AGW Today: Science? Here’s Your Science
Climahysterics constantly scream for facts, proof, science!!!!!! from those of us who do not believe that the warming of the Earth was caused mostly or solely by Man*, yet, rely on proclamations by Al Gore and the bureaucrats at the United Nations for their information. How ’bout this?
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
How is that possible? If Man’s CO2 output, which the AGW Believers are certain is causing global warming, er, climate change, is so bad, and we are all doomed, and the planet is doomed by 2100 (a year they seem to be stuck on, probably because most people can’t conceive of what it will be like, and couldn’t care less, as they will be, you know, dead), how can the sea ice pull a stunt like this? Expect it to be blamed on weather in 3…2…1…..
* For most people, the debate is not over warming, which has happened, but the cause. AGW Gore Disciples believe that Man is at fault. Most rational people who consider all the evidence realize that the majority of the studies by AGW Believers ignore the Sun and water vapor, two of the main causes of climate change throughout the history of the Earth. Us Skeptics tend to consider that, yes, Man has a tiny part in the process, but, it is mostly natural. Climahysterics don’t. They want to believe. They don’t want to change their own lives to match their rhetoric, though. That is for everyone else.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on January 6, 2009 8:38 am
» Filed Under Global Warming, News, Science/pseudo-science
Trackback URL:
- Did Al Gore’s Models Predict This? : Pursuing Holiness pinged this post.
Comments
5 Responses to “AGW Today: Science? Here’s Your Science”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Good old Wichita, her in the middle of the country has been having below “normal” temperatures for quite a while now. Normal being 40s for highs and 20s for lows. The cristmas holidays saw a couple of days with 60s but that was a Chinook Wind. Other than that it has been bloody freezing.
Global Warming, My Shattered ASS.
So you think a recent three-month blip that parallels what goes on each winter spells the end of AGW? What about the fact that 2005, 2006, and 2007 marked the three years in which sea ice levels reached their lowest values since scientists started keeping track?
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg
What do you think is more relevant to interpreting climate change, man-made or otherwise: trends over time or your example of a very brief ice surge?
You need to do better than post bits and pieces of the story if you expect to be taken seriously.
Except it is not a 3 month blip, Chimpy. The temps have been pretty much flat or going down since 1998. See, here is the thing: it is not Mankind, but natural processes. Here’s a fun thing to research. Go take a look at the temps of the Atlantic Ocean over the past 30 years, then overlay it with the location of the mid-Atlantic Trench. Significance? The volcano’s have been more active over the past 30 years, which increases the water temps.
Oh, I see. Now you’re going to shift the goalposts and talk about “temps” instead of the entire focus of your post–sea ice.
2008 was the coolest year since the turn of the century. It was also the tenth *warmest* since 1850.
“See, here is the thing: it is not Mankind, but natural processes.”
See, here’s the thing: It’s not an either-or proposition, like scientifically clueless ideologues portray it to be so they can rant in comfortable ignorance.
I think it’s hilarious. though telling, that you are quick to assume a cause-effect relationship between volcanic activity and warming simply because these occur in concert (and there’s a lot of geoscience you’re warping or leaving out, but that’s another story), yet when someone highlights the parallels between human greenhouse-gas producing activity and warming, it’s all a crock. Genuine science does not involve cherry-picking.
Over time, I have learned that there’s no point in engaging in lasting dialogue with people who think words like “volcano’s” are plural nouns. And since the article you cited undermines your entire premise when you actually examine it in its entirety, you’ve already rebutted your own claims better than any outsider could.
No, it was not the 10th warmest, at least not when you look at the real data, particularly for October, which the originally used September data for, until they got caught.
Nice try, though. You prove that you do not care about actual scientific data, but, as with most AGW Believers, are interested more in rhetoric.