Global Heat Record as Earth Continues to Warm!

[Mugwump]

Jon, I have no doubt the earth is warming. And it's cooling. Yes, we don't think it is caused by man. The part that really gets me is the "agreements" we make with other countries like China. All it is doing is taking money out of our pockets with no ROI ever.

BTW we should all be glad for global warming. If it didn't happen we'd all be very, very cold since we'd still be in the Ice Age.

I just want to know how folks in the 1800s got thermometers so accurate.

There's likely a lot of unanswered questions.....but if it is indeed warming, do we want to ignore it??
I'd say no.......arguing, and doing nothing, is rolling the dice......?

[LizStreithorst]

My really smart Discus friend Dottie gives the same arguement against the validity climate change.  We discussed it as we were driving home from NADA.  My argument was that we're sure dumping a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  How can that have no effect on the weather?

[GraphicGr8s]

Jon, I have no doubt the earth is warming. And it's cooling. Yes, we don't think it is caused by man. The part that really gets me is the "agreements" we make with other countries like China. All it is doing is taking money out of our pockets with no ROI ever.

BTW we should all be glad for global warming. If it didn't happen we'd all be very, very cold since we'd still be in the Ice Age.

I just want to know how folks in the 1800s got thermometers so accurate.

There's likely a lot of unanswered questions.....but if it is indeed warming, do we want to ignore it??
I'd say no.......arguing, and doing nothing, is rolling the dice......?

If it's not man made (what I, and many others believe) then doing nothing is the right answer.  Doing anything drastic, as is and has been proposed only accomplishes transfer of wealth.
Most of the stuff I've seen only goes back 500-1000 years. This planet has been here a whole lot longer and has warmed, and cooled many times before as Greenland has proven. Well it's proven that it was warm there at least once in the past. That evidence is irrefutable unlike GW "science"

[GraphicGr8s]

My really smart Discus friend Dottie gives the same arguement against the validity climate change.  We discussed it as we were driving home from NADA.  My argument was that we're sure dumping a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  How can that have no effect on the weather?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

-

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

?Global warming? refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group?s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity?s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming?it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they?re not going to find something if they don?t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, ?What else COULD it be?? Well, the answer to that takes a little digging? and as I show, one doesn?t have to dig very far.

[Mugwump]

"If it's not man made (what I, and many others believe) then doing nothing is the right answer. "

I can't agree with that part of it all. After all the deforesting, and toxic waste dumping, water mismanagement, etc.....we need to get a grip on reality.....even if not warming , as argued, we're polluting, and raping our natural resources.....it's not a totally replenishing supply gig we have here you know..
You can be right and still lose, ya know....our earth isn't measured in dollars and cents....it's measured by it sustains life upon it......

[Mugwump]

"Spencer"....

Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article.  That ain?t news.  What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

First, the disinformers have figured out they should focus on journals that don?t seem to have a very deep understanding of climate science.  In May, it was a paper in a statistics journal, which was ultimately withdrawn because of ?evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process.?  This time it?s an article in the open-access Remote Sensing co-authored by Spencer.

It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing ? committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn?t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

[Mugwump]

and try this one....

http://www.desmogblog.com/are-you-a-global-warming-denier-take-the-heib-global-warming-test

[GraphicGr8s]

Jon, I will not read anything from that site. Ever. They do neither.  Referring to the previous post not your current link.

[Mugwump]

Jon, I will not read anything from that site. Ever. They do neither.  Referring to the previous post not your current link.

Pulling your chain, bro..... ....but Spencer's not exactly a reliable authority....he's following the $$$'s too.....lobbyist $$$$'s.....the 'traveling denier'....

[GraphicGr8s]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

my group?s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural

[Mugwump]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

my group?s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural

We can post conflicting excerpts till the cows come home...LOL....a real 'google duel'.....but sorry , not really my thing....
Let's both just hope the right thing gets done for the right reason....ok?

[LizStreithorst]

We can post conflicting excerpts till the cows come home...LOL....a real 'google duel'.....but sorry , not really my thing....
Let's both just hope the right thing gets done for the right reason....ok?
[/quote]

Good idea gent's.  This is like debating the existance of God. 

[GraphicGr8s]

GW is probably the third thing you shouldn't talk about after politics and religion. I look at these discussions as a great exercise and fully realize I will not change your mind and you won't change mine. I've got customers at work that are the polar opposite of me politically and we have lively (putting that mildly) discussions about it. However, when we are done we shake hands and always part friends. Neither subject is worth getting so mad about you lose a good friend.  Just avoid personal attacks and debate your beliefs. If in this thread I did personally attack someone it was totally unintentional and I apologize.

[Mugwump]

GW is probably the third thing you shouldn't talk about after politics and religion. I look at these discussions as a great exercise and fully realize I will not change your mind and you won't change mine. I've got customers at work that are the polar opposite of me politically and we have lively (putting that mildly) discussions about it. However, when we are done we shake hands and always part friends. Neither subject is worth getting so mad about you lose a good friend.  Just avoid personal attacks and debate your beliefs. If in this thread I did personally attack someone it was totally unintentional and I apologize.

We're all good.....the net is a funny place when discussions occur....the absence of a 'face to face' in discussions can breed a pseudo confidence in some folks that lets things get out of hand quickly. I've seen forums become 'ghost towns' after such happenings.....that's why we like to keep things to a friendly banter here.

[GraphicGr8s]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2015/01/18/nasa-scientists-admit-only-38-chance-2014-was-hottest-year-record?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=nasa-warming