Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Ice and cold: Global warming believers are today's climate deniers

Posted by   + Show Post


Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global WarmingClimate Change community is not celebrating.  

Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.

Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?

The chief of today's Climate Deniers is President Obama, whose second term will end up being "all about Climate Change." Despite all this good climate news, Obama still intends to circumvent Congress and use the Tyranny of the Bureaucracy to strangle the kind of industries that create solid middle class jobs. But don't worry, while Obama is killing good-paying energy jobs he will be rescuing us from income inequality that good paying energy jobs would help to solve.  

There are all kinds of reasons not to believe in Global Warming -- the cover-ups, themedia biasthe outright lies; the science just being plain old wrong; the absurdity of using a hundred-or-so years of data on a planet billions of years old;  the oh-so bizarre coincidence that the only solution to the "crisis" is to check off every item on the Marxist wish-list; the fact that Global Warming Believers live their lives like the rest of us instead of preparing for imminent catastrophe…

And let's not forget the oily shift in branding from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change…

Well, now we can add to this list the fact that the very good news of unexpected Antarctic ice, and a return to the kind of winter weather we experienced before this Climate Change hysteria began, hasn't so much as made a single Truther pause for just a moment to wonder aloud if this might be good news.

Instead, they are ignoring the science to double down on their denial and partisan bitterness.


by on Jan. 4, 2014 at 6:36 PM
Replies (31-40):
Clairwil
by Platinum Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 1:32 PM


Quoting SallyMJ:
Quoting Clairwil:

*sigh*   You don't really enjoy understanding things, do you?   I think you're happier when they're a mystery.

You still haven't explained the millions and billions of years that climate has changed without the assistance of people. How ever is that possible?! Are you suggesting people and the dinosaurs were pals, and that early man had huge industry and infrastructure? Perhaps cavemen sold dinosaur steaks on the free market, and cars were feet generated - such as on The Flintstones? Mr. Slate was the boss?

If you still think, after all this time, that anyone is claiming that all the climate changes over the last billion years have been caused by 'people', then I think I can rest my case about whether or not you enjoy understanding things.


Some are natural.  Some are not.   This particular one is not.

How hard a concept can that be to grasp?

Lilfootmommy
by on Jan. 6, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same

Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me



Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.



SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 1:59 PM

So why do you and your denying scientists insist on ignoring data that argues against your dogma?

I would think that believers in SCIENCE would pay attention to ALL the data, and follow it wherever it leads, rather than only accepting data that proves their theories - since backing into data to support one's theory is backwards and not scientific.

Why do you follow scientists who suppress the data they don't like? That's what they did in the age of Galileo, when he was one of the only ones to teach that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. The excommunication and burning of the stake then, is now refusal to publish or hire dissenting scientists. Why fight against the truth, why fear the truth?

Why? Why you of all people, who allegedly loves science? Why would you ignore science, because of your overweening devotion to your particular denomination of the religion of climate change, which places all the blame on people, and ignores other causes?

Why ignore massive natural forces we have no control over? Rather than insisting on destroying the economies of the world. Why? This makes no sense if you consider science as an open and collaborative area of study, vs a religious dogma that must not be questioned.

I believe that if both groups would work together, they could probably come up with more complete data and better conclusions and recommendations.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same

Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me



Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.




SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Well then, why say you are you "anti-science?"

That was the clue that strongly implied you were faking being a conservative.

Quoting doomsie:

 who ever said I am a damn liberal -_- I am a conservative Christian, but kinda more on the anti-government side. I am also confused at what you are trying to get at. All I said was the weather in Florida was acting strangely. Shrugs...have a blessed day.

Quoting SallyMJ:

Come on, you libs/progs have got to do better at your impersonations!  :)   You guys are SO OBVIOUS, same as when you infiltrate Tea Party rallies and pretend to be idiot conservatives who can't spell. You have to be believable. No one is anti-science - except for many climate change/global warming "experts."

If they were telling the truth, why the need to destroy data that does not support their theories? Why suppress and destroy emails and other communication that the data does not support the extreme predictions of the majority of the climate chang gang? If these folks were truly open to follow where science leads, why do they feel the need to tell scholarly journals to boycott and not publish work by scientists with dissenting views? Does that really sound like the free expression of the truth? Or the suppression of it? 


Quoting doomsie:

 I personally am anti-science, but even I noticed how strange the weather is getting. I live in Florida, and I have so far, I hope I am not jinxing it, seen the most mild winter in a long time. We had a couple chilly days, but nothing like it should be. During winter, we get very cold...just nothing like up north. But so far, only had to wear my hoodie a few times. Yes, winter isn't over. But its just weird.


 


Lilfootmommy
by on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:02 PM
Did I EVER put all the blame on unnatural causes? No, in fact that wasn't even mentioned in my original comment. Fact is pollution caused by humans does contribute to climate change even if it is a miniscual amount.

Quoting SallyMJ:

So why do you and your denying scientists insist on ignoring data that argues against your dogma?

I would think that believers in SCIENCE would pay attention to ALL the data, and follow it wherever it leads, rather than only accepting data that proves their theories - since backing into data to support one's theory is backwards and not scientific.

Why do you follow scientists who suppress the data they don't like? That's what they did in the age of Galileo, when he was one of the only ones to teach that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. The excommunication and burning of the stake then, is now refusal to publish or hire dissenting scientists. Why fight against the truth, why fear the truth?

Why? Why you of all people, who allegedly loves science? Why would you ignore science, because of your overweening devotion to your particular denomination of the religion of climate change, which places all the blame on people, and ignores other causes?

Why ignore massive natural forces we have no control over? Rather than insisting on destroying the economies of the world. Why? This makes no sense if you consider science as an open and collaborative area of study, vs a religious dogma that must not be questioned.

I believe that if both groups would work together, they could probably come up with more complete data and better conclusions and recommendations.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same



Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me





Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.




SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:11 PM

So you disagree with scientists who have proven the medieval warm period was global in scope??

What about the Ice Age and the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period, and the fact that warming has occurred since long before the Industrial Revolution? 

What about the cyclical nature of warming and cooling over tens of thousands of years?

What about the fact that approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.

New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope

Andrew Revkin writes:

Michael Mann can’t be happy about this work.

Here’s a chat with two authors of an important new Science paper examining 10,000 years of layered fossil plankton in the western Pacific Ocean. The paper finds that several significant past climate ups and downs — including the medieval warm period and little ice age — were global in scope, challenging some previous conclusions that these were fairly limited Northern Hemisphere phenomena.

The study finds that the rise in ocean temperatures in recent decades is far faster than anything seen earlier in the Holocene, the period since the end of the last ice age. But the researchers say that this rise is from a relatively cool baseline. Between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, at depths between 500 and 1,000 meters, the Pacific Ocean was 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. (text from the video description)

The paper is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley, Delia W. Oppo

Abstract:

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting SallyMJ:

it was warmer during medieval and Roman times

In the area surrounding the North Atlantic, yes it was.

On the other hand, during that same time frame, it seems to have been cooler than average in many of the regions surrounding the Pacific.


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:13 PM

So why, then, do you advocate drastic action that will damage economies all over the world?

If the majority of warming is beyond our control, how possibly can people affect it?

And why are you ignoring all the evidence of global cooling these past 18 years or so?

 

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting SallyMJ:
Quoting Clairwil:

*sigh*   You don't really enjoy understanding things, do you?   I think you're happier when they're a mystery.

You still haven't explained the millions and billions of years that climate has changed without the assistance of people. How ever is that possible?! Are you suggesting people and the dinosaurs were pals, and that early man had huge industry and infrastructure? Perhaps cavemen sold dinosaur steaks on the free market, and cars were feet generated - such as on The Flintstones? Mr. Slate was the boss?

If you still think, after all this time, that anyone is claiming that all the climate changes over the last billion years have been caused by 'people', then I think I can rest my case about whether or not you enjoy understanding things.


Some are natural.  Some are not.   This particular one is not.

How hard a concept can that be to grasp?


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Climate always changes over hundreds and thousands of years. So what's your point?

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same

Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me



Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.




SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:18 PM

So if you agree that there are natural causes beyond our control, why do you follow the scientists who recommend huge actions by people that will drastically damage our economy?

It seems your conclusions are similar to mine - Why then do you support draconian action to change what likely can be changed little if any?

Why not study more so a more calibrated approach can be followed?

Your reaction reminds me of people who freaked out that the earth was flat, who prohibited people from sailing far away, and those who proved them wrong by sailing to the New World and around the earth.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Did I EVER put all the blame on unnatural causes? No, in fact that wasn't even mentioned in my original comment. Fact is pollution caused by humans does contribute to climate change even if it is a miniscual amount.

Quoting SallyMJ:

So why do you and your denying scientists insist on ignoring data that argues against your dogma?

I would think that believers in SCIENCE would pay attention to ALL the data, and follow it wherever it leads, rather than only accepting data that proves their theories - since backing into data to support one's theory is backwards and not scientific.

Why do you follow scientists who suppress the data they don't like? That's what they did in the age of Galileo, when he was one of the only ones to teach that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. The excommunication and burning of the stake then, is now refusal to publish or hire dissenting scientists. Why fight against the truth, why fear the truth?

Why? Why you of all people, who allegedly loves science? Why would you ignore science, because of your overweening devotion to your particular denomination of the religion of climate change, which places all the blame on people, and ignores other causes?

Why ignore massive natural forces we have no control over? Rather than insisting on destroying the economies of the world. Why? This makes no sense if you consider science as an open and collaborative area of study, vs a religious dogma that must not be questioned.

I believe that if both groups would work together, they could probably come up with more complete data and better conclusions and recommendations.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same



Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me





Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.





Lilfootmommy
by on Jan. 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM
How is encouraging people to recycle and stop polluting a bad thing? You do want this earth to be a healthy place to live for your descendants don't you?

Quoting SallyMJ:

So if you agree that there are natural causes beyond our control, why do you follow the scientists who recommend huge actions by people that will drastically damage our economy?

It seems your conclusions are similar to mine - Why then do you support draconian action to change what likely can be changed little if any?

Why not study more so a more calibrated approach can be followed?

Your reaction reminds me of people who freaked out that the earth was flat, who prohibited people from sailing far away, and those who proved them wrong by sailing to the New World and around the earth.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Did I EVER put all the blame on unnatural causes? No, in fact that wasn't even mentioned in my original comment. Fact is pollution caused by humans does contribute to climate change even if it is a miniscual amount.



Quoting SallyMJ:

So why do you and your denying scientists insist on ignoring data that argues against your dogma?

I would think that believers in SCIENCE would pay attention to ALL the data, and follow it wherever it leads, rather than only accepting data that proves their theories - since backing into data to support one's theory is backwards and not scientific.

Why do you follow scientists who suppress the data they don't like? That's what they did in the age of Galileo, when he was one of the only ones to teach that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. The excommunication and burning of the stake then, is now refusal to publish or hire dissenting scientists. Why fight against the truth, why fear the truth?

Why? Why you of all people, who allegedly loves science? Why would you ignore science, because of your overweening devotion to your particular denomination of the religion of climate change, which places all the blame on people, and ignores other causes?

Why ignore massive natural forces we have no control over? Rather than insisting on destroying the economies of the world. Why? This makes no sense if you consider science as an open and collaborative area of study, vs a religious dogma that must not be questioned.

I believe that if both groups would work together, they could probably come up with more complete data and better conclusions and recommendations.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Honey I never said anything about it being natural or not. This world is in between ice ages and yes another ice age will happen. Again like I said climate and weather.are NOT the same





Quoting SallyMJ:

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

You guys have forgotten about the major warming and cooling times in the history of the world.


Quoting Lilfootmommy: Weather and climate are not the same. Figure out why then discuss it with me







Quoting SallyMJ:

We have an old fashioned word for that: It's called "weather."

And the centuries-long climate changes that are completely natural and beyond our control. Ice Age, Little Ice Age, anyone? The fact that it was warmer during medieval and Roman times?

Looking at 100 years is a drop in the bucket for a planet that is millions or billions of years old. It's like a hiccup or a sneeze.

Quoting Lilfootmommy: Global warming is a myth, global climate change is not.





Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN