United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: ABC News: Record Cold Caused By Global Warming
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/ ... cold-caused-by-global-warming/
Published: Jan 27, 2011
Author: lonely conservative
Post Date: 2011-01-27 14:25:04 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 32232
Comments: 54
Last night when I left work I trudged the five or so blocks to my car as the icy wind cut through my pants and chilled me to the bone. When I got home I turned on the local news to check the forecast, and forgot to turn it off before World News Tonight came on. I was flabbergasted when I heard them tell me that the record cold across the country is due to global warming. I checked the ABC News site and I can’t find the segment about global warming, but I know I’m not the only one who saw it. Record Cold Is “Global Warming”! There is no end of madness and doublespeak in media today. ABC’s World News actually said today that the reason our winter is so severely cold is “global warming”. That’s right: they actually said that it is COLDER because of global WARMING. There are words for assertions like that: “madness”, “insanity”, “lies”, and “garbage” are among them. How true. I’ll keep searching for the footage and update if I find it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: jwpegler (#9)
I don't think we want to adopt China's environmental standards as our own.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Look, I can find doctors who argue that vaccines will poison you, that you should never treat cancer with chemo, and that root canals will make you sick. That doesn't mean they are correct. Heck, Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues that cutting spending now is a mistake, so does that mean you believe him? The facts are pretty clear - since the 1970's global temperatures have risen at a faster rate than at any previous time in history, and the rise correlates perfectly with rising atmospheric CO2 levels. And based on isotope analysis, we know that CO2 is rising due to human activity. Only a rare few will dispute that, and most instead resort to "it's all a conspiracy" arguments. What there is much disagreement on is the continued rate of change, and the impact of such change, but as we see predicted events such as mega-storms, severe droughts, heatwaves, etc., becoming commonplace, I expect further consensus on the impact of a warming planet. You hype your agenda, because you're incapable of original thought. The REAL question is, how signficant is your "warming" in the grand scheme of things??? Hmmm... It seems that it means precisely dick. Also, since the "global warming" has been happening since the 1700's, perhaps you can explain to me how the SUVs, aerosol cans, air-conditioning refrigerant, etc., started the trend...? Oh, that's right, none of that shit EXISTED back then.... Oh, and the population was a lot SMALLER than it is today, so it's not caused by MAN... Indeed they are. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
True.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
What is your PhD in? Where has your thesis been published/peer reviewed?
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Eric is a conspiracy nut, I put him on filter several weeks ago.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
I'm still working on my doctorate. Americans typically think that a doctorate is always a Ph.D., but that's not accurate. Suffice to say, what I'm working on is not a Ph.D. I will provide no specifics, because I prefer to maintain my anonymity. It is not in "climatology" (a laughable description- the only legit "climate" experts would be meteorologist, IMO). Thus, I don't pretend to be an expert on the underlying causes of rain clouds or whatever. I need only look at the data, apply a modicum of common sense, and recognize that go56 is simply pushing more shit. g056 will have you believe that only an "expert" can discern reality. That's a lot of crap. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
What? Damn, I'm moving UP in the world... First you just said I was an anti-Semite (typical red herring), Then you accused me of being the next version of the AZ shooter... And now I'm a conspiracy nut? What do you call a "conspiracy theory" when it's proven true? How about a "crime?" For example, Operations Paperclip, Mockingbird, SHAD, MKULTRA, Northwoods? How about the WATERGATE scandal? I guess believing that the Watergate scandal occured makes me a conspiracy nut... Of course, the other conspiracies above are all a matter of public record now...
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Thanks, but your opinion is not viewed as such in any case. Good luck on your doctorate of mystery.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Since there IS no area of science called "climatology" per se, those who claim to be experts on the matter are prima facie dissemblers. It appears that my point was too... adult for you, and you missed the irony. In the larger scope of the world, your views of my expertise are irrelevant. In the areas of economics and finance, I am an expert. As well as some other things, which are now more interesting for me to study... Keep this in mind, when you attempt to debate economics and finance. If you lie, I will call you out on it. THIS is the reason go56 put me on bozo. He doesn't like being exposed for lying to promote his agenda
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
lol, i doubt he's even got any kind of degree and now he's preparing for a doctorate in internet posting.
I can't see how you claim victories when you don't win an argument. I mean you don't post any links with facts at all as far as I can remember to back up your stuff.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Yes, I know. That's why I enjoy our debates. Fight ON, Black Knight! "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Like most republicans, you are a masochist.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
No, I'm a sadist when it comes to bitch-slapping you traitorous socialists and communists. I ENJOY exposing your lies. Since you're on the receiving end, and YOU came to THIS forum to push YOUR socialist agenda, it is clearly YOU that enjoys being on the receiving end... to put it politely. But I can see why you be confused... Socialism and Communism want everyone to suffer equally. It's a masochistic "kumbaya" ideology... for everyone but the elites.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
I know Republicans are into weird sex stuff...
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Given your lack of maturity and wisdom in your posts, I have to ask... Have you graduated high school, yet? Working on a GED? Or are you some unemployed loser sitting in mum and dads house, posting shit because you're lazy and dull-witted?
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Ad-hominem attacks mask a losing argument on your part of the right wing forum dwellers.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Hmmm... How LONG did it take you to look up ad hominem? Oh, and as to losing an argument, you lost on this thread, as SOON as I hit the "Post" button... for #23. You ALSO lost the argument, regarding NASA budgets (and your bullshit lies) as soon as I hit the "Post" button, an hour ago... for #38, at http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=16981&Disp=38#C38 I posted the truth, you posted SHIT (as usual), and once exposed, you don't make a peep... You try to attack on another front, after you're trapped. And on we go... I can do this all day, if I want. I thought that maybe you'd be more... worthy... as an opponent. On further consideration, however, you're found wanting. And, the worst sin of all... you're boring. So it's back to bozo for you.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
"climate scientists" but NOT astro-physicists or geologists. That's the point. "Climate scientists" are working in a corrupt system guided by politics not science, so they can't be trusted.
"Climate scientists" but NOT astro-physicists or geologists. That's the point. "Climate scientists" are working in a corrupt system guided by politics rather than science, so they can't be trusted. The vast majority of astro-physicists and geologists say that the climatologists are out to lunch.
Thanks for posting the chart. When my dad was a kid, on the farm, during the Great Depression, his mom told him that thunder and lighting meant god was angry. Today, any weather disturbance is attributed to "global warning". Humans are a superstitions species.
"Climate scientists" are working in a corrupt system guided by politics rather than science, so they can't be trusted. throughout all these discussions there has been no effort nor ability made to refute the science. Instead, it is summarily dismissed as part of a massive global conspiracy that must involve thousands upon thousands of people. Do you not realize how silly that sounds or how that makes you guys sound like the same folks who claim the government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Meteorologists either who have to be accountable for their predictions.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Bullshit. The bogus science has been discredited numerous times. You just dismiss it when it is done and continue to beleive the manufactured data.
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/01/nbc-global-warming-nonsense.html
Perhaps you should take a class (or buy a book) on HTML, instead of snivelling. Incompetence on your part, is NOT a problem on my part.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
So I can post in big fonts?? lol. take a course indeed! Good advice, 'Doctor' lol
lol It's a bit more than that. Of course, were you to actually educate yourself on the subject, instead of being a whiney little bitch, you'd already know that... But I doubt you'll bother. After all, swaggering bravado on your part will surely overcome skill and knowledge, right? LOL.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Bastardi. Chuckle. Here's his winter 2010-11 prediction map: Do you still want to put faith in Bastardi?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Simply repeating that statement over and over again doesn't make it true. Sorry.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Correct. That fact that the statement is ACCURATE, is what guarantees it's true. Your delusional tendencies to believe a reality you conceive in your own empty head has more validity then objective and observable reality, is what makes you a LOON. Yes, you're VERY sorry..... The sooner you mentally-deficient fools remove yourselves from the gene pool, the better.
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
Joe Bastardi is one of the most respected meteorologists in the country. Even he can't get everything right, but he's held accountable. Exactly how are your "climatologists" held accountable?
Chuckle.... --- http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/17/joe-bastardi-wager-global-warming-arctic-sea-ice/ * Long wrong Joe Bastardi cooks the books to smear NSIDC. Time for Accuweather to fire him: National Snow & Ice Data Center explains Bastardi can’t read graphs and “is unclear as to how standardized anomalies are derived” * Joe Bastardi can’t read a temperature anomaly map and so spins another conspiracy theory: Says pre-1978 temperatures use “magic readjustment” * Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi admits, “Earth continues warmest winter since satellite measurements started”: Then he invents a new, self-contradictory theory of warming. * Meteorological Malpractice: Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi pushes the “70s Ice Age Scare” myth again * O’Reilly’s weatherman, befuddled Bastardi: “Global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California” * Joe Bastardi asserts “The coming cooling of the planet overall will return it to where it was in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s”
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
So you're entire argument is based on a left wing site's dumbass assertions? Bastardti is far more credble than any of your sources.
You're saying this to defend Bastardi's dumb-ass assertions? Seriously? Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
I'm having some fun digging into Bastardi tonight. In 2006 he claimed that the east coast would get pummeled by hurricanes (it didn't). When he was wrong he said that 2007 would be the year instead (it wasn't). Also in 2007 he predicted gulf hurricanes would raise oil prices (they didn't). He claimed the Navy supported his view that arctic sea ice was increasing (it doesn't), to his credit he admitted his mistake on that that one. He has praised satellite data as being the most accurate source of climate measurements (it shows the planet warming). Here's a nice smack across the brow from the national snow and ice data center to bastardi's claims on sea ice: Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
The refutation is millions of years of climate change long before there were any humans.
Yes, the climate has changed in the past due to a variety of reasons; change in the sun, volcanoes, other natural factors. None of which correlate to the changes we've seen since the 1970's. The only correlating factor is rising CO2 as a result of human activities.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Something I didn't know -- two new nuclear power plants will start construction in Georgia this year. They will go online by 2016. He also said it takes 8 years to get a plant operational under current regulations -- 4 years to plan and 4 years to construct. That's not bad, but China does it in 6 years.
#16. To: go65 (#14)
He's certainly welcome to his beliefs, and there are many who share those beliefs, but roughly 97% of climate scientists disagree.
What BULLSHIT.
...The facts are pretty clear ...
#17. To: go65 (#15)
I don't think...
#18. To: Capitalist Eric, go65 (#16)
Hmmm... It seems that it means precisely dick.
#19. To: Godwinson (#18)
What is your PhD in? Where has your thesis been published/peer reviewed?
#20. To: Godwinson (#18)
What is your PhD in? Where has your thesis been published/peer reviewed?
“You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.
Bob Dylan
#21. To: go65, Godwinson (#19)
Eric is a conspiracy nut, I put him on filter several weeks ago.
#22. To: Capitalist Eric, go65, lucysmom (#20)
I don't pretend to be an expert
#23. To: Godwinson, go65, lucysmom (#22)
Thanks, but your opinion is not viewed as such in any case.
#24. To: Godwinson (#22)
#25. To: Capitalist Eric (#23)
THIS is the reason go56 put me on bozo. He doesn't like being exposed for lying to promote his agenda
#26. To: Godwinson (#25)
I can't see ...
#27. To: Capitalist Eric (#26)
That's why I enjoy our debates.
#28. To: Godwinson (#27)
Like most republicans, you are a masochist.
#29. To: Capitalist Eric (#28)
No, I'm a sadist
#30. To: Godwinson (#29)
#31. To: Capitalist Eric (#30)
#32. To: Godwinson (#31)
Ad-hominem attacks mask a losing argument on your part of the right wing forum dwellers.
#33. To: go65 (#14)
roughly 97% of climate scientists disagree
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#34. To: go65 (#14)
roughly 97% of climate scientists disagree
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#35. To: Capitalist Eric, go65 (#16)
(Edited)
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#36. To: jwpegler (#34)
"Climate scientists" but NOT astro-physicists or geologists. That's the point.
#37. To: jwpegler (#34)
"Climate scientists" but NOT astro-physicists or geologists.
#38. To: no gnu taxes (#37)
Meteorologists either who have to be accountable for their predictions.
#39. To: go65 (#36)
throughout all these discussions there has been no effort nor ability made to refute the science.
#40. To: go65 (#38)
#41. To: go65 (#38)
#42. To: Abu el Banat (#24)
lol, i doubt he's even got any kind of degree and now he's preparing for a doctorate in internet posting.
#43. To: Capitalist Eric (#42)
Perhaps you should take a class (or buy a book) on HTML
#44. To: Abu el Banat (#43)
So I can post in big fonts?? lol. take a course indeed! Good advice, 'Doctor'
#45. To: no gnu taxes (#41)
In general, the East Coast will be granted a reprieve from the tremendous snowfall that caused 2009-2010's winter to be dubbed "snowmageddon."
#46. To: no gnu taxes (#39)
The bogus science has been discredited numerous times. You just dismiss it when it is done and continue to beleive the manufactured data.
#47. To: go65 (#46)
Simply repeating that statement over and over again doesn't make it true.
Sorry.
#48. To: go65 (#45)
(Edited)
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#48)
Joe Bastardi is one of the most respected meteorologists in the country.
#50. To: go65 (#49)
#51. To: no gnu taxes (#50)
(Edited)
So you're entire argument is based on a left wing site's dumbass assertions?
Joe Bastardi has a wonderful name. But he's still wrong about global warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100050213/joe-bastardi-has-a-wonderful- name-but-hes-still-wrong-about-global-warming/
The real point is, it doesn’t matter what Mr Bastardi (“Bastardi”) says. It doesn’t matter what Al Gore says, what James Delingpole says, what Alex Singleton or I say. What matters is data, research, peer- reviewed science. Alex says it’s a “big deal” because it shows “one of the world’s biggest meteorological firms saying the global warming consensus is probably wrong”. But it doesn’t. It shows one man saying that. AccuWeather itself says that 2010 is one of the three hottest years on record, and explains why that is separate from the cold weather in North America. (It also shows that sea ice volume is decreasing in the Arctic. I don’t think AccuWeather are a bunch of global warming sceptics. They provide our weather forecasts, by the way.)
It’s the usual old trick – report on one man’s opinion, ignore the massive weight of data. Mr Bastardi (Bastardi!) gets a lot of attention – I’m giving him some more here – but as people write about him, more and more data are quietly gathered. The world is warming, it’s almost certainly man-caused, and it’s probably going to cause serious problems. An attention-seeking meteorologist and a bit of snow in December do not change that.
#52. To: no gnu taxes (#51)
One problem with Joe Bastardi’s comparison is that with the JAXA data set he’s comparing to the 2006 line, not 2007. In JAXA, this year is a bit below 2007 right now (though there’s some missing data).
It’s important to remember that different sites use different algorithms (methods to derive sea ice from the raw data), different cutoffs of concentration (15% vs 30%), and sometimes different sensors (SSM/I vs AMSR-E). Studies that compare different algorithms have repeatedly found that differences between algorithms can be large. Generally, the largest differences are found in summer, with differences of more than ± 20 %. In winter, differences between the different algorithms are usually less than ± 10 %. No single algorithm has been found to be clearly superior under all conditions. The differences between satellite-derived estimates of sea-ice extent and so-called ground-truth observations are of similar magnitude. Nevertheless, while the absolute differences between algorithms and between with non-passive-microwave data sets are relatively large, they are generally constant over time.
Hence, trends in sea-ice extent that are estimated from different algorithms agree much more closely than do the absolute values of extent. Hence, trend estimates provide a rather high level of confidence in estimates of sea ice change and variability. In terms of absolute values, estimates of total sea-ice extent are more reliable than estimates of sea-ice area. For the former, a certain concentration threshold (often 15% ice cover) is defined, and the size of any grid cell covered by more ice than this threshold contributes fully to total sea-ice extent. For ice area, however, only the truly ice-covered fraction of each grid cell contributes, giving rise to higher uncertainty.
Finally, it seems Joe Bastardi is unclear as to how standardized anomalies are derived. Standardized anomalies are not the same thing as anomalies, which is defined by the actual deviation from the mean (climatology for that day or month). A standardized anomaly is further divided by the climatological standard deviation for that day/month. When seasonal variations are present within a set of data, it is often helpful to express the data in terms of standardized anomalies. They generally provide more information about the magnitude of the anomalies because influences of dispersion have been removed.
#53. To: go65 (#36)
throughout all these discussions there has been no effort nor ability made to refute the science.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill
#54. To: jwpegler (#53)
The refutation is millions of years of climate change long before there were any humans.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]