INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group's climate efforts

So... how do you know the polar ice is "actually increasing"?

 

I was accepting your statements on other threads...
but... I just found out... the ice has been getting thicker and growing since the 2007 low. 26% growth apparently.



http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...e-has-increased-26-over-the-last-three-years/

and temperatures are getting cooler.

http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.co...at-a-rate-of-over-17-deg-ccentury-since-1998/

--

Of course none of this short term stuff means squat.
I just post it to show what numb skulls the agw alarmists are.
We are in a big long cycle and we have no idea of mans effects on it.

Its probably not good, but we have no way to tell.

The earth cycles and warming precedes CO2 buildup and cooling precedes CO2 decrease. So what the hell to AGW alarmists know.

Nothing. its all a guess. I even suspect their correct. We might have an impact... but are we going to change the cycles?

 

Global warming -- the great delusion
By Matt Patterson
Published February 17, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments
inShare
In 1841 a Scottish journalist named Charles Mackay published a study of mass hysteria titled “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”
Mackay analyzed a wide variety of popular pathologies in his entertaining tome, including financial panics, medical quackery, alchemy, and witch crazes. He wanted to know why so many people choose to believe so much that is false and potentially deadly. His answer:

“We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”
I could not help but think of global warming as I was re-reading Mackay’s words. He would have recognized it as kin to his own numerous and insidious subjects—superstition masked as science; Western guilt over having conquered the world manifesting itself as hatred for the technologies that made it possible; apocalyptic yearning in the guise of political enlightenment.
In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history. The fever that these legions of warmists warn of does not grip the globe, but rather their own brains and blinkered imaginations.
And like every mass delusion, there is danger – danger that Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy.
Will the fever break before this happens?
I think so.
I think the fever is breaking, as more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm.
Just last September, Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy.
In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever lambasted the society’s public stance that global warming is an incontrovertible fact:
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
And recently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:
“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”
So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view in the Journal:
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.”
Fortunately this strange fever is breaking, and voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.
In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.
Unless they read Charles Mackay’s wonderful book.
Matt Patterson is the Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and senior editor at the Capital Research Center. He can be reached at Mpatterson.column@gmail.com.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/17/global-warming-great-delusion/#ixzz1mg9wvmj6

 

Lol, first, the article discusses a scientist, but "nobody can be more STUPIDLY WRONG than scientists", then the article uses the argument that the number of such scientists is "growing yearly", but "appeal to the majority is not a valid argument."

 

I'm thinking that since the scientists, that overwhelming majority, that supposedly are all setting their hair on fire and running in circles and screaming about GW... are funded by public monies then there is something wrong with studies funded by private funds..

I worked with some complete Vegan-jerk-semi-autistic sick pile of garbage for years.. he actually insisted that anything that involved money in any way was evil and corrupt.. But it didn't seem to apply to money going through the hands of the Public Sector.. I guess he was a communist and the best way he could wield power, and he did that, was via the environmental issues.. he stopped developers in their tracks and if he couldn't do that he made sure that they had to spend money and time addressing the issues he raised.. The County used bulldozers to take an entire hill apart,move it across the freeway and build a hill and a building on top of it and he never lifted a finger about all the wildlife that was disrupted..

 

So virtually all the world's climate experts and science organizations and even Exxon believe in the reality of global warming due to the huge amounts of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere.......but some of you genius's don't.

Keep in mind, the fossil fuel industry would pay tons of money to anyone who can disprove it. There is far more monetary reason to deny the problem than to help prove it. The above mentioned websites are examples of that. Some climate scientists have whored themselves out to the Koch bros et al. and are being paid by the oil interests to spread disinformation. They are the remaining three percent that are "skeptics".

A simple fact is that CO2 has gone up some 35% in the last 150 years due to man, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Simple facts. The harder argument is why this should NOT cause temps to go up.

 

Is there a chance that global warming might help society.

Cold weather kills more people then warm weather.

Warmer weather will provide greater food quantities.

 

The earth has been warmer historically... we find evidence that grapes were grown in Britain or somewhere that far north...

I hate environuts and all their frantic messages about things.. I remember reading some article way back in the day and they guy says "we are losing hundreds of species every hour".. I just put the fricking magazine down and vowed to never listen to that garbage again... I grew up around a woman that was anxiety ridden and after awhile you just want to kill it and never mind the collateral damage!!

The biggest environmental disaster going on today is the mercury contamination of the oceans.. We got that because of the frantic efforts to block nuclear power that forced us to go with coal burning...

 

If it were just a gradual even warming and that was all it was it wouldn't be so bad and as you say might be good. But in one hundred years average temps are going to be about 5 degrees F higher. This is a very fast increase and will not be even across the globe. The extra heat means more energy into the weather causing greater variations around the mean in both temperature, precipitation and where this weather occurs. This year's extreme weather events around the world are just a hint of what's to come. Drought, floods, stronger more numerous hurricanes and tornadoes will become worse and more common. The rapidly changing weather conditions will make it harder for agriculture and will cause die-offs of forests. Agriculture and ecosystems don't like changes in conditions. Developing nations in the tropics will be the most hard-hit with drought and flooding causing many deaths.

The other thing and perhaps the biggest is the rise in sea-levels. In a century levels will be at least 3 feet higher, higher in some areas. That doesn't sound like much but this will cause massive destruction of shoreline property and require large expensive flood-control projects and will result in deaths from drowning. And if the Antarctic and Greenland ice melts seas will go hundreds of feet higher.


In a nut-shell, AGW will not be the end of the world or of mankind, but it will cause massive problems for both and the longer we wait to do something the worse it will be. It comes down to altruism at this point. Can mankind collectively agree to do something that will cost and will not help us right now.

 

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:


A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html