Completely Unhinged Warming Alarmist "News"---Don't Believe Your Eyes, Believe the CRU (Remember Them?), the UN or For God's Sake Believe the IPCC.

Simple, the Ice Age was caused by the effects of Global Warming. Duh!

I guess we can count of global warming deniers to be simplistic, since science isn't their forte. So let me see if I can explain some of the effect of global warming. Here goes.

1. World warms up, ice melts from off Greenland and the Arctic. All that water dilutes the water in the North Atlantic.

2. Their is this little thing in the Atlantic called the North Atlantic Current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current). Warmer waters will cause this current to shift, thereby affect climates in North America and Europe.

3. Extra water evaporates and comes down as snow in areas that are usually cold in Winter. Also, since the shift is further north, it will mix with the Arctic air over North America instead of out over the ocean.

4. So, where does tha leave up with all the snow in DC, and the NE, etc. This is in reality part of the effects of global warming.

5. Watch out next hurricane season and seasons to follow as more storms make landfall that would have normally turned out to sea.

I don't think some will grasp this reasoning. However, it is what it is.

Thanks Spox, but it was a joke. Nothing more, nothing less. I do not choose to live my life in fear of what might happen and, in a world that has produced hurricanes for hundreds of billions of years I do not think you or anyone else is in the position to predict what hurricanes would "normally" do, despite the logic you may have obtained in your short stay here. Good luck trying to control the climate and/or the behavior of 6 billion people. You'll need either luck or a very large and powerful army... it will probably come down to the latter and personally, I would rather enjoy my time here than live under the green police and the only way you will change that is by threat of force.

1. World warms up, ice melts from off Greenland and the Arctic. All that water dilutes the water in the North Atlantic.

Kinda like a few hundred thousand years ago! Was it caused by humans then? hmmmm

http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/13352-ancient-dna-finds-greenlands-past-a-land-of-trees-and-butterflies

And the rest of your argument is all part of the natural flow. Climate changes naturally and it would be illogical to try and change what happens naturally. But that is exactly what the climate scare mongers want to do. And it seems quite a few are willing to lie to promote their hockey stick BS.

Wassup?

Good, how about you? business is OK not great but not bad, how about yours? Daughter got married to a Marine and we are moving her to the left coast in a couple of weeks.

interesting stuff...thanks for the links.

I was laughing so hard I was falling off the chair when I saw the clip on the news today..thanks carpe.

Here are some practical questions related to the belief system known as man-made global warming:

I am more interested in how CO2 is still the big villain, the "green house" effect has been shown to be completely due to preventing convection, and nothing to do with trapping re-emitted (though that is not a very accurate term itself) radiation.

LOL -- great list. I was told on another seed that the lack of snow at the Olympics was a sure sign of global warming. I still can't figure why no snow in Canada is climate but lots of snow in DC is just weather.

I still can't figure why no snow in Canada is climate but lots of snow in DC is just weather.

Yes you can.

Yes you can.

Yeah, but it is much more fun to be snarky -- LOL

Yeah, but it is much more fun to be snarky -- LOL

It sure is.... keep it up ;-)

Milder weather with more dampness leads to more snow. More snow leads to more BS from faux news.

Saskatchewan is very dry, even in the winter. It didn't used to be. Figure uit out without the BS.

Kiml,

I live in Oklahoma. In the 70's, 80's and 90's summers always hit a little below or a little above 100 degrees form June through August. In the last 10 years, we haven't hit 100 degrees more then twenty days. Why is summer so much milder here?

No pretzel logic here.

First of all, you should know it is Global Climate Change. There is increased energy in both the atmosphere and in the oceans. It is due to increased green house gases and this has been increasing at an alarming rate since the beginning of the industrial age. For proof of that just look at the increases in ppm over the centuries.

How much of the climate change is due to human actions can be debated, but there is no doubt that it is occuring and that there is at least some human input in there.

Karri-M

Same song, different singer.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Former-NASA-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine

The above link is a former NASA scientist who actually has scientific proof debunking the greenhouse theory. But I don't expect you to believe him. People who have been sold on global warming find it inconceivable that the warming may be natural and normal during an interglaciel period. At the very least his Q&A is worth reading, plus his letter to the EPA at the bottom.

Did you read my last paragraph?

How much of the climate change is due to human actions can be debated,

Human actions must be taken into account due to the changes of various gases since industrialization. However, the exact effect humans have had is debatable. In any case, do we really want this climate change to rage out of control until we are extinct? If we can have some control over it, shouldn't we try to take it?

The issue of CO2 as some kind of agent that is capable of certain catastrophic changes is far from being a settled science.

This is part of the problem I see in using catch terms and phrases. It focuses on an aspect not the whole. CO2 is a reference to pollution, but not the right reference. The toxins such as mercury, carbon monoxide and a plethora of other harmful components make up the term. The terms CO2 and sequestration come to mind, but neither represents the actual greenhouse gases or toxins contained in the term CO2.

A good cause, but stopping pollution has a politically correct terminology problem. By trying to make it easier for people to understand, they actually made it more difficult to relate to and understand the facts. This is why I focus on the term pollution, not climate change. Pollution is observable, it's has the right connotation, there are laws to stop it...

Again, you're narrowing the discussion to focus on airborne pollutants based on the term CO2 or in this case one of many pollutants, not all of which make it into the atmosphere but seep into the water tables, rivers, streams, lakes and the prime example of oxygen depletion in the actual ocean in the Gulf of Mexico, where no aquatic life can now live.

Mining the coal or uranium creates harm. Not just mountain top mining and eco systems, but the byproducts and production methods used to extract the coal and uranium from the other materials. The side product of Coal Ash that's another story, just ask the folks that saw 20 or more years worth of coal ash washed into local streams, rivers and the harm that did.

The point being, you can't focus on a single term like CO2 and ignore all the other pollutants the poorly named term applies. This is my beef with "climate change" sure it may effect the climate, but all the emphasis on climate change ignores the reality of pollution.

I listened to a radio program yesterday that discussed how nearly every source of water in China is now filled with toxins based on their industries. Here in the U.S. we have laws to prevent much of this. Why folks focus on climate change and ignore the main issue of pollution and the example of the China water issue will continue until people focus on the real problem.

I want to see the world focusing on the real problem, not the side effect.
The problem is pollution, the side effect on people's minds is Climate Change.
The side effect has more focus than the real issue, and this, is, pissing, me, off.

I listened to a radio program yesterday that discussed how nearly every source of water in China is now filled with toxins based on their industries. Here in the U.S. we have laws to prevent much of this. Why folks focus on climate change and ignore the main issue of pollution and the example of the China water issue will continue until people focus on the real problem.

Good point. I feel the same way about "real pollution". It is also our strict standards of emissions as one of the reasons China now has the problem. We as a nation, demand just as much industry now as ever. We just have China doing the dirty work now. We still consume, consume, consume, but now we pat ourselves on the back about the "wonderful" things we do for the environment. When in reality, we just passed the pollution buck to another nation who can pollute cheaper.

So what you are saying is that since there IS extreme storm activity all Alaskans are morons? That just doesn't make sense.

Neither does your comment.

Just a weak attempt at being clever.

On the contrary, unusual weather phenomena and extreme storm activity are totally consistent with the climate change model.

Of course it is. Isn't everything consistent with the climate change model when it comes to global wa............... I mean climate change? Are we still allowed to say global warming?

Events that have been happening as long as mankind has been on the planet is now caused by us.

News Flash: If there's only one "Bigfoot", he's already near extinction. What about ManBearPig?

"Warning: Bigfoot near extinction due to Global Warming!"

Ah ha, I've been wondering why I haven't been seeing as many. Now it all makes sense.

"Warning: Bigfoot near extinction due to Global Warming!"

i guess tea baggers will have to go back to cornholing drunks & cheering socialism

And what did you expect to happen when AGW started predicting anything that happens can be explained by AGW?

In an age of marketing saturation everybody's BS meters get triggered by that. And anyone with a science background knows that if you can't describe when your theory is *wrong*, your doing science *wrong*.