Summer gets a Polar Vortex

[iacas]

Too many real (not dependent on federal funding) scientists that won't buy into this as hard as you seem to have.

Matt's video says it all at this point. Cheers.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Lol, one might argue it's you with your head in the sand. Arctic icecis at record highs currently, polar bear proliferation also at record highs.

The amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans are also at record highs, and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future

[Gunther]

Riiiiiiight. :doh:

Don't follow the herd bud. http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/ The numbers of scientists that are changing their former view is growing rapidly. Jump on the new train

[Always an 80]

Lol, one might argue it's you with your head in the sand. Arctic icecis at record highs currently, polar bear proliferation also at record highs, the London college that originally proffered this idea has since been discovered to have fudged the numbers, all the warming "scientists" base their beliefs on computer models that are similarly rigged. There is no science yet today that can prove whatever is happening with the climate is due to man. The earth warms, the earth cools. Has occurred for 4 billion years now, won't stop anytime soon.

Gunther, what heresy doth thou speaketh!!!  How dast thou speaketh with thou own mind!  Science and common sense I crieth!  Hangeth him!!!!  Burneth the warlock at the stake!!  No, thou shalt not burneth him....Global warming it should causeth.  Just chastise him with very luke warm words!

Matt's video says it all at this point.

Cheers.

Oh great.  Is Matt "one more guy"?   Science will never prevail I fear against the assaults of the "this one guy says" crowd.   Go to it Matt!!  Mankind cannot survive without your salvation!  (Matt, you did put your snowshoes in there just in case, right)?

[jamo]

Don't follow the herd bud. http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/ The numbers of scientists that are changing their former view is growing rapidly. Jump on the new train

Yeah, no bias at The Heartland Institute. Not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Gunther, what heresy doth thou speaketh!!!  How dast thou speaketh with thou own mind!  Science and common sense I crieth!  Hangeth him!!!!  Burneth the warlock at the stake!!  No, thou shalt not burneth him....Global warming it should causeth.  Just chastise him with very luke warm words!

Oh great.  Is Matt "one more guy"?   Science will never prevail I fear against the assaults of the "this one guy says" crowd.   Go to it Matt!!  Mankind cannot survive without your salvation!  (Matt, you did put your snowshoes in there just in case, right)?

You might want to consider making a post with actual substance to it since your snarky comments aren't a very good argument for your position on global warming

[isukgolf]

Haven't we been globally warming since the last ice age??? And before the Ice Age wasn't there global cooling ... I think the human race will end up being a spec on the earth timeline ... especially when I step back and looks at earth's timeline "globally"

That's my opinion and my opinion only ...

[Gunther]

Yeah, no bias at The Heartland Institute. Not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Same on the other side, you can find thousands of articles supporting this, if you're truly non-biased. The whole effort has been driven by leftist politics from the start.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Haven't we been globally warming since the last ice age??? And before the Ice Age wasn't there global cooling ... I think the human race will end up being a spec on the earth timeline ... especially when I step back and looks at earth's timeline "globally"

Well, yes. A lot of things relating to climate change are cyclical (i.e. El Nino, glacial cycles, etc.), though there are a lot of factors such as position of the continents, ocean currents, CO2 concentration, and what-not. The point here is that humans are facilitating this change, making it progress at a rapid and unnatural rate.

And regarding the second part of your post, so far you are correct, since humans have been on earth for an infinitesimally small fraction of the ~4.6 billion years it has been around.

[Mr. Desmond]

I think it's good policy to reduce the human footprint on the earth...  especially if we are not certain of the effect.

I don't understand the policy that says, "We don't know our effect, so let's throw an unlimited amount of crap into the air, water, and earth, and let the chips fall where they may."

That policy does not make common sense.

I'm all for a balance, but I'd rather place the balancing point on the side where we have a smaller footprint.

[saevel25]

Oh great.  Is Matt "one more guy"?   Science will never prevail I fear against the assaults of the "this one guy says" crowd.   Go to it Matt!!  Mankind cannot survive without your salvation!  (Matt, you did put your snowshoes in there just in case, right)?

Your sarcasm is confusing.

Nope no snowshoes.

Don't follow the herd bud.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/

The numbers of scientists that are changing their former view is growing rapidly. Jump on the new train

The point of science is to keep researching, keep working on it, and keep adjusting. Just because some views change, or some things come to light doesn't refute the totality of humans causing Climate Change. It might cause for a re-review of existing data and research techniques. That is normal in science. A scientist who can't put their pride aside when faced with changing facts is not a scientist.

Yeah, no bias at The Heartland Institute. Not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

100% correct. That also brings into the fact that in the science community, to be worth anything it must be peered reviewed. To claim this great conspiracy is totally far fetched. Independent researchers, with no axe to grind, have signed off on Climate Change by humans.

Same on the other side, you can find thousands of articles supporting this, if you're truly non-biased. The whole effort has been driven by leftist politics from the start.

List them! List the scientific peered reviewed articles supporting your claim. Or is all you got right-wing blogs and right wing journalist with no background in science what so ever.

[Always an 80]

You might want to consider making a post with actual substance to it since your snarky comments aren't a very good argument for your position on global warming

I have not seen much substance in your remarks either.  What was the first?...  Scientific ignorance?   You gave no precedent to that remark did you??  Please give your credentials, please.

Mine are not expert.  Studied climatology and meteorology as an undergrad.  I golf with a retired meteorologist.  As said, I am no expert.

You seem to think you have more weight to your arguments.  Or maybe the weight of others you have standing up in front of you as you posture with an opinion by proxy that you like?  I pray the dog in your avatar is not smarter than yourself.  We would really be in global trouble then, eh?  Dogs operate on instinct.  Man uses a sense of supposed logic.   Come to think of it,  I will put my money on the dog.  I bet the dog would choose a more logical avatar than yourself if it had the choice.  You chose the dog without knowing its sense of logic or innate commonality to the world around it.  I think the dog got the wrong end of the deal in representing you.  Be more fair to the world and nature next time.  This premise would support your caring for the environment now, would it not?  Think on these things.

Snarky?   Oh, that was cute.  Snarky....a term often used in war by an adversary with smaller ammo.   My ex-wife used to divert the real issue with such terms when her logic failed.

[iacas]

Enough of the personal attack style posts (from both sides, but particularly "your dog is smarter than you" crap).

[RandallT]

The amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans are also at record highs, and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future

Surprisingly, this is not correct. CO2 is at a historically low level on a long time scale. CO2 has been many thousands of PPM (see Cambrian period where life flourished), and has been as low as a couple hundred PPM. For most of Earth's history, CO2 has been significantly above its current levels, sometimes over 10x current levels. That doesn't disprove "global warming" by itself, but I raise the point to show that the media has hysterically misinformed us about CO2 levels. You need a minimum of like 150 PPM just to sustain life, and we are about 400 PPM. Based on media coverage, you'd think we are hitting some proven tipping point where the heat is trapped and we get in an endless positive feedback loop. Simply a theory and not proven. Earth's history indicates otherwise. Science is actually on the side of the deniers, frankly. But for what it's worth I used to believe the alarmists warnings hook, line, and sinker too. I'm not fully buying it now, because as I open my eyes, there is ample reason to be skeptical. [quote name="saevel25" url="/t/75740/summer-gets-a-polar-vortex/30#post_1025083"] List them! List the scientific peered reviewed articles supporting your claim. Or is all you got right-wing blogs and right wing journalist with no background in science what so ever.  [/quote] http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?m=1 Looks like a decent list. Hockey Schtick is good too: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html?m=1 They are always posting peer- reviewed stuff.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Surprisingly, this is not correct. CO2 is at a historically low level on a long time scale. CO2 has been many thousands of PPM (see Cambrian period where life flourished), and has been as low as a couple hundred PPM. For most of Earth's history, CO2 has been significantly above its current levels, sometimes over 10x current levels.

Well I stand corrected, although in "recent" times (i.e. the last million or so years) it has been increasing, with the rate of increase, well, increasing, in the 1800s. The Cambrian, however, was half a billion years ago, when the energy output from the sun was considerably less than what it was now, so the weaker sun and high CO2 concentrations effectively balanced each other out.

[RandallT]

Well I stand corrected, although in "recent" (i.e. the last million or so years) it has been increasing, with the rate of increase, well, increasing, in the 1800s. The Cambrian, however, was half a billion years ago, when the energy output from the sun was considerably less than what it was now, so the weaker sun and high CO2 concentrations effectively balanced each other out.

Agreed.

[Always an 80]

Enough of the personal attack style posts (from both sides, but particularly "your dog is smarter than you" crap).

I said "dog NOT smarter than you".  Get it right or don't try to get it at all.  Typical convoluted attack.  Quoting incorrectly.  Another ex-wife tactic.  That is why she is single now.  War of wits with being outgunned ( I am not proud of that last remark, but I am not going to take it back.  I have my emotional failings as well ).  She always did think she was smarter.  Could not help herself.  And I could not get her to seek help.  Common human psychological disorder.

I'm done with it.  Had fun with some of you.  It's all in fun with me.  Try having more fun guys.  Life is too short to get so bent over an extremely debatable subject.

May open mindedness, peace, and love be with you always. ( I am not being snarky, but yes, I can be quite accomplished at it if I choose to be.  I choose not to be at this time ).

Pax vobiscum

[misty_mountainhop]

I think it's good policy to reduce the human footprint on the earth...  especially if we are not certain of the effect.

I don't understand the policy that says, "We don't know our effect, so let's throw an unlimited amount of crap into the air, water, and earth, and let the chips fall where they may."

That policy does not make common sense.

I'm all for a balance, but I'd rather place the balancing point on the side where we have a smaller footprint.

Bravo. Anything else is the policy of fools, anthropomorphic climate change or not.