He must be. It's pure hubris to think that man could mess with God's backyard. It's too big. I mean, look up. See an end to it? Like Senator Inhoff said... â My point is, Godâs still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." Inhofe went on to attack evangelical leader Rich Cizik, the former Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, who has made the religious case for fighting climate change pollution. Inhofe said Cizik has been âexposed as a liberalâ and that he is like idolatrous Romans described in the Bible as those who âgive up the truth about God for a lie.â In the interview, Inhofe did not mention he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.
======================== Lots of good points,future currents. As they say in Texas= God controls the weather, your heart beat, ,your mother in law-go ahead + tick him off if you want to. I cooled the climate on my place-planted trees.....Thats a cooling trend .Actually , Nitro, the new name for the scam is not global warming ;;its ''climate change''. Too many people found out global warming is a scam so they changed the name to climate change, trying to fool people with any kind of unusual weather. Algore should be sued for fraud, the founder of the weather cnannel says. ============================
Yeah right? The best thing we can do to prevent "climate change" is to go to church and pray. Like The Weather Channel says: It is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be. More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/
nitro... you like stats.. you will immediately see this guy is very credible. here is a serious climate scientist - a professor using real statistical methods. ... the first 10 minutes might be interesting to you as a trader because he discusses techniques to find what I would call signal... i am sure it is a review for you. the last 10 minutes are conclusion and the reason why. he quotes feynman in the last 2 minutes on when you can call bullshit. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2ROw_cDKwc0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Ironically, the first 11 minutes of the talk provide all the components required to show beyond reasonable doubt that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for 100% of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 and that natural sources do not play a major role. At 08:39, Prof. Salby correctly states that "What is relevant is net emissions, net collected from all sources and sinks, human and natual, that is what ultimately controls atmospheric CO2" This is then supported by a slide (at 8:58) containing an equation that will be familiar to those that have followed the discussion of earlier claims that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a natural phenomenon at SkS, for example my rebuttal of Prof. Essenhigh's residence time argument. This is known as the mass balance equation, and it simply states that as the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is equal to the difference between total emissions from all sources (both natural and anthropogenic) and the total uptake from all sinks (natural and anthropogenic, although the anthropogenic sink is essentially zero as we are not yet performing significant amounts of carbon sequestration). For convenience, we can re-write Prof. Salby's mass balance equation in the form C' = Ea + En - Un, where Ea represents annual carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources (fossil fuel use and land use change), En represents the carbon emissions from all natural sources (the oceans, soil respiration, volcanos etc.) and Un represent the uptake of carbon by all natural carbon sinks (oceans, photosynthesis, etc.). C' represents the net emissions rate, which as Prof. Salby says is approximately equal to growth rate of global mean atmospheric CO2. The problem is then that we don't know the values of En and Un with any real certainty as our knowledge of the natural carbon cycle is limited. However, we do have good knowledge of anthropogenic emissions, Ea, as Prof. Salby says (at 7:53) "In truth only one component of the CO2 budget is known with any certainty, human emissions, implicitly through records of extraction - how much coal and oil are dug up" There are also good records of emissions due to land use changes as well. We also have reliable observations of the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere, as Prof. Salby says (10:35) "That [CO2 being well mixed in the atmosphere] is a good thing because it means that local values are good approximations of the global average, which in turn provides a record of net global emissions. In fact we have a long record of CO2 from only one site in the free atmosphere, Mauna Loa Hawaii. The local record from Mauna Loa therefore approximates the global mean, which through its growth rate chronicles the history of net global emissions, collectively from all sources, human and natural." In other words we can reliably work out the net emission rate from the Mauna Loa CO2 record by computing the annual growth in atmospheric CO2, i.e. C'. This allows us to find out something interesting about the natural carbon cycle: The mass balance equation can be rearranged to give an estimate of the difference between annual emissions from all natural sources and annual natural uptake by all natural sinks. En - Un = C' - Ea While we don't know the values of En or Un, the difference between them is constrained by conservation of mass to be the same as the difference between C' and Ea, which we do know! More importantly if we knew the right hand side of this equation was negative, then we would know that the left hand side must also be negative, so whatever their actual values, Un > En. O.K., so if we look at the data (for details, see Cawley, 2011), we find that the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has been less than anthropogenic emisssions every year for at least the last fifty. We therefore can also be sure that the natural environment has been a net carbon sink, taking in more carbon than it has emitted, every year for the last fifty. As the natural environment is known to be a net carbon sink, far from being the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, it has been actively opposing it! Key Point: It isn't the variability (the general up and down wiggliness) in net emissions that gives rise to the long term trend, it is the mean value of the net emissions, and the value of the correlation does not depend in any way on the mean value. Therefore the correlation with net global emission tells you very little about the cause of the long term trend. http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
That entire skeptical science article is a mis direction and a fraudulent joke. Net emissions? The whole point of the speech was that net emissions are irrelevant if there is no science or statistics showing that co2 is forcing temps. Arguing for net emissions is like arguing for net ice cream sales. For the purpose of the debate about climate change, we care about what makes temperature go up... not net emissions.