I like this graph. It shows how much the closest station to me has been heating up over the last 100 years. If anyone can look at this and still deny global warming, then there is no help for you. :LOL:

http://data.co2science.org/tmp/071101112103.gif

What I see is the first cycle of a sign wave. oscillating on a 100 year cycle. I am sure it goes back farther and will continue.

So....er.....ah....maybe I'm not looking at it right....but....in 1930 it looks like it got a bit warmer but then reversed the CYCLE and came back down. 100 years in the scheme of things is a piss in the ocean. DON'T PANIC YET!

And, I might add, as it was going down in 1970 there was a global COOLING scare....OH MY!

Geez, has anyone who has been on this earth longer than 40 years wonder why we have alot of snow one winter and none the next only to have alot of snow the next and then none...and so on???? Anyone who does not recognize the CYCLES of weather and climate has no business commenting on Global Warming.

Figures don't lie but liars do figure...Not you of course...but the Global Warming crowd in general.

Roscoe

See my edit below the pic. I was was being sarcastic. I agree that the warming and cooling is a natural process.

That's why I said 'not you of course.'

Roscoe

got ya. I missed that part:o

There wasn't a parking lot built around the station in the early 90's was there?

let's define asinine.

Day Light Saving extended 1 week saves 1% - so they say.. so why not full time DST? or double DST?

http://www.standardtime.com/

If conservation is so important, why do many businesses keep many (especially auto dealers)all their lights on past operating hours? Why do we have street lights? Why do we have vending machines?

Dare I mention solar panels? too expensive without incentives, so.. you take a 70K system, the gov't (your taxes) pays for 30K, and then you earn 'credits' which expire annually. umm, does this make sense? Someone is going to plunk down 40K and let their credits expire? I am sure there is the individual who thinks he is serving humanity by this, but I feel the majority will turn their AC down to cover the loss. Whereby CA is about to mandate that all new construction includes panels.

Wes, thats what I mean. 90% of what...just a number that stuck with you. People throw numbers around long enough and they become the gospel. Nothing to back them up but "I say so" or becasue "everybody says so"

Joe Wicked, I have a similar plot for alabama.

Mike

U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

Finish your assignment: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...unces-alarmism

"At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..." very well applies to BOTH sides of this issue.

I was first to respond to this perplexing post%/

I've been so busy enjoying my car and polluting the planet....today is first opportunity to read up:eek: :LOL: :mad: :MECOOL:

It is amusing how many responses it has gotten:cool: :MECOOL:

As I said before let big bore Gore continue what he is best at...being a MASTERdeBATER:JEKYLHYDE

A sure fire solution to lessen the global warming problem is a grass roots campaign to reduce HOT AIR by having the politicians keep their mouths shut:MECOOL: :cool: :) :LOL: :3DSMILE: :p;)

With that said I'm going for a ride to the next car show and do my part by staying FOREVER YOUNG...**) **) **) **) **)

oops........

...

The one main thing I like to keep in mind concerning climate change is that the science that indicates CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute by anybody(?). What is in dispute is how much fossil release will (or has?) upset our world climate to the point of undesirability, if at all.
I did point out earlier that all the fossil carbon in the ground ...was obviously once all in the atmosphere. Not quite sure what the weather was like back then. :JEKYLHYDE

Because there is so much political backlash suddenly appearing over climate change, the first thing I do (since I've been corrected by Mike anyway :rolleyes: ) is check the source. Directly under the "NewsBusters" website header are the words "Exposing and Combating Liberal Bias". Nice thing about conservative bias is they often actually admit it up front.

So here is a biased liberal site that tells the absolute truth (maybe :LOL: ):

Science
ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
UCS report finds that the oil company spent nearly $16 million to fund skeptic groups, create confusion
__________________________________________________ ______________

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change (see PDF) details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

- funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad
platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who
misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

- attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound
science" rather than business self-interest

- used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and
shape government communications on global warming
__________________________________________________ _______________

It actually makes sense to me that since the tobacco lobby lied to us ...now the petroleum industry is doing the same thing with a similar pack of minions.

Unfortunately, in fighting the lie, the anti-tobacco league finally went so far as to say that the tiniest bit of tobacco smoke will kill us all ...and people smoking outside a doorway have to stand further and further away. Rrright.

A few years ago our ancestors all grew up in smokey caves and huts. I think survival of the fittest already weeded out most human light-smoke susceptibility. So, although I love fresh air, I don't mind too much if a co-worker lights up (illegally) in the locomotive cab. I personally know what the addiction is like and it is my assertion that I'm less uncomfortable with a wisp of smoke than a smoker forced to completely abstain for hours on end. A little courtesy goes both ways, whatever the absolute truth may be.

Etc. :rolleyes:


...

That's BS, Exxon doesn't need to do any misrepresentation..period. we have no choice.. we must use petroleum products. Although we will soon see battery powered vehicles taking off. The average miles driven daily in the U.S. is 35. A number of EV companies have vehicles that already achieve that MPC (miles per charge). I invested in two companies, one that makes batteries and another that makes EV and has dealerships in the U.S.
All it takes is the need........

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Finish your assignment http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate104.xml

John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion [sic] of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

...I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

...There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped....

Roscoe - Well said

rollinggeorge - The following adds to your statements:JEKYLHYDE

"The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity. Recent experimental evidence suggests that due to the increase in Worldwide population (especially lawyers and politicians), Hydrogen is being forced from first place." :JEKYLHYDE

"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large
groups." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

.

I second that observation:eek: :eek: :eek:

Just have to co-exist:MECOOL:

As long as they leave me alone as much as possible**) **) **)

In a decade or two disclaimers will have made their unethical profit ...which is the point of the huge mis-information propoganda that so many are buying ...again. Buying like they did the tobacco lobby, a microcosm of money involved here in fossil fuels. So what does everyone expect lobby to do? :rolleyes: Some "will come to realize we have been duped..." alright.

The only thing worse than those that cry wolf too often are those that have everything to gain by assuring the masses that there is no wolf. There is always a wolf somewhere.

I know you guys know better by now. You're just having a bit of fun. ;) :LOL:


...

After reading some of the latest global warming panic propaganda, I am starting to believe that at least a portion of the "supporters" are themselves in panic mode as they see the same cyclical patterns and if they cannot get legislation in within the next few years and force everyone to follow their ideas, then they will be proven wrong when temps start cooling back down. If they can get legislation in place now, then when temps start to drop, they can claim that it was their efforts that saved the planet and the sheeple will regard them as heros. Luckily they won't be around when the temps start warming back up.

Repeat after me:

Owah! Taygoo! Siam!

Again. Again!!! Faster! Even Faster!!!!!! NOW you are getting it!!!!

Mike