One can only note the irony that on the day that Global warming activist Al Gore is supposed to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, a huge snowstorm is expected which may delay the hearings.
According to a Drudge report: “I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside,” a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. “And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel.”
With more and more data coming out that the world is actually cooling, global warming fans have changed their mantra to ‘climate change.’ Nice way to hedge your bets.
What none of them admit though, is that none of this is man made. It’s the pinnacle of human arrogance to think that we are creating all of these problems. The earth has been around much longer than the 60 or so years that Gore has graced this earth, and the earth has warmed and cooled, and been through all kinds of climate change, long before industry polluted and SUV’s were created.
Maybe the forecasted snowfall to rain on the Gore parade, is God showing us his sense of humor?
About Aaron Katsman
That’s so “cool” how you know better than the overwhelming consensus of opinion among scientists in this area. Too bad more people weren’t as humble as you are instead of being so arrogant.
And you demonstrate right here on this very blog what a sound grasp you have of the global warming concept by finding it ironic that a snowstorm is evidence against it.
Yeah… a snowstorm. That overturns the theory of global warming right there. Good observation – plus there’s your added dose of humility in suggesting that you know that this is God’s way of joking. You guys must be tight!
Katsman you hit the nail on the head. The “Gore effect” makes me laugh at the global warming fanatics. It is proof enough for me that God in heaven has a sense of humor. Of course one day’s cold weather does not scientifically prove anything. It does make in hard for the fanatics to sway the public with the ancedotal evidence they call “the global warming theory.”
There is no such thing as a consensus in science. It must be a proven scientific fact, a theory or a hypothesis to be tested. We don’t vote; we do reproducible experiments and research. The proponents of global warming base everything on their models, which when given 1960 data cannot predict today’s temperatures. They have created a phony money machine.
And Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”
LOL! Just “follow the money” and you get to Al Gore, not the oil lobby!
“There’s no such thing as a consensus in science” – very good!
Sorry for my prior serious comment, you got me – thought this was serious at first!
With knowledge of Control System Theory it is trivial to prove using the Vostok ice core data that net positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate and added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not significantly contribute to increased average global temperature.
Those who understand Control Systems Theory (CST) can recognize that earth’s climate can be evaluated as a dynamic system with feedback. Since the sun is the only significant energy source, the model is quite simple. The input (to the transfer function) is the insolation (energy from the sun) combined with feedback from average global temperature (agt). The transfer function includes all factors that contribute to agt. And the output is agt. Repeatedly during the last and previous glacial periods, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was increasing. This is not possible if there is net positive feedback. CST and this accepted ice core data prove that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (and/or methane) does not significantly influence agt.
Wow, laughable article. I still find it amazing that people can not understand, its not “regional” warming, but “global” warming. That means, that if you look only at the us this winter, yes, we’ve had a cooler winter than average. But, now look at Australia, which is having record setting heat waves. You have to compare the entire planet, not just a part of 1 continent.
You talk about this so called global cooling that more and more papers are published upon. Care to share any of those papers? Do a literature search, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find peer reviewed literature stating just that. Its a question of timescales. If you want to compare the last 10 years, there is not a considerable warming in comparison to the starting of the time series. However if you compare the last 10 years to the whole of the 20th century, you’ll find the last 10 of 12 years are the warmest on record.
Understand the science before you post crap tidbits of information that the unknowing person will believe to be true.
Arrond, if you had actually checked you would have discovered that for the last decade global temperatures have been going down. According to NOAA data (not their agenda-biased narrative reports), in 2008 the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE WAS LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 7.9% of the total linearized increase during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 14.8% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Similar analyses result in temperature declines of 34.3%, 17.5%, 34.0% and 14.2% for UAH, Hadley, RSS, and GISS respectively. UAH and RSS use the same raw satellite data but differ slightly in data reduction process. The others are weighted averages of monitors on land and ocean.
The following site links to several peer-reviewed scientific papers that refute AGW http://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 . It is misleading to say that recent years are the warmest on record since the ‘record’ that is being referred to starts at the depths of the Little Ice Age. Of course it is warmer now.
As for understanding the science, if you understood ALL of the relevant science, including that which climate scientists appear to be unaware of, you would realize that added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not significantly influence average global temperature. See the post before yours above.