OMIGOSH! Articles! On Global Warming that DONT SUPPORT THE THEORY?!?!?!?!?!? Options

[Dogmeat]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_wa...2/19/73798.html

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size




Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?


Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.


Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.


The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.


Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.


As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.


As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.


Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.


Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.


AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.


Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.


An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.


In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.


Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.


Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.


More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.


Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.


If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.

No! This can't be! This doesn't coincide with the liberal political agenda!

*HRMPH*!

REPUBLICAN PROPAGHANDA I TELL YOU!

[Testm0nkey]

im having a hard time finding the source for that article within the NOAA. i am willing to bet its actually not saying that at all. but yeah totally sounds like a legit article /sarcasm

[Dogmeat]

im having a hard time finding the source for that article within the NOAA. i am willing to bet its actually not saying that at all. but yeah totally sounds like a legit article /sarcasm

It looked to me to be about as legit as every left-wing whacko column I read stating that we need to abandon the industrial revolution so that spotted owls can be free and a bunch of hippi scumfucks can feel good about themselves

[Testm0nkey]

but there are numerous articles from the NOAA and on their site that is in support of global warming. i also like how in the article it talks about all these places that were so cold and snowy this january without mentioning that they were not record breaking and that the other parts of the world not listed, Australia for example, had their highest temperatures on record

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January was the 31st warmest on record, 0.32°F (0.18°C) above the 20th century mean of 53.6°F (12.0°C).

* La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, persisted in the equatorial Pacific. The global average ocean surface temperature in January was the 17th warmest on record, with a monthly anomaly of 0.45°F (0.25°C) above the 20th century mean.

* While large parts of China struggled with a series of severe winter storms that crippled transportation at the start of the Chinese New Year holiday, it was the warmest January on record in Australia. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, temperatures were 3-4°C (5-7°F) above average across large areas in Western and Central Australia. The January 2008 average temperature for Australia was 2.21°F (1.23°C) above the 1961-1990 mean, which exceeded the previous record of 2.09°F (1.16°C) set in January 1999.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/2...14_coolwet.html
dont you have a 12 hour shift of manual labor to do in an oilfield or something?

[impala454]

Cat is the universal expert on everything.

"Australia has had its hottest January on record, therefore it must be pollution, therefore you must never drive a V8 gasoline vehicle again, QED."

[pebkac]

Impala are you trying to start shit with people? Because that's really what it's beginning to sound like.

[Dogmeat]

[pebkac]

That is seriously the most awesome thing I've ever seen.

[Testm0nkey]

Cat is the universal expert on everything.

"Australia has had its hottest January on record, therefore it must be pollution, therefore you must never drive a V8 gasoline vehicle again, QED."

i was just pointing out flaws and irrelevant conclusions in the article that was posted.
if you dont believe in global warming you are pretty much just considered a retard. sorry but thats true! and its the NOAA that is one of the sources stating it has a whole hell of a lot to do with pollution. im not just pulling this out of my ass


(and even in a period of global climate change, ice can and does increase IN THE WINTER. just like the story in that article about the polar bear clinging to an iceberg in the summertime. ice tends to melt then. overall theres still less ice!)

[moebary]

i had someone try to convince me that the fact that their ski resort had less snow over the past couple years proves global warming....

i laughed....hard

that is all i'm gonna say about global warming

[blaarg]

damn it, someone beat me to this...
I've been waiting for the perfect time.

[impala454]

i had someone try to convince me that the fact that their ski resort had less snow over the past couple years proves global warming....

i laughed....hard

that is all i'm gonna say about global warming

that's exactly what I'm talkin about. Suddenly everybody's an expert. "It's hot outside OMG global warming ozone layer glaciers melting gas mileage pollution death destruction nuclear ARMAGEDDON!"

[blaarg]

that's exactly what I'm talkin about. Suddenly everybody's an expert. "It's hot outside OMG global warming ozone layer glaciers melting gas mileage pollution death destruction nuclear ARMAGEDDON!"

yeah I think everyone can agree that that is annoying...

...same thing with being so staunchly against it as well with the fingers in their ears going <la la la, I don't care about whatever article you show me I don't believe it>

[impala454]

Impala are you trying to start shit with people? Because that's really what it's beginning to sound like.

I could honestly give two shits what it sounds like or any of you guys' analysis of every damn thing I post as having some malicious intent. It just so happens that I disagree with most of the people on here about almost everything. Keeps it interesting IMHO. I typically put about as much sarcasm & caustic verbage in my posts as other's responses to me. But I suppose the the way it works is that the person with the least popular opinion is in fact the least popular person, right? Or is that most popular to hate?

[blaarg]

I don't care about you disagreeing with everything. It does make it interesting.

I just hate emoticons.

[impala454]

...same thing with being so staunchly against it as well with the fingers in their ears going <la la la, I don't care about whatever article you show me I don't believe it>

I don't do that. Like has been said many times on here, I don't doubt it when someone says our temperatures overall may be rising. What I doubt is that we're the cause. I've seen nothing as of yet that's led me to believe otherwise, and feel that spending mass amounts of time & money to try to correct a problem we don't yet fully understand is a huge waste of resources.

I will laugh for a very long time if in 50 years we have a mini ice age or something.

edit: you hate emoticons?

[Dogmeat]

moderates are idiots. so are greenies. if you aren't so republican you're gay then we need to millitantly eradicate you from existance!

[Testm0nkey]

i just dont understand how you dont believe all the reports about pollution and human activity causing climate change?! HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? that is utterly shocking to me that i cant even explain it without going uhhh uhhh duh!

its basically a fact thats in textbooks around the world and virtually every scientific institution/organization worth a damn agrees upon.

this is in response to impala saying he doesnt believe the mountains and mountains of evidence around the world about the issue and some of it thats been posted on here in arguments in the past


edit: hell even BUSH finally admitted he believed in it!

[Hartmann]

i just dont understand how you dont believe all the reports about pollution and human activity causing climate change?! HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? that is utterly shocking to me that i cant even explain it without going uhhh uhhh duh!

The same way you don't believe reports that state the opposite.

[Testm0nkey]

because there are so few that are legitimate as well as being illogical

[Dogmeat]

Vote for Al Gore and the Democrats and support the liberal agendo or the world will end because of catastrophic gobal warming.

How logical is this really, Cathryn?

[Hartmann]

because there are so few that are legitimate as well as being illogical

Logic is a matter of perception in this case. Just because it is illogical does not mean it is illogical to others.

I have only seen a few "legitimate" articles that argue for global warming, so I am not sure there is a mound of evidence in your favor. There have been more than a couple of articles posted here that seriously refute the claims that warming is not cyclical and caused by humans.

I don't think anyone believes we don't have an impact, however, I'm not going to jump in on the notion that we have some stellar impact that changes ice ages. Why? Because we've had serious warming before, we've been producing serious amounts of pollutants for hundreds of years and we're just now noticing, and there is some evidence that we may be cooling slightly. Of course none of those things are logical

The people of the world are more concerned about "global warming" when they should be worried about the giant island of garbage. At least everyone can agree it's a pile and it's made of garbage.

[Testm0nkey]

The articles against global warming on here are not from reputable sources. Who cares what a professor of economics who works for the Bush administration thinks the cause of global warming is? Would he know better than the NOAA, IPCC, basically the entire Atmospheric/Climatologist community? Its logical that its taken time to show some effects. Do i need to explain how its built up again? Totally logical and has been scientifically proven again and again

there will be a time people will just have to admit to themselves its true

[chook]

Eric, I'd like your opinion because everyone is being pretentious.

And were you in ruidoso a couple of weeks ago?

[Hartmann]

The articles against global warming on here are not from reputable sources. Who cares what a professor of economics who works for the Bush administration thinks the cause of global warming is? Would he know better than the NOAA, IPCC, basically the entire Atmospheric/Climatologist community? Its logical that its taken time to show some effects. Do i need to explain how its built up again? Totally logical and has been scientifically proven again and again

there will be a time people will just have to admit to themselves its true

There have been at least two articles that cited climatology summits and meteorological departments at some major universities about their thoughts on global warming. The entire community? I have posted articles that quoted climatologists disagreeing with global warming and been given such pat responses as "they're paid off by big oil". So even though there are published scientists who disagree with the theories out there, their point of view is written off. Now there's logic.

[Dogmeat]

If you disagree with Jesus (Al Gore) the world will end! The liberals and Cathryn say so! REPENT!

[blaarg]

I have only seen a few "legitimate" articles that argue for global warming, so I am not sure there is a mound of evidence in your favor.

uh...yeah...I'm going to emphatically disagree with this statement.
You must not have been looking very hard...

edit: you hate emoticons?

just trying to start shit again Impala

<wait for it>

[TetraGrammaton C...]

[Hartmann]

uh...yeah...I'm going to emphatically disagree with this statement.
You must not have been looking very hard...

I said legitimate, and yes, I've looked for articles. There is one by the NOAA (and I've seen rebuttals) and a couple out there by a few scientist (then again, I've seen ones against the claim by scientists). The one scientist who is pointing out that warming is cyclical, no one wants to listen to because he isn't "published" But they will listen to the UN, because we all know how spot on they've been in the past.

My point is, there are high fluting people on both sides of the argument. Who's right? Who knows. Arguing logic isn't going to go anywhere, except circles.

[pebkac]

I could honestly give two shits what it sounds like or any of you guys' analysis of every damn thing I post as having some malicious intent. It just so happens that I disagree with most of the people on here about almost everything. Keeps it interesting IMHO. I typically put about as much sarcasm & caustic verbage in my posts as other's responses to me. But I suppose the the way it works is that the person with the least popular opinion is in fact the least popular person, right? Or is that most popular to hate?

My problem isn't your argumentative nature. I rather like that. My problem is with your constant straw manning and taking people's arguments out of context.

I mean, here you totally take me and hartmann's arguments out of context and accuse us making microsoft conspiracy theories. Here, I'm not sure if you genuinely misunderstand Cathryn's arguments or if you really were trying to straw man her, but you totally misrepresent her point of view and when she points that out to you, you still insist that your version of her argument is the correct one. And then in this thread, she makes a topical argument backed by sources and you accuse her of trying to control everyone's life.

I mean shit, I understand that it's the internet and misunderstandings happen (and I'm as guilty of them as anyone else is), but lately you've been taking it to a totally different level. I always enjoy a good debate, as long as the person I'm debating responds to what people are actually saying.

[pebkac]

I said legitimate, and yes, I've looked for articles. There is one by the NOAA (and I've seen rebuttals) and a couple out there by a few scientist (then again, I've seen ones against the claim by scientists). The one scientist who is pointing out that warming is cyclical, no one wants to listen to because he isn't "published" But they will listen to the UN, because we all know how spot on they've been in the past.

My point is, there are high fluting people on both sides of the argument. Who's right? Who knows. Arguing logic isn't going to go anywhere, except circles.

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

[impala454]

My problem isn't your argumentative nature. I rather like that. My problem is with your constant straw manning and taking people's arguments out of context.

I mean, here you totally take me and hartmann's arguments out of context and accuse us making microsoft conspiracy theories. Here, I'm not sure if you genuinely misunderstand Cathryn's arguments or if you really were trying to straw man her, but you totally misrepresent her point of view and when she points that out to you, you still insist that your version of her argument is the correct one. And then in this thread, she makes a topical argument backed by sources and you accuse her of trying to control everyone's life.

I mean shit, I understand that it's the internet and misunderstandings happen (and I'm as guilty of them as anyone else is), but lately you've been taking it to a totally different level. I always enjoy a good debate, as long as the person I'm debating responds to what people are actually saying.

I didn't accuse you or hartmann of making microsoft conspiracy theories in that thread, and I didn't misunderstand what Cat said in the other thread. You're welcome to add your commentary to those threads if you feel otherwise, but I see zero point in discussing other threads in this thread just because you don't like the way I post. You can buzz word me all you want, but either shut me up by proving something or get over it IMHO.

As far as the topic at hand... this planet has had ice ages/warm periods/etc long before we ever spewed a single particle of CO2 from a machine. To think that now because we're here temperatures are supposed to remain perfectly constant is pretty ludicrous.

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

Oh so now total quantity of articles is what proves the theory? "We have more articles than you so we win!" If this was how it worked we'd still think the world was flat.

[Hartmann]

Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 articles and didn't find one that disagreed with the consensus position.

That statement in and of itself is biased don't you think? She surveyed a random 928 articles?

I mean, I looked for five minutes and found this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[pebkac]

I didn't accuse you or hartmann of making microsoft conspiracy theories in that thread, and I didn't misunderstand what Cat said in the other thread. You're welcome to add your commentary to those threads if you feel otherwise, but I see zero point in discussing other threads in this thread just because you don't like the way I post. You can buzz word me all you want, but either shut me up by proving something or get over it IMHO.

You can't prove an opinion impala.

I agree that the thread doesn't need to be threadjacked because of this nor do I really feel like continuing this conversation.

Oh so now total quantity of articles is what proves the theory? "We have more articles than you so we win!" If this was how it worked we'd still think the world was flat.

No, it doesn't prove that global warming is true and the author of the article I posted notes this at the end. I was responding to the claim that there isn't a scientific consensus of global warming specifically Hartmann's claim that it was more difficult for him to find articles supporting global warming than it is to find articles dissenting.

That statement in and of itself is biased don't you think? She surveyed a random 928 articles?

I mean, I looked for five minutes and found this: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Oreskes only surveyed a random sample of published and peer-reviewed articles in journals in ISI Web of Knowledge. That probably wouldn't have included the link that you posted or even anything by that petition's authors because, well, they aren't climatologists. Google their names. It was written by two chemists and an astrophysicist. I wouldn't call them authoritative sources.

[Hartmann]

Oreskes only surveyed a random sample of published and peer-reviewed articles in journals in ISI Web of Knowledge. That probably wouldn't have included the link that you posted or even anything by that petition's authors because, well, they aren't climatologists. Google their names. It was written by two chemists and an astrophysicist. I wouldn't call them authoritative sources.

I wouldn't call them authoritative, you're right. However, Google some of the names on the petition.

[impala454]

You can't prove an opinion impala.

accusation != opinion

I agree that the thread doesn't need to be threadjacked because of this nor do I really feel like continuing this conversation.

good idea.

No, it doesn't prove that global warming is true and the author of the article I posted notes this at the end. I was responding to the claim that there isn't a scientific consensus of global warming specifically Hartmann's claim that it was more difficult for him to find articles supporting global warming than it is to find articles dissenting.

Well that's fine then. So finding a large quantity of articles means that there's an "official scientific consensus"? Did you read all these articles? Or do you just believe it because someone else said they read them? Now someone else will release an article saying that they read the article about the guy who read all the articles . (I'm messin with ya man)