Everything is caused by global warming (continued)

Addressing climate change = taxes on US citizens and loss of Freedoms. Show me any proposal that involves anything else? This is nothing but a excuse for the left to inflict equality of misery on all of us sheep. After all, equality of opportunity means someone might get ahead in life. I have no fear of climate change at all. My fear is of the left. The left will destroy us long before the planet implodes.

If only those dinosaurs had stopped driving SUVs and been less dependent on fossil fuels, perhaps their extinction could have been avoided . . .

That which does not kill us makes us warmer.

John McCain apparently buys into the GW hoax bigtime. I almost puked when I heard him give his "cap and trade" speech a few days ago. This could be THE deal killer for me.

What is it about human beings needing to believe that the end is nigh? How about this: the genetic mother of us all fell out of a tree about 250,000 years ago and banged her head on a rock. We haven't been the same since.

global warming is a non issue being used as a smoke screen so the american sheeple will not look at the real issues, like the continued restriction of our freedoms the DHS is continually expanding upon & the real dangers posed by an insecure border> I dont believe for a minute that the well educated people we have running for office are buying into this garbage, but they are trying to sell it to us, like a cheap used car salesman.

global warming is a non issue being used as a smoke screen so the american sheeple will not look at the real issues, like the continued restriction of our freedoms the DHS is continually expanding upon & the real dangers posed by an insecure border> I dont believe for a minute that the well educated people we have running for office are buying into this garbage, but they are trying to sell it to us, like a cheap used car salesman.

Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory. It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
2) Temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal"
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather "sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal"
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie "The Day After" (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) Storms have become less frequent and less severe (many GW alarmists are now backtracking these earlier "theories")
15) Droughts have always happened and always will
16) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
17) Several publications, including those that are "warmist" have recently written that the "natural" cycles of the earth may "mask" AGW. Give me a break.

With China (1 new coal fired plant coming on line each week) and India spewing millions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere, along with the rest of the world increasing their CO2 "production" over the last ten years, these results should be impossible.

Now, please be so kind to give me one piece of observable evidence that man is causing "global warming".

Man, I still thought everything evil in the world was caused by El Nino, now you are telling me it is really global warming?

Wait, I thought the Jews were behind everything? Okay, for the PC crowd, I thought Israel was behind everything?

I got it...Israel is causing global warming! Yeah, yeah, somehow the Mossad is causing it all! I knew they were up to something. It's a just a ploy to steal the Palestinians' land, keep a black man out of the White House, and cause the circulation of the NYT to plummet!

Those rascally devils.

Oh man, if it wasn't for the fact that millions of people actually believe this stuff.....

When will we get over this doom and gloom nonsense? Grow up people.

I imagine that this will be big news for all of the scientists who thought that the dinosaur extinction was caused by a meteor impacting the earth.

Let's say the global climate warms and cools from time to time for some reason or another. Also let's say that we humans can affect that oscillation in a controlled fashion. Can someone tell me what the global temperature should be, who gets to decide, and why? As far as the kidney stone thing, it's just an extension of the same post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) logic that rules the AGW cult's philosophy. That is, anything bad that's happened since 1850 is due to AGW. But has anyone noticed how nothing good that's happened since then is because of global warming?

I will tell you when to worry. When the Earth stops changing!!!! Then we know we are in trouble!!! Oh yeah food for gas is stupid!! Hey Al Gore how does it feel to know people are dying because of OUR ethanol policy!! How do you sleep at night?
Ok so I am so mad at this stuff I came up with my own way to make fun of this situation so I made up ANTI GW bumper stickers. Check them out!!!http://www.cafepess.com/rightorwrong
ANd if you still believe gw crap remember this IT'S THE SUN STUPID!!!

John: nice list. Except that No 10 isn't mathematically correct.

You said: "10) The coveted (sic) .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures."

Sorry , but the 0.7 degree rise represents an increasing mean based on thousands of temperature measurements taken over a century. One year's data may alter the trend line upwards or (as here) downwards. But unless that one number is extraordinarily large it doesn't "wipe out" the mean increase.

Example: Suppose I earn from $80K to $120K over 9 years, making $5K more each year. I make an mean of $100K for those 9 years ($900/9). The trend line slopes upward at a rate of +$5k/year.

Then I earn only $50K in the tenth year; the mean falls to $95 ($950/10). Even if I earn *nothing* in the tenth year; my mean for ten years is still $90K ($900/10).

In each case the trend line's upward slope flattens a bit, and the mean decreases, but in neither case do the lower numbers "wipe out" the trend or the mean.

It will take 2.25 years of ZERO earnings after the ninth year to "wipe out" that upward historical $5k trend..(900/11.25 = 80).

Earning $50K/year for the tenth and later years reduces the mean to $80K and the trend to zero [(90+50X/9+X) = 80] after 5.0 years.

And, to drive the point home, both my examples involve very, very large deviations from the mean AND only ten-odd years of measurements. One data point applied to a century's worth of numbers will have very little impact on the mean or the trend.

Ask yourself: what if this year's temperature is as much an upward deviation from the historical mean as last year's was below it: would that indicate that the historical 0.7 degree rise gets reinstated?

The scientist who announced the low temperatures for last year disavowed the "wiped out" comment. It was probably inserted by some innumerate "science" journalist. I cringe whenever I hear Limbaugh uncritically repeat it.

John: nice list. Except that No 10 isn't mathematically correct.

You said: "10) The coveted (sic) .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures."

Sorry , but the 0.7 degree rise represents an increasing mean based on thousands of temperature measurements taken over a century. One year's data may alter the trend line upwards or (as here) downwards. But unless that one number is extraordinarily large it doesn't "wipe out" the mean increase.

Example: Suppose I earn from $80K to $120K over 9 years, making $5K more each year. I make an mean of $100K for those 9 years ($900/9). The trend line slopes upward at a rate of +$5k/year.

Then I earn only $50K in the tenth year; the mean falls to $95 ($950/10). Even if I earn *nothing* in the tenth year; my mean for ten years is still $90K ($900/10).

In each case the trend line's upward slope flattens a bit, and the mean decreases, but in neither case do the lower numbers "wipe out" the trend or the mean.

It will take 2.25 years of ZERO earnings after the ninth year to "wipe out" that upward historical $5k trend..(900/11.25 = 80).

Earning $50K/year for the tenth and later years reduces the mean to $80K and the trend to zero [(90+50X/9+X) = 80] after 5.0 years.

And, to drive the point home, both my examples involve very, very large deviations from the mean AND only ten-odd years of measurements. One data point applied to a century's worth of numbers will have very little impact on the mean or the trend.

Ask yourself: what if this year's temperature is as much an upward deviation from the historical mean as last year's was below it: would that indicate that the historical 0.7 degree rise gets reinstated?

The scientist who announced the low temperatures for last year disavowed the "wiped out" comment. It was probably inserted by some innumerate "science" journalist. I cringe whenever I hear Limbaugh uncritically repeat it.

Mr. Lifson, I am a long time reader of American Thinker and I deeply respect your work and opinions. One favor please.

Carbon Dioxide is written CO(subscript)2 NOT CO(superscript)2!

I and many other chemists would really appreciate it!!!

Thanks!

Wramblin' Wreck