Ten Key Indicators Show ‘Global Warming is Undeniable’

By | July 29, 2010

  • July 29, 2010 at 7:24 am
    ComradeAnon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    But Newt Tweeted that global warming was a hoax because it was snowing heavy one day.

  • July 29, 2010 at 8:39 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I love these people. It is because we say it is. You have to give up your way of life because we think something may be happening, without a shred of proof. Liberals always consider themselves the smartest people the room and never are. Religion indeed. I love the papal indulgences references. It is exactly the same and has the same validity.

  • July 29, 2010 at 9:07 am
    climate denier says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Water vapor accounts for 70% of greenhouse effect, humans can’t control water vapor in atmosphere. But if enough people repeat the same thing it must be a “fact”. They used to imprison and torture people who didn’t think the earth was flat or that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth. Any day the enviro nazis will come for me to “reeducate” me.

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:08 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brought to you by the scientist that were sure the world would cool in the 1980s.

    Since our economy is shrinking, maybe now the anthropogenic GW crowd can take aim at China, India and Brazil and leave us along. With our economy, we won’t be able to pay to heat our homes, so GW may be the only way we will have any discretionary moneyy to spend.

    P.S.
    I live in MN and can’t wait for the warming to take effect. I hope it does so before December.

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:08 am
    Charlie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Scientists” confirming IPCC findings–please! Would it be too much to expect a publication such as this one to refrain from printing geopolitical tripe such as this?

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:12 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Charlie, you know full well that they must publish this as reaffirmation of their belief system. They too deep into the dogma to back out now and face the humiliation of admitting they may have misinterpreted the data or not been thorough enough in their analysis. This is group think on steriods.

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:42 am
    caffiend says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yup yup, I see the nay-sayers are out in force. Hot air is right…

    BEFORE you continue your rants against the scientists who are doing their job, why don’t you read the actual report, or study data that their information is based off of.

    Global warming doesn’t mean the temps going up a dozen degrees at once, but if you look at long term temperature changes, a 1-2 degree difference makes a huge impact. Remember that ICE turns to WATER at above 32 degrees Farenheit.

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:52 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    IJ is just lying to us. It has NO credibility. It is chanelling statist propaganda from the fascists that run the UN and the progressives that run the US.

    The ice caps are not melting.
    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/news-by-category/climate-reports

    Climate change has occured in the past during periods of low C02:
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/07/global-warming-alarmists-take-another-hit-new-study-proves-climate-change-happens-at-low-co2-levels.html

    And so on.
    http://www.climatedepot.com.

    It’s so over IJ. But you just keep baingin’ away for my amusement, if nothing else.

  • July 29, 2010 at 1:58 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What snapshot of data should we look at, this decade, last century, or the missing data for the 1-10 million years before this “phenomenon” was discovered. Today’s warming may morph into tomorrow’s cooling. Let’s not get overheated about what humans can do to control nature, unless, of course, one believes that they can warm make an impact warming the ocean using their own body heat. There is waaaay more data and study needed to establish a predicate for altering human activity and economics. This may be one very small piece but the true story will take much more study time and data, so let’s all just chill out.

  • July 29, 2010 at 2:11 am
    Brian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A note of sanity in that comment. By the way, climate change is cyclical. Things get warm, then they get cool and so on. If there’s global warming, so what? The question is whether human activities contribute to warming – or coolong – to any veriviable and significant degree. Show me that data from independent scientists without an agenda and I might pay some attention. Meanwhile, I plan to keep breathing in and exhaling that dreaded pollutant….

  • July 29, 2010 at 2:22 am
    Jeremie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brian and Tom for President.

  • July 29, 2010 at 2:43 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are so right about the naysayers. They aren’t factual or fair but they are loud, persistent and funded by big oil and Fox. They come out of the woodwork whenever more evidence about climate change is published and have nothing credible to refute it except anecdotes. I wonder if they ever ask themselves, what am I doing to my grandkids’ future? It amazes me that some work in the insurance business yet don’t want to face the truth about risk. Even George Bush has finally come around.

  • July 29, 2010 at 2:54 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is ********; give it up already.

  • July 29, 2010 at 2:59 am
    Chicken Little says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling. George Soros told me so. And he’s got BIG money.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:01 am
    Brokette says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    … on this topic was that a bunch of “scientists” had been caught shredding emails evidencing their fraud. How short our memories are.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:10 am
    climate denier says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Way to go right to the ad hominem attacks. CO2 doesn’t cause global warming water vapor causes most of it, ever hear of humidity? The amount of carbon produced by human activity is infitesemle compared to nature. Besides carbon is a finite resource – the carbon released from coal/oil was in the atmosphere and then trapped by plants etc, then released by us. Plants capture carbon until released by decay or burning. Evenif there were no humans, the climate would still warm and cool.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:10 am
    Hmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Although I”m no scientist, I do know that the earth’s temperature goes in cycles. Is it caused by humans, probably not, but who cares! Why can’t we focus on what we “humans” can control – Pollution? I think there is a sensible way to reduce “Pollution” without the “sky is falling” mentality of “global warming”.
    Yes we need to take care of our planet, but the earth is only our temporary home. If you really want to know how the world will end, don’t look to the science community look to the Bible.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:20 am
    Teleprompter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “They (the dreaded “climate change deniers”) aren’t factual or fair but they are loud, persistent and funded by big oil”

    Really? Why is it that one of the groups that lobbied the hardest for “carbon taxes” to supposedly fight “global warming” was formed by (drum roll, please)BP? Oh, it might have something to do with the fact that the “Cap & Trade” would put heavy regulations & taxes on coal burning power plants and force, er, encourage, them to switch to natural gas. And who has possibly the most natural gas reserves in the world? Come on people, I don’t need to tell you this, do I? Yes, that’s right, it’s BP.

    Please, any time you see political activity, follow the money. These people are interested in only stuffing their pockets at everyone else’s expense. Politicians and bureaucrats are no better than whores (with apologies to the whores).

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:23 am
    GL Guru says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well said Hmm.

    I used to teach earth science and the one thing we can bank on is this is just part of the cycle. Do humans cause some of it? Maybe. Are temps going up. Yes. Are they going up as much as the alarmist say? No. Is there manipulation of results to get bigger grants or to push political agendas? Yes to a sickening point.

    There are many cycles never mentioned that occur every 10K years that cause glaciation and heating.

    It does not take a scientist to figure out that treating our atmosphere or oceans like a toilet bowl is a bad thing. But to to draw 100% causal links among increased global temperatures, increased hurricane activity and human activity is a stretch if not impossible.

    Back in the 70s there was an article that was widely accepted by the scientific community discussing global cooling!

    Then there is the ozone whole which may be natural altogether. There is a natural expansion and contraction of that hole and they only produce the results when it is at the maximum.

    Another sound study discusses how there is systematic errors in the current research because of the locations where we take temps which are in cities and airports. These are heat sinks and are going to exagerate the results. Net gain once normalized was determined to be .5 degrees in 20 years. Inconclusive evidense regarding the the cause but non the less important.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:28 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bill, thank you for proving my point about the new age religion, climatology. Anyone who has the audacity to try and bring logic and common sense into this argument is branded a “denier” (devil), and should be cast out. If you don’t see the parrallels, I won’t be surprised. In this case, being an agnostic would serve everyone well.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:28 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    AND the camdidate that got the most money from BP was………. Barack Hussein, who also granted nine safety waivers to the platform that broke up, AND awarded it a safety medal that was almost ready to be pinned on when the trouble started.

    BP is also a carbon credit broker, which the cap and trade bill was supposed to create a market for. That’s also why BP wanted Hussein as POTUS. (Al Gore owns a carbon brokerage too. I hear its stock is way down.) Oh yeah, and Hussein’s patron, BP, lobbied the British govt to free the Lockerbie bomber with encouragement from the Hussein adminstration.

    But democraps are for the little guy.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:35 am
    Chicken Little says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “But democraps are for the little guy.” George Soros says so. Uh-huh.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:43 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Believers, I leave you with one last point. Consider the “indulgences” the Catholic Church once sold in the middle ages to people who wanted to assuage their “sins” and similarities of the carbon credits that Al Gore buys and sells to reduce a person’s “carbon footprint”.

  • July 29, 2010 at 3:58 am
    Climate Denier says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And Galileo was excommunicated for stating that the earth revolved around the sun, even though “the science was settled”for hundreds of years that the sun revolved around the sun. There are far more theories than proofs in science, and global warming ain’t a “proof” despite people saying the dcience is settled.

  • July 29, 2010 at 4:06 am
    Did my part says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tried not to release any methane today……..opps, too late. Oh, Climate Denier, when did the sun revolve around the sun? Musta missed that part.

  • July 29, 2010 at 4:25 am
    Believer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m glad to see that there is at least one intelligent person in this conversation. GL Guru, although you seem to be intelligent, I would have to argue that there aren’t cycles every 10K years, because the universe is only 6K years old. “In the beginning” was about 6K years ago. If the “scientist” would base there theories on this fact, they would probably get better results.

  • July 30, 2010 at 7:58 am
    Caldudenomore says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dude, seriously.

  • July 30, 2010 at 8:09 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To the Apostle, Believer. I like the way you first anoint yourself as the arbiter of intelligence, then lay your holy words on others who you believe are similarily gifted. It would seem that the sin of condescension is a venial matter in climatology and, apparently, leftist political thought.

  • July 30, 2010 at 8:31 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian/article_print

    This article speaks directly to your point, N.I.

  • July 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
    Questioner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “I’m glad to see that there is at least one intelligent person in this conversation. GL Guru, although you seem to be intelligent, I would have to argue that there aren’t cycles every 10K years, because the universe is only 6K years old. “In the beginning” was about 6K years ago. If the “scientist” would base there theories on this fact, they would probably get better results.”

    I have to call you on this. If by “6K” you mean 6,000 (which you should as K is the universal symbol for 1,000), you’re way off. The oldest known rocks, dated by radioactive dating techniques, are found in Greenland. They were found to be approximately 3.5 billion years old. Scientists then extrapolated backwards to establish the age of the earth as 4 billion years old, which would make the universe even older.

  • July 30, 2010 at 9:38 am
    Brokette says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I had to laugh at that one too, Questioner. Any one who’s taken a rudimentary science class knows that even Cro-Magnon Man is older than 10,000 years. And the climate alarmists wonder why they have ZERO credibility. Sheesh!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*