in a different context...

The Great Debate, Part I
The Great Debate, Part II: Christian Confesses
The Great Debate, Part III: 'Loose-lips' Does it Again

The OTHER obvious analogy here is the U.S. political system - where POSITIVE political campaigning has been almost entirely abandoned. Instead, 90% of every campaign dollar spent on advertising goes into ATTACK ADS.

People (i.e. the braindead sheep) COMPLAIN about all of this negative advertising - and then REWARD the Karl Rove's of the world by VOTING for the candidate which does the best job ATTACKING his opponent.

All we have seen Big Oil do is to take the SAME ethics/tactics of the U.S. political system and use them in their Global Warming propaganda war.

To the forum,

"US breaks 15,000 temperature records".

As of today 04/09 Monday, Florida has 64 forest fires, that are being actively fought. We had a VERY mild winter. Very dry conditions, which means they are pumping lots of water for agriculture and the golf courses. Not to mention, over development in central and south areas, which need water piped from the more northern parts, because they get salt intrusion. We are planning for a very active hurricane season, from warmer ocean temperatures. Many chain reactions.

For some really disturbing science, look at Australia. The great barrier reef is dieing from acidic ocean waters. Mass drought and fires. Then the glaciers in Greenland are going away and not coming back.

As you said Jeff, we just can't prove anything beyond any reasonable doubt. So relax, when the oil monopoly and the coal industry can prove anything, they'll let the EPA know. Till then, lets build a pipeline from the tar sands, and frack our way to US energy independence.

We could make a list of solutions, that could have been in places, after we got that flag on the moon. Technology, innovation, new industries. Nah, there's no need.

The proof will be in the WATER.

Earl

PS- Thanks for posting the links. A couple, I think, will be worth the second read.

Samix, the issue in this instance is not whether climatic change occurs (it does), but rather the rate at which it is now occurring. There are no ascertainable natural phenomena which can account for such dramatic temperature increases in such a short period of time i.e. decades rather than millennia. This leaves AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) as the only plausible explanation. It doesn't take an intellectual stretch of any magnitude to conclude that dumping several billion tonnes of CO2, not to mention assorted other greenhouse gases; into the atmosphere annually, year upon year, will eventually have pernicious manifestations.