Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

Phil Jones from the now infamous E. Anglia U has admitted there hasn't been "global warming" in 15 years. The globe cooled 0.5 degrees C from 1940-1975. This was during a time of massive fossil fuel increases. The hockey stick graph is a fraud, yet Algore won an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize partly because of it.

Life on Earth's been around for over 1 billion years, or so were told. And a little CO2 (which is absolutely essential for life) isn't going to make us go extinct.

the chicken littles of the world need to be called out for what they are--insane.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 17, 2010 at 1:20 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

You need to keep up with the skeptics if you are going to criticize us, Ben. You can't just accuse us of the same fallacy that many proponents of AGW theory us when the weather is exceptionally warm, link us to FactCheck, and call it a day. The debate has moved further than that in the last couple of months.

The "Climategate" e-mail scandal was a shocking event for the public that opened up many facets of climate science to public investigation and criticism. Though of course it did not disprove the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it was certainly not something to be downplayed since the CRU is the main repository of worldwide temperature records going back to the 1800s. As it turns out, upon public investigation it turns out that the original temperature records do not exist anymore before some time in the '80s.

Since the uproar over the e-mails, several scientific claims to be found within the IPCC report have turned out to be exaggeration or pure unscientific conjecture by organizations with an inherent bias such as the World Wildlife Foundation.

Most importantly we have Phil Jones, head of the CRU, claiming that it is uncertain whether or not temperatures during the Medieval Climate Optimum were actually cooler than current temperatures. If it turns out that the MCO, a pre-industrial period, was warmer than now, the warming experienced on and on for the past century and a half is unimportant.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 17, 2010 at 7:57 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

Not my best writing, but my coffee is still brewing. You get the point.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 17, 2010 at 7:58 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

The liberals have enjoyed being so sickeningly condescending for the past decade or two regarding their certainty that AGW exists. Now their arrogance prohibits them from feeling even a little embarrassment in the face of everything that has been revealed, and it is hilarious. Now that the entire body of global warming research has been called into question, it is time to stop with the 'climate skeptic' rhetoric that this article contains. By the way, Ben...from what I read from climate 'scientists,' we should break out the CFC's and keep that hole in the ozone, since these 'scientists' say it is mitigating global warming in the southern hemisphere.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Thatcher on February 17, 2010 at 1:31 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

kujayhawk.....actually its higher temps that cause CO2 increases!

I don't know why its so hard for you to grasp that!!!!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 19, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

connerm,

You represent about 1.5% of self-proclaimed skeptics who might actually educate themselves on the latest science (or at least the latest skeptical science). The rest eat up whatever anti-global warming theory they can get their hands on (usually contradicting theories), as long as it falls within their party lines. This 98.5% will wrongly cite the CO2 temp dynamic, link bogus youtube videos, blame the sun, blame Al Gore, etc etc, ad nauseum. This 98.5% have never even attempted to understand the science in an unbiased manner and likely never will. Ben has every right to poke fun at the other 98.5% for their idiocy.

Btw, Savage is not included in this 1.5%

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on February 19, 2010 at 8 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

Fugu...here's another one... http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/scientist-retracts-paper-rising-sea-levels-errors/?test=latestnews

This doesn't disprove "global warming", but it doesn't help the theory the world's gonna end if we don't stop exhaling. And I'm more concerned with CAFE standards and other environmental laws that if, even if executed, don't reduce CO2 emissions "enough" according to the AGW theory. In other words, if "global warming" is actually occuring and is bad as the alarmists think, only extremely drastic measures will prevent catastrophe. This means in "preventing" "global warming", we would have to all but eliminate most of the modern conveniences the 1st world enjoys. But I happen to enjoy convenient transportation, electricity, and indoor plumbing. Since I don't believe this AGW garbage anyway, I don't want any regulation on CO2, which is essential to life on Earth. Plant life thrives on it, and the oceans absorb much of the CO2 we burn. Our economy isn't doing well anyways, more onerous regulations won't help it recover.

I know more about climatology than you do, and I wonder where you got your 98.5% and 1.5% numbers. Was this study scientific? I'm guessing it was as scientific as the so-called climatologists who falsified data for politcal reasons.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on February 22, 2010 at 7:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

Savage,

Your knowledge on climatology is not apparent in any of your posts. Here is a list of things you would have never said, if you had a basic understanding of climate science:

**'Since I don't believe this AGW garbage anyway, I don't want any regulation on CO2, which is essential to life on Earth.'

**'Plant life thrives on it, and the oceans absorb much of the CO2 we burn.'

**'kujayhawk.....actually its higher temps that cause CO2 increases!'

**'Life on Earth's been around for over 1 billion years, or so were told. And a little CO2 (which is absolutely essential for life) isn't going to make us go extinct.'

**'This doesn't disprove "global warming", but it doesn't help the theory the world's gonna end if we don't stop exhaling.'

Any climate scientists would laugh at the above statements. Or maybe this is just your profound knowledge on climate science out performing the experts? Thinking of things they never thought of? Ya right.

You know Savage, being skeptical is good, but only when it is backed up by with proper discourse. Citing youtube videos and foxnews articles, which both misrepresented science and took statements out of context, does not help your cause. You have fallen into a common climate skeptic trap in which you will cite whatever anti-AGW evidence you can find, no matter what the source, how contradictory, how obsolete, or how bogus it is. If you are going to argue so fervently about something, you should at least have some understanding of what you are talking about.

I, myself, am skeptical about many issues regarding AGW, mostly the extraordinary claims that are made about the consequences of a warming Earth. However, most of the extraordinary claims, like the idea that AGW will destroy all life on Earth, are not in the scientific literature and made by people in the media, on blogs, on the street, etc. I've learned to sort out the garbage from the science. There is garbage on both sides of this issue. The politicizing of climate science has created a false dualism within the general public, which is quite unfortunate for science.

This garbage sorting is something I would recommend to you, savage. Sort out the noise and actually understand what the science says.

Here is what the science says: http://www.realclimate.org/

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on February 24, 2010 at 6:55 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Cohen: Of e-mails and tropical snowmen

Michael Mann writes for RealClimate. As you know, Michael Mann is under investigation for a lot of ethics violations right now.

Try a more objective web site and aggregate for information like www.climatedebatedaily.com if you want to get both sides of the story. Though their daily links can be hit or miss, the column on the left contains links to tons of blogs, information web sites, studies, etc.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 25, 2010 at 8:53 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal