Just as our time on earth represents a slim slice of the eons since our planet was formed, our current atmospheric episode is a respite in a wild ride featuring extreme heat, cold and large objects falling on our heads.
We’ve been deceived by a stroke of luck. In the two million years during which we climbed from stone-tool wielding Homo erectus with sloping brows to high-foreheaded Homo urbanis, man the inventor of the city, we underwent 60 glaciations, 60 ice ages. And in the 120,000 years since we emerged in our current physiological shape as Homo sapiens, we’ve lived through 20 sudden global warmings. In most of those, temperatures have shot up by as much as 18 degrees within a mere 20 years.
All this took place without smokestacks and tailpipes. All this took place without the desecration of nature by modern man.
And governments and groupies have been deceived by jet-setting rock stars and carbon-trading billionaires.
Lucky us…
The stroke of luck that’s misled us? The sheets of ice in whose shadow we made a living for two million years peeled back 12,000 years ago leaving a lush new Garden of Eden. In that Eden we invented agriculture, money, electronics and our current way of life. But that weather standstill has held on for an abnormally long amount of time. And it’s very likely that this atypical weather truce shall someday pass.
Man-made Climate Change enthusiasts are not only politically-motivated opportunists, they must also be the most arrogant people on earth, thinking we actually have a role in the climate of the relative pebble we live on as it screams through the universe.
The Earth is a traveler. Its angle as it sweeps around the sun produces the massive weather flips we call seasons—the dance from summer to winter and back again. But there’s more. Our planet has a peculiar wobble—its precession. And that precession produces upheavals in our weather, weather alterations we cycle through every 22,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovich cycle, named for the Serbian engineer and geophysicist who discovered it.
But the wobbles in our trip around the sun are just a start. The sun is a traveler, too. It circles the black hole at the galaxy’s core every 226 million years. And it takes its tiny flock of planets with it. That means us. The result?
The journey around the galactic core is fraught with dangers. For example, every 143 million years we pass through a spiral arm of the galaxy, an arm that tosses tsunamis of cosmic rays our way. Those rays produce massive climate change. Then there’s the innocent-sounding stuff astronomers call galactic “fluff,” massive clouds of cosmic dust lurking in our solar system’s path that also cause dramatic climate change.
Meanwhile, the sun itself is going through a cycle from birth to death. As a result of its maturation, good old reliable sol is 43% warmer today than it was when the Earth first gathered itself into a globe of planetesimals 4.5 billion years ago.
The bottom line? Weather changes and the occasional meteor have tossed this planet through roughly 142 mass extinctions since life began 3.85 billion years ago. That’s an average of one mass extinction every 26.5 million years. Where did these mass die-offs come from? Nature. There were no human capitalists, industrialists or cultures of consumerism to blame.
…unless you have a Convenient Agenda that is.
You shut up! AGW is setlled science, I tells ya. Just ask Al Gore. Why else would President Obama be emitting another couple of tons of CO2 to make his second trip to Europe in as many weeks?
Just ask Al Gore.
Are you referring to Carbon-Trading Billionaire Algore?
Haha! High five, Roosh! Science is stupid!
No, Science is inquiry. AGW is a religion, not science, and it’s based on manipulated data and manipulated fools.
Interesting. Cause it seems like scientists think the global warming science is convincing. Oil and coal companies and wingnuts with zero scientific credentials think it’s not convincing.
Funny how you kooks who are already sucked in by real religion criticize science by calling it a religion.
So Johnny Doosh, does that mean you believe Al Gore has made $1,000,000,000 or more trading carbon credits? Cause Angryclown would be interested in any evidence you have for that.
Unless you pulled it out of your ass, that is.
So let me get this straight, because I seem to be misunderstanding conservative viewpoints lately: reforming health care will destroy America, but reducing pollution will not improve the environment. These are the main platforms of what, the TEA Party or the GOP? I get them confused.
Also, lets say this massive “global warming conspiracy” is successful, and cap and trade goes into effect. Who’s ultimately pulling the strings and what’s their endgame? What’s the motive?
Also, lets say this massive “global warming conspiracy” is successful, and cap and trade goes into effect. Who’s ultimately pulling the strings and what’s their endgame? What’s the motive?
Follow the money.
The Jews, apathyboy. It’s the Jews.
So Johnny Doosh, does that mean you believe Al Gore has made $1,000,000,000 or more trading carbon credits? Cause Angryclown would be interested in any evidence you have for that.
Forget Al Gore. Try this guy instead:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
Some scientists think AGW is real. Many more do not. The fact that the Earth has cooled over the last 15 years should give one pause, don you think? Or don’t you?
What’s the motive? What it always is: power and money. Those who are in the AGW camp get big fat grants and governmental funding. AGW has made Al Gore fabulously wealthy. Carbon creits? Not so much. Speaking fees? Oh yeah. That cool million he got from the Nobel Committee helped pay for his house that uses the energy of ten average families.
If we are going to enforce a planet-wide carbon regime, we will need an authority. Hey! We already have a U.N. They’d be perfect! Look at the great job they did running the Oil For Food program in Iraq. No conflict of interest with the IPCC either, no sir. The only thing missing is Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
Nah, not willing to forget Al Gore, Mr. Doofus. Angryclown is testing Johnny Doosh’s credibility. You don’t have any to test.
“What’s the motive? What it always is: power and money.”
Evolution? Follow the money. It’s a hoax perpetrated by the ape and gorilla lobby. Jane Goodall is a monkey billionaire.
Haha! You’re really an idiot Kerm!
And you are a fool, Clownie.
Yeah, I’m not as smart as Clownie.
The planet may be saved after all, and it will only cost $100 billion.
Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United States Thursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Press reports.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html
Angryclown is testing Johnny Doosh’s credibility.
And who better to judge credibility than a Mets fan?
angryclown said:
“Cause it seems like scientists think the global warming science is convincing”
Some may, but a majority of these AWG proponents seem to be anti-scientists: not seeking the truth, but trying to be “effective” and marketing their theories in place of vetting them.
Scientists don’t hide data, and the don’t destroy it either. Scientists create new theories when current ones fail, they don’t tweak the data until it fits their theories, they don’t threaten colleagues who have opposing views, and they don’t even consider subverting peer review. But these “gentlemen” have, and you’ve been had.
The fact that unqualified people support the theory of global warming is meaningless, Trojan Man. If you discount the idiots on both sides, you’re left with a majority of scientists who believe the temperature of the earth is increasing as a result of human activity. It isn’t a plot, it isn’t a religion. Or, more to the point, it doesn’t particularly matter whether it’s a plot or a religion. That’s irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether global warming is or isn’t. Most of the people who know what they’re talking about say it is. They could be wrong, of course. But there’s no good reason to assume they are. Unless you have a political agenda.
Kermit: so the mastermind behind this conspiracy is… developing countries. I have to give them kudos for finding the resources necessary to carry out their plan to… well, develop resources.
Or maybe the Federal government is behind it, since they would benefit from the cap and trade restrictions. I’ll bet with all that money they’d do something evil and dasterdly like… pay down the deficit or subsidize an orphanage.
Or, maybe Clinton is really a genious after all. Consider: her plan doesn’t start until 2020. Everyone knows the dollar will be worthless by then (and by everyone I mean Michele Bachmann and a handful of her supporters that she’s adopted). So she gets China and Brazil on board now, gets them to pour resources into “helping the planet” (subvertly subsidizing American industry and military with foreign money), and then following through on her $100B commitment, which in today’s money will equate to approximately $35,689.31.
As long as we’re the badies, I have no problem with it.
“The only question that matters is whether global warming is or isn’t. ”
AC, you are grossly oversimplifying. Global warming isn’t a question at all. The real question is “what can we do to reverse or reduce global warming, and will the results be worth the expenditures.”
Hahaha!
“unqualified people”? “idiots”? I wasn’t talking about you, angryclown. I was talking about Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen. Heard of those guys?
There are a lot of “real” questions, but they are overshadowed by the “real” assumptions.
Al Gore is not a scientist. Chris Matthews is not a scientist. Angry Clown is an angry clown, not a scientist. None of them even know what makes good science.
Good science can withstand scrutiny. AGW theory cannot.
That doesn’t mean that the climate is not changing. It doesn’t mean that human activity does not affect the environment. It doesn’t mean that pollution is good. It just means the part of AGW theory that proposes a direct link between atmospheric CO2 and weather (this _is_ what they are claiming, despite their “weather is not climate” cries on cold days) cannot accurately describe the past and future behavior of the Earth’s climate and we would be fools to act as though it could.
Neither are most of the kooks you cite scientists, Terry. The upshot of all this is that most scientists believe that human activity is causing a net warming of the planet, which will necessarily cause global changes, some, but by no means all of which can be predicted.
The fact that you kooks choose to carry water for non-scientists, including the fossil fuel industries, who know which way they want the answer to come out, just reinforces the idea that conservatives are no longer tethered to time, space and other elements of reality.
most of the kooks
Wow. And I thought Courtney Love was “too broad”.
And the ever popular most scientists (apart from the tens of thousands who do not believe that human activity is causing a net warming of the planet) Clownie has a point.
AB, apart from the IPCC there is no “mastermind”, just a bunch of people who have found a sweet gravy train to ride.
In case you missed Mr. D’s link, here it is again
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
There’s lots and lots of money to made in AGW. And lots of clowns willing to fork it over.
This explains it all
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
“Two natural components of the currently progressing climate change are identified. The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years, which seems to have started in 1800–1850, at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly.”
“The second one is oscillatory (positive/negative) changes, which are superposed on the linear change. One of them is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is a natural change. This particular natural change had a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975 (positive from 1910 to 1940, negative from 1940 to 1975), and is thought by the IPCC to be a sure sign of the greenhouse effect of CO2.”
If it is science, Angry Clown, it is science. Release the raw data, the mathematical models, and the scientific basis behind the models.
This is a democracy. Public policy is determined by the people, not the government working with a small group of scientists.
“The upshot of all this is that most scientists believe that human activity is causing a net warming of the planet, which will necessarily cause global changes, some, but by no means all of which can be predicted.”
AssClown, put up DATA or STFU.
you’re left with a majority of scientists who believe the temperature of the earth is increasing as a result of human activity.
Translation: “It’s settled! Settled! And it’s peer reviewed, damn it! No contrary qualified opinion will be tolerated! All bow to the mighty algorebot at the altar of AGW!”
AssClown, wanna buy Brooklyn Bridge from me? You need something to jump from…
It looks like AssClown and ApatheticBoy are Branch AlGoreans.
This explains it all
Facts? But it’s settled! MoN, you did not get the memo? Heretic!
“wanna buy Brooklyn Bridge from me? You need something to jump from…”
Good luck with that. Turns out gravity was a farce too.
Turns out gravity was a farce too.
Well, no. Turns out the computer models for gravity also showed things falling downward. Which is more than the Wahabbi Warmists’ models can show.
Apathy Boy, you can’t be serious. I can prove the way that gravity works, on a macro scale, in an hour by rolling balls of different weights down inclined planes. That’s how Galileo did it — or on a series of afternoons, if you are concerned that the way gravity works changes with time.
I can prove that the Earth is round by using simple geometry and observations of a few lunar eclipses. It ain’t rocket science.
Antropogenic Global Warming, specifically the part that shows that the primary cause of AGW is CO2 emissions, is statistical mumbo-jumbo.
The scientists who back this theory say as much; that’s why they won’t release their data and models; no one but they themselves can look at the data and come to their conclusions. Mumbo-jumbo.
“computer models for gravity ”
Along with computer models, I believe they also did this crazy thing called “experiments”
Not to mention that gravity is a repeatable phenomenon that can be demonstrated. Unlike AGW, which is NOT science.
Bozo-“A majority of scientists believe the temperature of the earth is increasing as a result of human activity.” Since when did science become a democracy, where the most votes wins? A majority of scientists believed that the earth was flat. And a majority thought 35 yrs. ago that we were entering a new ice age. But it`s different now, right? Nothing to see here, move along. Nice 8th grade debating skills, though.
“reforming health care will destroy America, but reducing pollution will not improve the environment.”
WTF?
Who told you that, asswipe? Do us a favor; don’t spend your mornings making bullshit pies over at Kos and then drag them over here to half bake them..m’kay?
Kook ’em over there at moron central…where trying to keep our carbon feet small enough to make nice prints on your asses.
Boy, AC really has a bee up his butt. If he’s interested in learning about the skeptical science AGW world, he should ask his PCA to click on http://www.wattsupwiththat.com instead of reading recycled Seth Borenstein pieces at AP or HuffPo, Kos etc
Golfdoc, don’t you realize that journalists are the only people who can judge the legitimacy of scientific research? Some of those people have MFA’s from Columbia, fer gawd’s sake.
Yeah, Frog Man and Mastur of Bation won’t believe in global warming until it can be duplicated on an identical planet. With a second identical planet as a control.
“Apathy Boy, you can’t be serious.”
You are slowly starting to catch on, Terry.
Yeah, Kermit and Master of None, you are no where near as gullible and weak minded as angryclown.
Angry Clown, AGW science science does not become more reliable just because it can’t be experimentally confirmed. Duh.
The CRU data can be checked for integrity and the models examined to see if they are correct and follow best practice.
I’ve heard through the academic grapevine that the tricky modeling that only peer reviewed scientists can understand is also known as 1st year statistics. I’ve also heard that if you randomize the years of the dataset and put them through their model you get the same result, a gradual increase in temps during the 20th century.
Nothing wrong with openness, is there? Release the data. It was paid for with public money.
Maybe angryclown could do this:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
Maybe not.
“It ain’t rocket science.”
It ain’t brain surgery either, trust me.