Was this a year from hell?

[burnt]

Hopperbin, some of those blank stares are because most people just don't care and don't want to stress that single synapse that connects their two neurons.

[cchurch]

Man I never knew there were so many highly decorated climate scientists on agriville.

[AdamSmith]

cchurch, your comments are a perfect example the exact same sniveling arrogance displayed by the global warming zealots. You seem to think that only a climate scientist be allowed to discuss the issues and hold opinions. You believe that us regular citizens have nothing to contribute, except of course our tax dollars.

Just shut up and pay your taxes and keep your opinions to yourselves. We’ll tell you what is best for you, we’ll tell you what’s going on and who you should listen to and not listen to.

The thing you and your ilk hate the most though cchurch, is enlightened and knowledgeable citizens. People who can see things for what they truly are scare the hell out of people like you. Things like the man-made global warming scam and the orderly marketing scam and any number of other socialist whack job beliefs. Because you need a critical mass of sufficiently scared and uneducated people in order to enact these nutcase policies. Always have and always will.

I don’t profess to know everything there is to know about climate science but I sure as hell am interested in finding out all I can and you can be sure after this a whole lot more regular people in this country and around the world will want to as well.

[liberty]

Here's a particularly bizarre statement in the article:

"The study said losses of ice from Greenland would have been roughly double recent rates but were masked by more snowfall and a re-freezing of some meltwater before it reached the sea."

If Greenland is warming up at an "alarming" rate, how could there be more snowfall and a re-freezing of meltwater? You don't need a PhD to see that something doesn't add up here.

[liberty]

You also have to wonder how a satellite could measure a change in ice thickness of less than one millimeter over a two year period. Surely the natural heaving of the ice itself would produce changes in thickness greater than that.

And notice that the case is supposedly buttressed by "computer models". I wonder if those models bear any similarity to the garbage code pumped out by the University of East Anglia to support their global warming case.

[burnt]

I think it's a snow job. Heh heh.

[mustardman]

So all you coffee shop boys who live on the prairies... you must also think the world is FLAT right? lol (oh ya we've got a whole bunch of peer reviewed scientists on this site) LOL

[liberty]

Questioning global warming is not equivalent to believing in a flat earth. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for questioning the accuracy of the data used to arrive at the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact.

You also need to be careful about bragging about a "consensus" on global warming. Consensus is not synonymous with truth. There are plenty of times when a consensus turned out to be completely wrong. As one example, I'll remind you of the "consensus" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that their use was imminent. That turned out not to be the case at all.

[liberty]

If you want some insight into the thought processes of some of the "bright lights" at the helm of climate science these days, here's a quote from AGW advocate Gavin Schmidt on his website realclimate.org in which he responds to a comment from someone who is critical of the notion that CO2 causes global warming:

"[Response: Sorry, but your example was a flawed thought experiment. Try coding this up with the following equations: c dT/dt = F_ext 5.3*log(CO2/CO2_orig), dCO2/dt = a*(T-To) with suitable values for a,c, To etc. Then play around with the external forcing F_ext - sinusoidal maybe, and see what happens. If you get it right you'll see T following F_ext with some lag (depending on a and c) and CO2 following along in both the ups and the downs. c is the heat capacity of the system, pick 'a' so that you get the observed glacial-interglacial difference for the peak to trough difference in F_ext. With large 'a' you'll see a runaway affect, but for realistic values you won't. - gavin]"

A statement like this pretty much sums up the usefulness of mainstream climate science these days. All that's needed to "prove" global warming is to "play around" with baffling mathematical formulas and see if we "get it right". Presumably, if we don't get it right, we'll play around with even more numbers and "see what happens" until we bloody well get the result we're looking for. Data manipulation, not real-world observation, is the goal of mainstream climate science these days.

Is it any wonder that the more the average citizen hears from these self-obsessed twits the less he buys into what they're selling?

[mustardman]

Liberty you've got to joking on the analogy of Saddam Hussein.
There was NO Consesus from anyone that he had WMD. Except for maybe Fox news(those idiots)
That was a big scam by Cheney and Bush -Cheney mostly to get more contracts for his little Halliburton and to get control of Iraq oil .

The American people have got to remember a Mark Twain quote:

Patriotism means standing behind your Country but Not necessarily Your Government.
If They had a decent public broadcating service down there that perform Basic journalism skills like Ask Questions, they would not be in Iraq.

[burnt]

Gee, mustardman, when we ask questions about AGW, we are called "flat earthers" and, at worst, Neanderthals. Perhaps you would also, in your infinite wisdom, tell us what questions we should be asking so we don't foolishly ask the wrong ones?