hot enough for ya?

[Turdacious]

The case for a human-induced global warming crisis requires the demonstration of several components. These include (1) that global temperatures are rising, (2) that global temperatures will likely continue to rise in the future, (3) that the rise in temperatures is or will be sufficiently rapid and substantial to cause enormous negative consequences that far outweigh the benefits of such warming and (4) that human emissions of greenhouse gases account for all such temperature rise or enough of the temperature rise to elevate the temperature rise to crisis levels.

In order to justify government action against global warming, advocates must also show that the proposed action will substantially reduce the negative impacts of the asserted crisis and that the costs of such action will not outweigh the benefits.

Muller's paper merely addresses the first component necessary to support the theory of a human-induced global warming crisis. Moreover, this first component hasn't been in dispute, even before publication of Muller's paper.

Very few if any skeptics assert that the earth is still in the Little Ice Age. While the Little Ice Age raged from approximately 1300 to 1900 AD, it is pretty well accepted that the Little Ice Age did indeed end by approximately 1900 AD. The mere fact that the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and that temperatures have warmed during the course of recovering from the Little Ice Age, tells us absolutely nothing about the remaining components necessary to support an assertion that humans are creating a global warming crisis.

Muller himself admits, "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... straw-men/

[dead man walking]

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) number today, which measures the direct climate influence of a select set of greenhouse gases, and the news is not good. The numbers continue to climb, further evidence that the greenhouse effect is on the rise.

This comes on top of a staggering report released by the U.S. Department of Energy last week saying that global emissions of carbon dioxide –- a key, and long-lived, greenhouse gas –- had jumped by the biggest amount on record in the year 2010. The figures showed a 6% increase over the year before. That rise was steeper than worst-case scenarios that had been laid out by climate experts only four years before. That news was met with headlines worldwide calling it a “monster” increase and “the biggest ever seen.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greensp ... limbs.html

[Herv100]

The fact that there the globe has been cooling the last decade despite rising emissions pretty much shits in the mouth of all the doomsday fantasizers.

[Thatcher II]

The fact that there the globe has been cooling the last decade despite rising emissions pretty much shits in the mouth of all the doomsday fantasizers.

Your posts are like a peacock's display of epic stupid. Exhibition stuff. You go, girl.

[Herv100]

How's "sobriety" going, Rant?

[Thatcher II]

What's your IQ, Herv?

LOL.

[Herv100]

High enough to be in gifted classes growing up, Runt. Do you think your kids would ashamed of your online behavior? I do.

[Fat Cat]

The fact that there the globe has been cooling the last decade despite rising emissions pretty much shits in the mouth of all the doomsday fantasizers.

Do you know what a trend is?

[Jag Panzer]

I think it's great how the ideological movement that has such a hard time grasping basic biology that adherents can honestly think of evolution as "a lie" suddenly buck up on climate science to such a degree that it, too, becomes a liberal conspiracy.

How is it that only the politically-delicate science becomes a matter of contention?

Maybe turning science into political axe-grinding bullshit isn't a good idea.

[Turdacious]

The fact that there the globe has been cooling the last decade despite rising emissions pretty much shits in the mouth of all the doomsday fantasizers.

Do you know what a trend is?

Same one as during the 70's?

[Shapecharge]

The secret to solving the global warming crisis? How 'bout all chicks, 18 to 80 get down...get down on these nutz.

[dead man walking]

your life has focus, shape. i admire that.

[dead man walking]

Climate change means more frequent droughts and floods, U.N. panel says in report

“. . . The fact is, a small change in average temperature can have a big impact on extremes,” Meehl said in an interview. “It’s pretty straightforward. As average temperatures go up, it’s fairly obvious that heat extremes go up and [the number of] low extremes go down.”

Meehl co-authored a 2009 study showing that during the past decade the number of record highs in the United States outnumbered the record lows by an average of 2 to 1; historically, the two have been roughly even. Two Australian researchers last year found a similar trend between 1997 and 2009. . . .

The report says there is at least a 66 percent chance that climate extremes have changed as a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities,. . . . . The overall economic and insured losses are greater in industrialized nations, while in poor countries extreme weather events cause more deaths and represent a greater proportion of the gross domestic product.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tid=pm_pop

[Turdacious]

Re human caused climate change-- one study says there's a 66% chance it happened; and another says there's no correlation. Which one is right?

[dead man walking]

one more study by the leading climate scientists worldwide says yes

rational risk-mitigation says society should take steps to address the possible causes, given the enormous potential costs of not addressing the issue.

Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, said in . . . “The science is not getting more uncertain — it’s actually getting more and more certain." . . .

This year has already set a record in terms of billion-dollar disasters for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center, with at least 10 disasters approaching a total of $50 billion.

[Turdacious]

one more study by the leading climate scientists worldwide says yes

rational risk-mitigation says society should take steps to address the possible causes, given the enormous potential costs of not addressing the issue.

Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, said in . . . “The science is not getting more uncertain — it’s actually getting more and more certain." . . .

This year has already set a record in terms of billion-dollar disasters for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center, with at least 10 disasters approaching a total of $50 billion.

So Muller is wrong?

[dead man walking]

muller says climate change is happening. he doesn't say yes or no whether man is causing it.

the significant probability that man is playing a role argues for mitigation. what mitigation will depend on costs and benefits, but we know the costs of climate change are real and will be high, so some mitigation activities will be cost-effective.

denying climate change irrationally forestalls appropriate risk mitigation behavior.

[The Crawdaddy]

Re human caused climate change-- one study says there's a 66% chance it happened; and another says there's no correlation. Which one is right?

Statistical analysis is like that: You get a different answer from the data when you ask different questions or different data sets. Guaranteed that both were different, so they probably both were in some way.

[Gene]

muller says climate change is happening. he doesn't say yes or no whether man is causing it.

the significant probability that man is playing a role argues for mitigation. what mitigation will depend on costs and benefits, but we know the costs of climate change are real and will be high, so some mitigation activities will be cost-effective.

Bullshit.

denying climate change irrationally forestalls appropriate risk mitigation behavior.

Fuck off.

[Herv100]

People who actually want and hope global warming to be true are funny

[milosz]

I'm not sure how much of a retard one needs to be to claim that global temps have been cooling for a decade, but:

[dead man walking]

A new report from the Defense Science Board (PDF) recommends that the U.S. Department of Defense needs to have a much broader understanding of global climate change because—get this—it represents a fundamental threat to U.S. and international security.

[Herv100]

The scientist at the center of the climategate scandal made a rather important admission during an interview with the BBC.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

[Herv100]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Wed, Jul 27, 2011
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

[Herv100]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI[/youtube]