Redstate

don't you know we're the closed-minded troglodytes punishing these brilliant scientists for heresy?

(lol though!
and loling @ the goofy global warming cultists too)

What we really need is a nice, hot summer full of McCarthy-style hearings. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Global Warming Isn't So Bad Cabal?" Maybe they could hold them at the beach, to show how awful Global Warming really is.

Better yet, and the reason I am highly offended, is that all of us who think Global Warming is caused by the sun being too hot, and for corrupting youth by telling them so, all of us really need to be forced to drink hemlock.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Your observation is irrelevant. Similar to someone working with asbestos not noticing any problems.

here on the double. This one's breeding.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

why it's called global warming, not Southern- California-ocean-beach-near-my-house-with-my- friends-warming. But, you probably should keep your local info hush-hush, unless you'd like a lot of enviro refugees from Bangledesh on your doorstep in about 100 years.

a 0.6 degree +/- 0.2 degree change over a period of more than a century when you're measuring local ocean temps. (Yes, that's what "global warming" is all about. Really scary isn't it?)

Are there other periods when the earth has been significantly warmer or cooler than it is now? (Let me give you a clue, YES.)

Perhaps you can explain the middle age warm period, the little ice age, the correlation to the maunder minimum, etc. and how they were caused by human induced climate changes as well...

Oh, and don't forget that big bright warm thingy in the sky. I hear it's called "the sun" or some such and it's output has measurably increased recently too.

fresh meat. Maybe you're right 0.6 degrees C is not that big a change. But, 0.6 deg. over the last 50 years is a big deal (between 3 and 10 times the natural rate) - it is the rate of change that matters. Ecosystems can only adapt so quickly. We know that previous natural climate changes in the past have caused major ecosystems upheavels, imagine if we speed it up what could happen.

Yes, there may have been warmer periods in the past, but it doesn't mean that humans can't create their own. A good example is radiation levels in the atmosphere varied naturally before 1945, now they are pretty much dominated (but decreasing) by nuclear weapons testing residue. CO2 levels are currently at 380 ppm and growing - 26% higher than measured in the last 400,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Venus is warmer than Mercury). Tempertures are rising - think there's any relation.

Oh, the sun - of course! But wait the output of the sun has really changed that much in the last 30 years, while temperatures have increased. But, apparently you have some secret data that says otherwise - please do share! I'll pass it on to the climatologists who have obviously overlooked it - whoops!

sun output HASN'T changed is what I meant to say.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm

Which correlates termperature changes to sunspot activity (a proxy for solar output).

and

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.ht...

Which is a Nasa article "NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE"

There is room for debate about the religion of HUMAN induced global warming.****

*** This has officially put me on the list of heretic “b**tards” who are in global warming denial.

have been important in the past and some attribute climate change in the first part of the 20th century to these cycles - not much CO2 back then. But, they have not changed dramatically in the past 30 years (0.05 percent per decade) - both your links confirm this, thanks! Meanwhile the gloabl temp. increased 0.4 deg. So as your NASA study confirms

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

The key word in the title of that article is "can", which you have unfortunately interpreted as "has". Sometimes it pays to actually read your own links.

And 2005 was the solar minimum (low sunspot activity) in the 11 year cycle, but also the hottest on record. Not exactly a good correlation, now is it?

So, what's next: cosmic rays, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles? Where is that darn heat coming from Brian?

shifty, if you had actually read the report you would note that sunspots are a PROXY because they seem to correspond with high levels of Solar Mass Ejections which are a better measure of solar output. We have good records of sunspot activity dating back centuries, but don't have good records of SME's. A large SME occurred in 2005, even though it was during the low part of the sunspot cycle (it happens). Guess what, that lined up with the increased temps.

You're right, that was a local measure. But similar local measures have been repeated throughout the world and the response is always the same "that's just local temps". Well guess what. Global temperatures are made up of a whole lot of local temperatures and those temperatures should follow the global trend if the whole globe is warming (they don't).

And I understand the difference between CAN and DOES (do you?). That's kind of the point here isn't it? CO2 CAN possibly be one of the causes of a global temperature increases, you have claimed that CO2 DOES cause it and there is no other explanation.

I'm threatening your religion, burn me at the stake now.

I see - I must have misunderstood when you wrote sunspot activity correlates with temperature increases - it's a proxy - which to you must mean that correlation only matters when you want it to. I get it.

Solar Mass Ejections, well why didn't you say so in the first place. Incedently most people call them Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). So, yes there was some good solar activity in September of 2005 wasn't there - with the largest eruption occuring about at X17 on the CME scale. Trouble is, one event does not a correlation make. For example, a much larger event occured Novemeber 4, 2003 at a scale of X28 - the largest ever recorded. And yet, the global average temperature of 2003 was 0.04 deg. cooler than 1998. Again, not a very good correlation with the larger scale warming - sorry.

Yes, the global average of temperatures is made of a bunch of local temperatures. Not ever place warms equally and some may cool - which is why you use the global average. When you boil a pot of water not all locations are at 100 deg. C are they. Here is a plot of the global measurements for the last 10 years - see any overall "global" trend?

Your right CO2 can help increase temps. and when you rule out pretty much every other possible cause and that's all your left with, that's your answer isn't it? Here's a thought experiment for you - prove to me that gravity is caused by differences in mass and not gigantic magnets placed strategically around the universe. Why aren't you questioning the theory of gravity as well?

your first study is about temperature changes in Helsinki. Repeat after me "global" warming...not Helisinki-must-be-just-like-the-world-average-even-though-it's-not-and-you're-wasting-my-time-warming. What else you got?

sorry to keep piling it on, but I'm literally laughing. More wisdom from our new friend Timo

http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/twa800.htm

Could you email him about Occam's razor...please?

I am something of a logician. So when you say

Maybe you're right 0.6 degrees C is not that big a change. But, 0.6 deg. over the last 50 years is a big deal (between 3 and 10 times the natural rate)

my fingers start to itch. You are assuming the truth of your thesis to prove it, a process called "begging the question".

While it is true that you provide other arguments, that one is fallacious.

Here is an interesting tidbit for you. Mars appears to be getting warmer. Perhaps if we'd signed the Kyoto Treaty before we sent probes there, that crisis could have been avoided.

Oh, and Plutois experiencing a warming crisis (probably due to human influence) as well.

And it seems there is a whole list of such evidence for the entire solar system.

Again, I'm no expert. I just Googled "solar system global warming", and picked a few links at random.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

sure what is fallacious about my argument in your first criticism. It's not necessarily the absolute temperature that matters, but the rate at which it occurs.

The only evidence of global warming on Mars is a melting of the southern polar ice cap, which is most likely a regional phenomenom caused by it's highly eccentric orbit - meaning it's spring/summer in the southern hemisphere. There may also be some influence from the lack of dustorms occuring on the surface realtive to 20 years ago.

As far as Pluto, it has a highly ellipitcal orbit with a period of 248 years. It is currently moving away from the sun, but because of the variation of Nitrogen in it's atmosphere, it actually has an anti-greenhouse effect that causes warming as it moves away from the sun.

If the sun were having an effect on the solar system, as I think you're implying, we would be able to see this in irradiance measurements on the Earth's surface. These have been pretty stable for the last 30 years.

was labelling a certain heat curve the "natural" one, when we don't know that what we're experiencing now isn't the "natural" one.

Again, I'm not an expert, so wowing me with numbers doesn't do much to convince me -- on this subject, it's words of one syllable, please. And you face another battle, after convincing me that man is the cause of Global Warming, and that is that it's a Bad Thing.

I like it warm. I'm not happy with the weather until it gets into the low 80's, and I'm not uncomfortable until it gets above 105 -- and not then if I have a hat.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

I think most would agree that humans haven't had much effect on the global temperature until the last hundred years. If we throw that away that hundred years and look at temperature records for the last 450,000 years, you can get an idea of what the natural rate is.

Sorry, but now I have to use numbers. The last "rapid" jump of about 9 deg. C took place over about 20,000 years. Similar jumps were faster, but the fastest is about 5,000 years. So, if there's a change of 9 deg. over 5,000 that's 0.0018 deg. per year. Fast forward to the present we have 0.6 deg. over 30 years is 0.02 deg. per year - that's over 10 times the previously observed rate! If you assume this warming has happened over the last 150 years, then that is 3 times the natural rate.

In monosyllabics - previous change slow, present change fast.

To convince you it's a bad thing, don't necessarily think about the absolute temp. - of course we can all adjust to a few degrees warmer in the summer. But, to quickly adjust we will have to implement solutions that are much more expensive than fixing global warming itself. For example, many South American countries depend on Andes glaciers for drinking water - at the present rate of melting, most will be gone in 100 years. How expensive will it be to build alternative supplies? I'm planning on writing a diary about the relative costs and the fixes aren't as bad as you think. Stay tuned.

google will not be replacing scientific scrutiny anytime soon.

...of willfully spewing KnownFacts™, and has sentenced you to a lifetime of doing so elsewhere.

In the name of all that is Moe, begone from this place!

Blam.

The truth shall set you free.

this one didn't watch South Park tonight, I fear.

(matt and trey take on the 9/11 ruth movement: 1/4 of the population is retarded)

South Park, and more appropriate for this thread, last season's episode "The Day Before the Day After Tomorrow" might have been the funniest episode ever.

preserved by the temporary subordination of desire to discipline.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Freedom is slavery,
Ignorance is strength.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

..rid the world of ManBearPig is a loser

The Spainishirish Inquisition!

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

there's also scientific debate about whether (click any of the following at your own risk) 9/11 was the work of terrorists, whether HIV causes AIDS, smoking causes cancer, and gravity is a natural phenomena. (Why do they all seem to have the same crappy web layout?) As long as we're at it lets add these esteemed scientists to the list of the wrongly prosecuted. Where's the outrage for these brave souls?

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

soon as Grist takes over the government, I'm sure they will.

It doesn't. HIV is a virus, AIDS is a "syndrome". You can have AIDS without being HIV+, and you can be HIV+ without having AIDS. As for your other examples, not enough folks believe in them for science advocates to get worked up into a witch-hunting frenzy.

AIDS without HIV? Can you document that? Or are you Thabo Mbeki pushing that "harmless HIV" conspiracy theory?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I guess it would depend on what definition of AIDS is used. Appartently the various world bodies have different definitions.

The CDC definition requires that a patient have HIV before they are considered to have AIDS. This is actually one of the critisisms that Serge Lang had of HIV/AIDS. In fact I got this definiton from one of Langs AIDS dissident papers.

on the subject

(Cue scratchy voice)What I should have said was, HIV is not the only cause of AIDS. But I wanted to be snarky. AS Nilram said, it is possible to have AIDS without being HIV+, depending on whose definition of AIDS that you use. So pjshifty, you are correct: HIV causes AIDS. I just agree with the theory that HIV is not the only cause of AIDS.

While it is true that HIV causes AIDS, many HIV+ people live for years without acquiring any of the diseases that fill the set of AIDS, and if they die in a car crash before they get sick, they never had AIDS.

(Clear throat, end backpedal)

What the heck are you talking about?

"You know, it's the right wing that gives us all the overheated rhetoric, like claiming there are threats to free speech."

-- that is a charge I have heard very frequently. We're the "fascists," right?

"Hey -- I think that TV ad is illegal! You need to identify your membership ("freedom of assocatiation"? That's an 18th Century anachronism!)."

-- Here, I'm referring to so-called "campaign reform" which enjoyed "bipartisan" support (something that both the evil and stupid parties agree on), but particularly supported by the Left. McCain-Feingold regulates ads 60 days before an election, and one of the ways it does that is to say, a group that places ads with unacceptable content must disclose their membership lists. This is contrary to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association, and has been litigated in the past: the classic case was the KKK wanting the NAACP's list of supporters, and the union bosses wanted the same from the National Right to Work Committee. The union bosses were explicit: they were going to contact the folks on the list -- wonder why? (They lost; the Court said that sort of thing has a "chilling effect" on free speech.)

No, don't you publish that, it might offend the, uh, the . . . well, you know who . . .

-- talking about the Mohammed cartoons.

Hey--gotta run, some right-wing nutjob is gonna try giving a talk at Columbia U. Can't let that happen!

-- talking about what happened recently at Columbia U., when a speaker from "the Minutemen" was shut down in classic fascist-thug fashion. All actually in the name of "free speech."

Let me know how the show-trial-project is shaping up. How you doing on your knitting, Madame Defarge?

-- referring to the character I thought was famous from Tale of Two Cities, set in the French Revolution: Madame Defarge, who knits a list of enemies who are subject to show trials once the revolution is underway.

My point was that all this stuff -- from the LEFT -- is actually consistent with Stalinist (Josef Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union in the 30s, who had show trials) behavior. Talk of "Nuremberg-style" trials is just awfully close to parody, isn't it?

You're right, those are common charges from the left. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or making the normal lefty rant. Being somewhat new here, I don't always recognise all the posters' names. After I asked for clarification I checked some of your other posts and decided this was a parody of the lefties after all. But thanks for making it more clear. 8*)

It just struck me that this Canadian scheme to pay people a 700% premium for their solar power is a little like the old watermelon salesman joke:

A couple of Massaschusetts entrepreneurs looking for a business hit upon the idea that watermelons would be a big hit in the Commonwealth, since they didn't grow there naturally, and are delicious. They had some money to spend so they decided to buy a truck and sell Bay State Watermelons. They purchased a medium-sized truck and went south to North Carolina and bought a load of watermelons for a dollar each. Then they drove them back to Massachusetts and sold them for a $.50 cents apice, which was all they could get for them because they were such unfamiliar cuisine. After a while they realized they were going broke, and one guy said to the other, "I told you we needed a bigger truck."

seem to have hit a nerve - sorry. I retract any reference to David Duke.

But, know that most people who study global warming and probably even most of those in the Democratic party would have a similar reaction to the comments by the Grist writer. Skeptics are good for science in the long run and fun to poke fun at when they clearly have their heads in the sand - but definitely not criminals. This was the purpose of my analogy.

that David Duke has talked to Republicans and the conservative media? Hmmm...well he was a republican representitive in Louisiana - think he ever talked to people in his own party or the conservative media?

The point is just because folks talked to extreme elements of their side of the political spectrum doesn't necessarily mean they hold the same radical beliefs. Maybe Ann Coulter is a better comparison if that makes you feel better.

Prove it. When, where?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...there was no conservative media to speak of except Rush, so I thought you were speaking of the present era.

Psst, Learn how to hit Reply To, so your replies go in the right place and you don't look like an idiot.

Anyway, that link if true only supports his having won as a Republican, not his having had other Republicans associating with him:

In 1989, he ran as a Republican for a seat representing Metairie in the Louisiana State House of Representatives. He defeated fellow Republican John Treen, the brother of David C. Treen, the first Republican to be elected governor of Louisiana since Reconstruction, by a narrow margin of 51-49 percent. Duke's victory came despite visits to the district in support of John Treen's candidacy by President George H.W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other GOP notables.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...from the same entry:

In 1975, Duke sought a seat in the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat. In 1988, he ran in the Democratic Party primary for President of the United States. After a poor showing in the Democratic primaries, he appeared on many state ballots as the nominee of the Populist Party and received 47,047 votes in the 1988 general election.

[snip]

In December 1988, he switched political affiliation from Democratic to Republican.

David Duke is a Republican like I'm a Martian. He has shown how Louisiana's open primary system can easily be abused by a self-serving political crank. Anyone can register as any party, or with no party affiliation, and all the candidates run against each other. There was one statewide race where the "official" party-endorsed Republican ran about 7th in a very large field, polling about 3% of the vote. Several other Republican candidates were in the top six.

I am proud (as a Republican) to say I voted against Duke (for governor), and for his notoriously sleazy Democratic opponent Edwin Edwards, who is now an all-expenses paid guest of the Federal government.

"VOTE FOR THE CROOK, IT MATTERS"

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

David Duke was just a sleazy money-grubber. From what I read, he ran campaigns strictly to benefit from the leftover cash after the campaign had ended.

As we all know, elections can be a big money business, too.

...judging from his website. I'll be d****d if I'm gonna link to it, though.

He's a Jew-hating conspiracy nut who sucks up to Russia and al-Jazeera and thinks we should cut & run in Iraq. Except for the "black thing", you'd think he was Cindy Sheehan.

Of course he's socialist! He just draws those absurd 'race' lines instead of those absurd 'class' lines.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

the Democrats embrace and protect their KKK leader. Or have you forgotten that Robert Byrd was an "Exalted Cyclops" of the Klan?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan