Really?

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

The Man Made Global Warming ass-clowns are really grasping at straws.

Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

I have a simpler explanation. Carbon isn't causing temperatures to rise, rising temps cause a higher level of carbon in the atmosphere.

The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.

No shit Sherlock. The scam has been revealed for the lie that it has always been.

Trackback(0)
Comments (12)add comment
Woody
various data show..
written by Woody , July 05, 2011

Recent climate data here in MN in the form of updated decade historical trends show an increase in temperature in MN for the 3rd decade in a row. A recent British study is showing that the melting of arctic ice caps has actually accelerated due not just from increased air temperatures but increasing temperature of the ocean which melts ice caps at a greater rate that increased air temps alone. The fact is that "various data" can be hand picked to conclude whatever the GW denier ass-clowns want to present to make their claim. Are you suggesting we increase the rate of greenhouse gas or sulphur emissions until the moose return to their normal range in MN or even make it colder here? I thought you hated the winters here Bart. I have attached a link to my "various data" presented by Dr Mark Seeley in an article by the Star Tribune (sorry smilies/wink.gif)

http://www.startribune.com/local/124828549.html



Elmer
Seeley
written by Elmer , July 05, 2011

is a recognized lefty fanatic. Limited cred among climatologists. Try to enhance the diversity of your sources, Woodrow.


Woody
...
written by Woody , July 05, 2011

Dr Seeley is actually a well respected meteorologist and climatologist whom I have had the privelege of knowing thru a number of undergrad classes and hearing him speak at conferences in the area and he has never seemed like a "fanatic" to me. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them a "lefty fanatic" does it Elmer? If you want to be an ass-clown and use this as your debate outlet on climate change, I think thgis will be a short discussion. I am willing to provide more evidence to support my opinion in this matter however, it is evidence gathered by scientists whom you may discredit for that fact alone but I'm not positive of this. I'm curious as to how you come to the conclusion that Dr Seeley is a lefty fanatic. I have provided a brief educational background and partial list of publications to help you along.

Political Science 1969 UC Berkeley??


http://www.swac.umn.edu/People/MarkSeeley/index.htm



Barthélemy Barbancourt
The climate does change
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , July 05, 2011

I don't disagree that we might be getting warmer, MN used to be a lot colder. Whether we are causing it is one question and the best way to deal with that is another.

Even if we are causing GW, we should look at ways to deal with it that don't involve impoverishing people, ruining economies and handing over all power to international organizations.

Al Gore is an ass-clown of the first degree, so anything he supports is automatically suspect.




Woody
Even if we are causing GW...
written by Woody , July 05, 2011

Bart, now we're making progress rather than blindly dismissing scientists as "lefty fanatics". I'll give a little too. I don't take much stock in what Al Gore has to say regarding MMGW as he is not a devoted scientist and he is simply presenting others work that he has some interest and/or strong belief in. It's hard to find but I prefer to get my scientific data from those that do not have direct financial or tenure interest in the outcomes of research and, as you know, Al Gore is heavily invested in the carbon trading market. As such, I do not find him to be a highly credible source. I'll admit I have not seen all of his documentary but from what I did see he did not come off as someone presenting his findings or conclusions from years of personal research. He comes off more as a substitute teacher of sorts presenting from someone elses lecture notes.


Elmer
do your homework
written by Elmer , July 05, 2011

for yourself. A BA in political science from Berkeley is fine preparation for climatology. Seeley has been an outspoken controversial character among state climatologists for several years. I have read enough to know he is a true believer. I'm sure he's a nice guy and gives good talks. And he's probably right about some things. I recall that his policy ideas were pretty extreme. I don't disagree with the observations as much as the lefty policy ideas.

The increased melting of polar ice by currents was cited in a brand new study about 3 days ago. Jury's still out. A single publication decides nothing. It's an intriguing result.

As to being an ass-clown, you brought up Seeley, no one else did. So if you shut up, it'll be a real short discussion.

A debate about science on this forum is absurd. Don't beat your chest like an ape, it'll hurt after a while. Get back your old self righteousness.



Woody
Hook line and sinker Elmer
written by Woody , July 05, 2011

He also has degrees in meterology and climatology but I knew if I dangled UC Berkeley out there you'd take both treble hooks. I brought up Mark Seeley to discuss MMGW so I will not shut up Elmer it is completely relevant to this discussion. I debate about science is never absurd Elmer and giving in to this cop out means we all lose.


Elmer
My error
written by Elmer , July 06, 2011

Sorry, Woody, I shot the gun early. I had confused Seeley with a guy named Taylor who was a controversial state climatologist of Oregon. Seeley's not so unreasonable, despite his MPR appearances. I also took your bait on Berkeley, you wascally wabbit. I'm sorry for my defamation of someone you appear to respect.

What I meant was that this is not a suitable forum for debating scientific details. It's an electronic corner bar, not a seminar.



Sequel
...
written by Sequel , July 06, 2011

The problem with the climate hysterics is that they have been so consistently wrong in their predictions that the public is starting to tune them out.
They turn into the equivalent of human car alarms (as Steven Hayward calls them). Simply ignored as another false alarm.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Thanks Elmer
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , July 06, 2011

Appologies are rare anywhere these days and I always appreciate it when someone admits that they made a mistake. I try to own up to my mistakes on the blog and take my lumps. I hate to use the term credible when discussing a blog, especially this one, but people do build credibility by admitting mistakes.

I wish that the fanatical MMGW crowd would stop shouting "deniers" and listen to the other side for a bit. Many of us have no problem with the idea that our planet may be getting warmer. I'd also be willing to admit some amount of input from human activity if that didn't always and inevitably lead to top down, anti-growth, one world government "solutions" to a problem that is obviously still ill defined.

The best attitude right now, given the 10 years of stability in temps, is to "Don't just do something, stand there!"



Woody
Buy me a drink then Elmer
written by Woody , July 06, 2011

I'm not familiar with Taylors work. That would explain your confusion with Dr. Seeley. He's far from a liberal fanatic. To be honest I did not even realize he attended UC Berkeley, for political science no less, but when I saw this I had to throw the hook out there. Your response was more than cordial and I shall catch and release. Swim Elmer and be free LOL.


Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , July 07, 2011

You are effing crapping me!

From:
E.P.A. Issues Tougher Rules for Power Plants
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/science/earth/08epa.html?hp

"The agency said that utilities could meet the new standards at modest cost by using readily available technology like catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers. Under some E.P.A. projections, the new rule will create thousands of jobs in pollution-control businesses and significantly increase labor productivity by reducing workdays lost to respiratory and other illnesses."

How fucking stupid do they think we are? How can this possible be printed without being followed by LOL

just come out and say it with vomiting forth this crap. How about......

"This is gonna definitely be expensive, might cost some jobs because of the expenses, but should cut pollution."

At least we wouldn't be so covered in bullshit that we need to shower.




Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy