Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Cold Snap Disproves Global Warming

[Chris_]

As TVDOC noted realclimate.com is not a scientific research site but policy advocacy.

In short: they've lied.

And as the point of the article you seek to rebut centers on the fact that the Himalayan glacier melt was nothing more wild-assed speculation uttered in a phone conversation rather than a definitive research article perhaps the IPCC should have found some real research rather than "ignoring" what they knew to be speculation for "political" reasons.

Thanks snugs.......and while I'm at it (not to stifle the discussion, or anything), but links to, or quotes from the following are also not to be considered scientifically credible as well:

IPCC - UN political advocacy, has published falsehoods and heresay as fact, and whose primary motivation is to deprive first world countries of wealth, to benefit the third world.

NOAA - Although scientific in nature, has been repeatedly shown to be "politically driven" by those who hold their budget leashes, and has also been guilty of propagating misleading and "doctored" climate data.

The MSM in toto - Who, it goes without saying, has been far from objective in reporting the actual facts regarding the climate issue.

Carry on.......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Indeed.

If the IPCC could have shown AGW glacier melt then they wouldn't have been relying on telephone spit-balling sessions.

[The Night Owl]

AGW isn't even PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE as it violates the laws of thermodynamics but does this give the AGW-types a sense of relief?

So, the American Institute of Physics supports the mainstream view on AGW because...

1. ...the scientists who run it don't know the laws of thermodynamics?
2. ...are in on the global conspiracy?

[Chris_]

So, the American Institute of Physics supports the mainstream view on AGW because...

At this point there is no longer a "mainstream view" (if there ever was one realistically).........not unlike the "consensus fallacy" scientists are running away from this hoax as fast as they can......and still preseve their grant status......

Its over.......its just a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of all of the fabrication and deceit.....

doc

[The Night Owl]

At this point there is no longer a "mainstream view" (if there ever was one realistically).........not unlike the "consensus fallacy" scientists are running away from this hoax as fast as they can......and still preseve their grant status......

Its over.......its just a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of all of the fabrication and deceit.....

doc

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

[Oceander]

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

So?  For the longest time, the situation was comparable with plate tectonics, the static universe, heliocentrism, etc.....

[Doc]

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

I've never found a credible scientific institution that took that position to begin with.......

("Credible"  as defined as one who was not either blackmailed by their alarmist peers, or by threatned revocation of research grants, or fed false or doctored data to arrive at their conclusions)

doc

[Eupher]

I've never found a credible scientific institution that took that position to begin with.......

doc

Game, set, and match! 

[The Night Owl]

I've never found a credible scientific institution that took that position to begin with.......

("Credible"  as defined as one who was not either blackmailed by their alarmist peers, or by threatned revocation of research grants, or fed false or doctored data to arrive at their conclusions)

doc

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

[Chris_]

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

If that is true, why do you continue to defend AGW......which is, after all, the biggest "conspiracy theory" in modern history?

doc

[Eupher]

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

Why? Because conspiracy has been the hallmark of those who have perpetuated the global warming myth and you can't abide the truth?   

[Wineslob]

Yes. So what?

So...since we "know" that glaciers melted in traceable patterns that, except for this era, do not have a "viable" presence of man.....................what caused them to melt and re-form? Mammoth farts?

[dutch508]

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

The Church (you know those people you hate?) didn't reverse it's excommunion of that guy who thought the world was round for several hundred years...would you have still thought the earth was flat, just because the main 'scientific' community hadn't changed it's mind yet?

[thundley4]

So...since we "know" that glaciers melted in traceable patterns that, except for this era, do not have a "viable" presence of man.....................what caused them to melt and re-form? Mammoth farts?

It could be mammoth farts.  Methane is going to be the new boogie man in the glowbull warming myth very soon.

[Wineslob]

It could be mammoth farts.  Methane is going to be the new boogie man in the glowbull warming myth very soon.

Hell these idiots already tried to blame cows...........

[Wineslob]

I'm starting to believe TNO is pulling these "facts" out of his ozone hole.

[The Night Owl]

The Church (you know those people you hate?) didn't reverse it's excommunion of that guy who thought the world was round for several hundred years...would you have still thought the earth was flat, just because the main 'scientific' community hadn't changed it's mind yet?

The belief that the Earth is flat is a protoscientific view which was held long before the scientific method became standard practice. It's silly to compare modern science to protoscience.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

No theory.

AGW is based on fraud and politics.

The science is settled.

[Carl]

The belief that the Earth is flat is a protoscientific view which was held long before the scientific method became standard practice. It's silly to compare modern science to protoscience.

Silly such as the whole sham that global warming has been revealed to be?

[Eupher]

The belief that the Earth is flat is a protoscientific view which was held long before the scientific method became standard practice. It's silly to compare modern science to protoscience.

And how does that compare to the myth of global warming?

You know, concrete, certified, card-carrying myth? Admitted by those who practiced spreading the myth for ideological and political reasons?

[Chris_]

I'm going to get out of this debate, but before I do, I wanted to leave you with the scientific reality that underlies this entire discussion, and the logical flaws in the argument of the AGW alarmists.......

First Fact:  All life on this planet is based on carbon.......you know the same carbon that forms carbon dioxide, and is the primary component in the fuels that we use.  The same carbon that has become the "bogeyman" for the AGW alarmists.

Second Fact:  The carbon on earth, in its various forms, has always been here, and always be until the planet vaporizes in the corona of our dying sun.

Third Fact:  With the exception of meteorite strikes, the amount of carbon in the earth's ecosystem is FIXED, and hasn't changed appreciably in the four billion years of the planet's existence.  The carbon in our ecosystem may change in form, combine with other elements, form complex amino acids, or other compounds, but the total amount of it never changes in the macro.

Fourth Fact:  The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is constantly changing, and has for eons.....further, it has been present at much higher levels than it is today.

Fifth Fact: The idea that our present level of scientific understanding of earth's ecosystem is sufficiently sophisticated that we can predict future changes in the climate is patently ludicrous on its face, and genuinely laughable to any true scientist.

Sixth Fact  The fossil record that most evolutionists love has proven through spectrographic analysis that the earth has warmed and cooled countless times over its history, and generally does so on a cyclical basis......this is not a new phenomena, it has been happening also for eons.


Let us never forget our High School Physics......"matter can never be created or destroyed, only changed in form........"

So what I'm presenting above are the inarguable FACTS.......not theory, conjecture, or speculation, or the rantings of some UN climate panel......these are the facts.

Anyone with more than two functioning neurons, and a basic understanding of HS physics can come to the same conclusion that I have........AGW is a hoax

I'm not going to say that the earth isn't warming, or cooling......it changes all the time......but the idea that human beings can cause it to either warm, or cool is simply preposterous........

doc

[The Night Owl]

First Fact:  All life on this planet is based on carbon.......you know the same carbon that forms carbon dioxide, and is the primary component in the fuels that we use.  The same carbon that has become the "bogeyman" for the AGW alarmists.

CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.

Second Fact:  The carbon on earth, in its various forms, has always been here, and always be until the planet vaporizes in the corona of our dying sun.

The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sixth Fact  The fossil record that most evolutionists love has proven through spectrographic analysis that the earth has warmed and cooled countless times over its history, and generally does so on a cyclical basis......this is not a new phenomena, it has been happening also for eons.

This is just silly. No one is claiming that Earth hasn't gone through waming and cooling cycles.

[Chris_]

CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.

The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is just silly. No one is claiming that Earth hasn't gone through waming and cooling cycles.

I have observed that you conveniently missed the entire point......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.

The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

The concept of which is physically impossible. To wit:

The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scientifi c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di fference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Come back in 114 pages.

[Duke Nukum]

No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.

As Max Plank quipped, Science progresses funeral by funeral.  So give it time.  Nobody lives forever.