If you look at the ocean temperature data, there are no temperature increases found. If you look at the satellite temperature data, there are not temperature increases. If you look at the land temperature data, the global temperatures have not increased since 1998. It appears now that the Artic is recovering its ice and is at normal levels, the Antartic never was a problem. The sea levels are going down not up. The only thing showing global warming are the climate modeling. The actual data does not show it.
Yet we continue to waste money and effort on global warming. The EPA continues to insist that we regulate CO2 emissions. Why?
I realize our government has good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like the madness to stop.
Comments
You might want to provide some links supporting your
... um .... claims. Here's a few for you to check out.
EPA data.
and from NOAA
And I really like this one - A Koch brothers funded study that confirmed global warming data.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Supporting data, I thought this was common knowledge.
Antarctic: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/inconvenient-truth-antarctica-sea-ice.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/nasa-research-reveals-antarctica-ice-sheet-melt-just-a-fraction-o...
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/new-antarctica-research-ipcc-consensus-science-is-topsy-turvy.html
Artic: http://www.real-science.com/arctic-ice-growth-fastest-record
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672BFD77-802A-23AD...
Surface Temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771
http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=3932
Satellite: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Oceans: http://climaterealists.com/?id=3136
http://climaterealists.com/?id=7104
I figured as much
You know, it's one thing for a layman to fall for all that pseudo-scientific bs, but when an engineer does it? There's only two reasons why he might, and neither are good.
I understand your pain...
you have accepted the fraud of global warming to be your religion and I have destroyed your green creed. Go ahead and pay your indulgences with carbon credits but leave me out of it. I'm a non believer.
Of course you're a non-believer
How many coal-fired power plants did you help bring online? 30? 40? More? I'd say that's a pretty strong psychological incentive for denying the adverse impacts of atmospheric carbon accumulation. It's not a healthy psychological incentive, mind you, but it's understandable.
A good reference for your dogma.
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/religion.html
Those weren't rhetorical questions, Frank
I gave you a few days to fess up, and you chose to ignore my questions. So:
You worked as an engineer for the Duke/Fluor Daniels partnership, which (appears to have been) an enterprise dealing exclusively with the construction of coal (or gas) power plants here and abroad.
Said partnership was dissolved about the same time you started working elsewhere, so I'm assuming your job didn't survive the dissolution.
The partnership came apart because the demand for dirty power plants here in the U.S. hit a sharp decline, and it's possible (although I doubt you'll admit it) part of your anger at renewable energy/global warming is due to the collapse of your previous career.
Now, a lot of that is assumption on my part, so maybe you can straighten out the kinks in that narrative.
Scharrison, you seem to know a lot about me, I'm flattered.
Yes I did work for Duke/Fluor Daniel and I was proud to be part of that organization. So yes I had a lot of experience with the power industry. So what is your point? I also have military experience of which I'm proud of as well. I like to fish, garden and spend time with my grandchildren.
The partnership ended due to oversupply of energy (dirty or clean) for which I have no regrets. That is life, it looks like the power demand is now going back up. I see where Duke Power is planning on building a nuclear plant and has a new coal plant under construction. I'm glad to see that, Duke has always been and still is a great company. I'm no longer in the power business, after the layoff I became a small business owner for engineering services.
Now that you know about me, why don't you tell me something of yourself? Maybe I know you. I have many friends and many of my friends are liberals. I can separate my friendships from my political views. As you can see, I post with my real name and have nothing to hide. These are my opinions based on my experience. I am not paid by anyone to express my views, are you?
Thanks for your honesty
And that is my real name, as well. It's Steve, but I use "SC" (first and middle initial) because that's how I decided to sign the fiction stuff I've written.
I did two hitches in the Army, worked all three shifts working my way up to Director-level in a factory, and now I'm back to driving a forklift again. So I can definitely understand that whole career shake-up thing. I'm glad you were able to use your knowledge and skills to recover from being laid-off.
And no, I'm not paid to express my views. There's probably a few out there that would pay me to shut the hell up. But if I tried, I'm pretty sure my head would explode, so...
Pleasure to meet you.
I'm sure I come across too strident as another poster pointed out and I apologize for that. As you can see, I don't mind spouting off either. I am interested in other viewpoints and debate on places like this helps me fine tune my opinions and it does broaden my outlook.
I was in the Army also and got out in 1978, then joined the NC Army National Guard where I retired in 2004. I enjoyed my time in the military and miss my friendships. I assume you got my name from one of my fellow DFD employees who recognized it. I still stay in contact with many of them. It was a great organization, one of the best times of my career.
I will resolve to try to be more courteous on these forums. Sometimes its hard to do so. I'm glad to know you and look forward to many debates. Sincerely, FB
Ok. I'll take it one at a time ...
Antarctic: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/inconvenient-truth-antarctica-...
This features a chart that shows temperature anomaly, not temperature. The increase in sea ice is not an indicator for or against GW.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e8a22019a970d-pi
So what? It’s Global warming not Antarctic warming, and the trend in the graph is still up.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/new-research-out-of-greenland-proves-stability-of-ice-sheet-over-...
So this one only shows that the Greenland Ice melt hasn’t affected the Greenland current … yet. Greenland is melting though, faster and faster.
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-ice-growth-fastest-record
The headline is a lie. The graph only shows that ice melts in the summer and refreezes in the winter. The lines for each year nearly overlap so it’s not a record anything.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...
It’s a bunch of opinions from deniers. No facts, no data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did...
The starting date is cherry picked. The data starts in 1998 which was a freakishly warm El Niño year. Start in 1997 and the warming is evident.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771
I checked out the above article and discovered that its sources don’t support the claims made in the article. I find it interesting though that one of the references shows a chart that shows temperatures increasing through the present. Odd don’t you think, how you refer to sources that say there is no warming and other sources that claim that there is warming but ….
http://climaterealists.com/?id=7104
The above referenced study only considers a very small slice of the Atlantic.
I didn’t pick all of them, but I every one I did pick had obvious flaws as outlined above. At best, these sources only nip at the edges of GW science. I doubt you could find any flaws with the sources I provided. You’ll have to do better. I would suggest trying to find a peer reviewed study that flatly states that GW is not influenced by humans.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
I gave you hard data.
Oh yeah they are all lies aren't they? But the facts are none of the IPCC predictions have happened. In fact most of those reports have been "pal reviewed" not peer reviewed. Many of them were written by overzealous graduate students who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. In addition the polar bear study author is being prosecuted for a fraudulent report. Shall I go on?
The EPA report that you sited was just a rehash of the discredited IPCC reports.
The Koch study that you trumpeted so proudly, does not in any shape or form say that CO2 has caused global warming. All is does is say that the land based data has biases for urban heat islands but is still reasonable data. So the earth warmed, but it does not conclude that CO2 is the cause. Also the report has no comment on the ocean temperatures which is about what, 2/3 or the earth? The ocean temperatures have been going down. In fact the author Muller even admitted to Dr. Curry, a co author that the data shows no warming since 1998.
So where is the beef?
Hard data ain't what it used to be then.
I didn't say they were all lies; they just don't add up to much if you are trying to deny AGW. I still like the Koch brother study - they threw a bunch of money at a skeptic and he came back with a vindication of the GW data. I don't care that it wasn't an all encompassing study proving AGW. It's hilarious.
Proof? Sorry, but you don't get to just make blanket statements without backing them up.
The NOAA link - again
Artic heating up
Article with lots of links to the REAL hard data.
Even the Bush administration EPA knew AGW was real. Of course they didn't admit it publically.
More from EPA. And if you really want to learn something you could spend some time clicking links, exploring the wealth of real information connected to the real hard data. Somehow, I doubt you will though.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
You still like that report?
Here is a discussion on the BEST report and the temperature pause on Dr Curry's web site.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/04/pause/#more-5671
With CO2 continuing to rise, how do you explain the fact that the temperatures are not going up like the IPCC and the EPA which relies upon them as their "experts."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-up-sharply-yet-temperatu...
The below document summarizes the failed IPCC predictions. I reckon a search on the internet will give you many references.
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
Here is another one.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm
Here is where an IPCC researcher admits to falsifying data.
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-falsified-satellite-altimetry-we.html
Remember the IPCC report is the basis for the EPA's ruling on the endangerment of CO2 emissions. Not much danger there is it?
I checked out a few of your links and found them to be
pretty much worthless as supports for your position.
In the IPCC "fail" link the authors overlay a prediction graph of "temperature" and a graph of "temperature departures from average" to show an "error" in the IPCC predictions. JUNK. Such dishonesty warrants no further scrutiny.
The other link I checked out, the Curry one, had links to the following charts - temp., and sea level
. Two of the 3 charts referenced attempted to use cherry picked data starting in 1998, that very warm El Nino year. The whole charts I linked to show that temps are definately increasing. You might want to check on your "supporting" sources a bit more closely.
And here's a bit on your boy Mormer, the IPCC "whistleblower", prevaricating when challenged by a fellow researcher to reveal his data on sea level rise.
97% of scientists concur with the GW findings. As for those that don't, " ... the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, ..."
97 versus 3. I feel good about being with the 97.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
I don't agree with your percentage.....
but it doesn't matter does it? Science is not a "consensus thing". If that were true Galileo would have been burned at the stake by his fellow scientists who insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.
Of course you think all of my refereces are worthless and only yours are pertinent. We'll see who is right. Fortunately those climate conferences didn't accomplish much, I wonder why? I wonder why Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Accord? Does this same something about the state of your climate science?
Thankyou Canada for Abandoning the UN Climate Change Agreements
Open Letter: Piers Corbyn: Thank You and Well done to Canada for abandoning the UN Climate Change Agreements
Friday, December 23rd 2011, 8:18 AM EST Co2sceptic (Site Admin) To the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, via the Canadian High Commission, London W1.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8878
Sir
Thank You and Well done to Canada for abandoning the UN Climate Change Agreements
Your lead is a beacon of hope for millions now suffering imposed extra charges on energy, living and transport costs arising from delusional carbon taxes and charges on fuel and transport.
Additionally the burning of food – biofuels – has contributed to world food shortages and price rises.
The world economic crisis is itself being exacerbated by these baseless policies and it is in the interests of the whole world for the whole UN Climate Change policy to be totally abandoned.
Your lead is a beacon of hope for thousands of scientists who seek the truth about the world’s changing climate and indeed – like ourselves – predict extreme weather events and climate change, yet find the world’s leading scientific institutions and media committed to the failed CO2 driver theory of climate.
The CO2 theory is failed science based on fraudulent data and we wish to make two key points:
Article continues below this advert:
1. CO2 changes do not drive temperature in the Real world.
In fact CO2 changes in the long term are driven by world (sea) temperatures and these are driven primarily by solar activity.
2. CO2 does not drive extreme weather in the real world.
In fact weather patterns and extreme events are driven by solar (particle) activity modulated significantly by magnetic and lunar factors and these and climate trends are predictable.
The world is now set on a major cooling trend to 2035 under which agriculture and food supply will suffer – not just in high latitude countries such as Canada but in the whole world.
On these points please see our (WeatherAction.com) submission presentation to the UK Parliament Select Committee into the Dec 2010 supercold which we predicted http://bit.ly/hEmBqG and a link to a number of recent videos relating to Canada’s decision - http://bit.ly/s7eFwd
We thank your Senate for organizing honest debate on the matter and commend to all the VIDEO Report of the excellent discussion at your December 15, 2011 climate science hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources: http://bit.ly/rpgZbJ
We urge you to take this opposition to CO2 delusionism and the fight for accountable science and policies to other countries with all speed.
We wish you every success in that task and will be happy to support and help what you do in any way possible.
Thank you
Piers Corbyn Msc (astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS
Director WeatherAction.com long range piers@weatheraction.com
Nothing more than a rehash of the same cherry
picked, dishonest, 3%er B.S. How about finding a peer reviewed study that refutes AGW? Until then, you got NOTHING.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Your peer review is meaningless, its called pal review.
We've seen that quite openly from the Climategate emails.
Hi there, Frank
For being a new kid on the blog, you sure know how to be obnoxiously strident.
Personally, I figure it doesn't matter what the science says or doesn't say. It's only the money that counts. When there's more money to be made taking one position or another, or some political agenda is at stake, that's the way we'll go...or are going. Same with everything else in this messed up world. I've read lots of the data and opinions. Vegans will generally be quick to point out that bovine flatulence is a major source of carbon dioxide and therefore we should eat less meat. I might counter by saying a major source is Congressional farting around and that we should therefore deep fry and eat more Congress-people.
Get a life...express your opinion...be grateful that anyone cares enough to read it.....and argue your points. Just try not to be a schmuck...or you'll likely have to find a new place to be one.
Stan Bozarth
Lump of coal
Seems to be a Christmas tradition for Frank to drop a grenade into a nest of liberals to get his lump of coal.
"No proof that mankind is causing global warming" Frank Burns, Daily Kos, 12/30/2010
By the way it's 71° outside, well above the normal 52° and close to the record high of 75°.
For the record, it's bovine methane that's a problem which is 2 dozen times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming and more comes from bovine belching than flatulence.
Hi Stan...
Sorry if I appear to be strident. I've always been one to charge straight ahead and let the chips fall where they may. I never was issued the diplomacy gene. If people don't agree with me that's fine and if I'm proven wrong, I'm big enough to admit it. It rarely happens though. Is it your intent to have a place where only those who belong to your choir are allowed to express an opinion? Do you want a place where everybody pats each other on the back and agrees? Life is not like that, there are always two sides to every issue and one group does not have the extra intelligence over the other.
Aww shucks, Frank. Sorry about that "diplomacy gene."
I guess that's another way of saying you don't care what other people think...and beings as how you're rarely wrong, that makes you immune from the norms of polite discourse. If you choose to think denying a little courtesy to your fellow travelers here makes you more clearly an independent thinker and more virtuous than those who practice a little courtesy, see below....
I disagree with your "always two sides to every issue." Usually or often, or appears to be...maybe...but not always. Sometimes people are just full of shit, or they're lying, or they're idiots. Or, maybe they're just puffed up with their own self-importance. Whatever....sometimes it doesn't take two to make a problem or an issue. Sorta like your comments about singing in the choir or patting each other on the back or one group being smarter than another. I never implied or said any of that. It's just you trying to find a way to justify your behavior and attitude. That's lame.
Stan Bozarth
I have spent a lot of time recently digging into the
... supposed source "data" that AGW deniers use to support their position. I have found graphs with mismatched units, cherry picked data (1998), a "climatologist" and a 'meteorologist" without a scientific credential between them, charts 100% made up, sources cited that could not have a bearing on the climate of the last 10 years as they were published 25 - 30 years ago and an overall level of dishonesty that looks just good enough to let those who want deny AGW feel ok with their position. This fraud rises to the level of the highest crimes ever perpetrated as AGW has the potential to result in a slow motion genocide.
The anti-AGW arguement is a complete fraud, and deniers will bear the indictment of future generations. Our grandchildren will condemn those who stood in the way of the sensible people who wished to mitigate the deleterious effects human civilization has on our planet.
Fossil fuels need to die before they make us all fossils.
I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?
Example of Alarmist Scientific Research - Polar bears
Hey persondem,
Did you dig into this article? This is the guy for which Gore and the IPCC made the alarming claim that global warming was killing off the polar bears. This is an example of the fraudulent research which makes up the IPCC report. Have you also done some digging in the Michael Mann hockey stick graph? Talk about fraudulent use of graphs and scales!
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141365935/polar-bear-researcher-to-be-re-interviewed-by-feds
Oh and this polar bear study was "peer reviewed" or shall we say "pal review". This guy needs to go to prison over this.