Visit Cornhusker4Palin's column >>

CORNHUSKER4PALIN

Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 9; Links Seeded: 856
Member Since: 7/2009Last Seen: 2/09/2010

From Skeptic to Vindicated

News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:15 AM EST
advertisement

We global warming doubters are no longer the fringe - we've been vindicated:

Much has been written already about the now infamous "trick" to explain away recent global cooling, and the alarmists' conspiratorial machinations to silence their critics. But the real "mushroom cloud" among the emails comes from Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming.

In an October 14 email to fellow alarmist Tom Wigley, Trenberth plaintively writes:

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

…First, by admitting that we "are nowhere close" to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. As the author of the linked piece - Steve Malloy - goes on to note, there's even more but to bottom line it: There is not and has not been any evidence that human caused CO2 has played any role in global climate.

As for me, I began to doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming as soon as I found out how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (0.038%) and how much of annual CO2 emissions are caused by humans (5%) - it just didn't seem credible that something which is that tiny a part of the atmosphere would trump all else in controlling global temperatures Environmentalists decades ago announced they would flat out lie in order to advance their cause - anti-human in the extreme, environmentalists view people as a plague and thus figure that any action taken to thwart humanity is a good thing. Given their overall leftist ideology, it followed naturally that they would hold that a lie in the service of what they view as a good cause is ok. Global warming is just the biggest - and most successful - lie they've tried.

Published to:

Related Articles
The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn'tScienceBlogsFri Nov 2796Comments
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.9
1.3
{"commentId":10912279,"authorDomain":"cornhusker4palin"}
Cornhusker4Palin

The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.

Now, if the leaked e mails told a story of a conservative falsifying data, how long do you think it would be before that got front page treatment?

Oh, about as fast as it is humanly possible to do it.

{"commentId":10912279,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"cornhusker4palin"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:18 AM EST
{"commentId":10916680,"authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
SamC
As for me, I began to doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming as soon as I found out how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (0.038%) and how much of annual CO2 emissions are caused by humans (5%) - it just didn't seem credible that something which is that tiny a part of the atmosphere would trump all else in controlling global temperatures

No need to worry, it is not creditable.

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.

And water (H2O) vapor is a more potent “greenhouse gas” than is CO2.

And @ 383 ppm (0.0383%), there is 1,915,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And, @ 40,000 ppm (4%), there is 200,000,000,000,000 metric tons of H20 vapor in the atmosphere.

And 200 trillion tons of H2O vapor is 105 times greater than 1.9 trillion tons of CO2.

So give or take another ½ trillion tons of CO2 will make no noticable difference in temperatures.

{"commentId":10916680,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:34 PM EST
{"commentId":10917726,"authorDomain":"beamerab3"}
Al 616

It's not about raw numbers, it's about balance.

All gasoline has some water in it. If you increase the water content by a fraction, you could seriously damage your engine.

The earth's atmosphere is one gigantic "engine" with a LOT of "moving parts." In physics, there's a rule that the more moving parts there are, the more chance a system has of breaking down. Small changes can have large consequences.

{"commentId":10917726,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"beamerab3"}
  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:57 PM EST
{"commentId":10925688,"authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
SamC
All gasoline has some water in it. If you increase the water content by a fraction, you could seriously damage your engine.

Nah, I don’t think so. Maybe you are thinking about “putting sugar in you gasoline”.

The earth's atmosphere is one gigantic "engine" with a LOT of "moving parts." In physics, there's a rule that the more moving parts there are, the more chance a system has of breaking down.

You are talking about a “mechanical system” of which there are none of such in nature. Evolution quickly eliminates the biological systems that are prone to “breaking down”.

.Small changes can have large consequences

That is a “scare tactic” employed by the “greenies” and proponents of AGW to scare the bejesus out of the clueless and gullible.

{"commentId":10925688,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:07 AM EST
Reply
{"commentId":10912904,"authorDomain":"DoctorFell"}
Dr Fell

nothing vindicated, just too dumb to understand your own seed

{"commentId":10912904,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"DoctorFell"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:40 AM EST
{"commentId":10929676,"authorDomain":"ScienceGuy"}
ScienceGuy-356641

While it is troubling that some climatologists appear to have at least discussed filtering data to improve the strength of their theories about global climate change -- an act that is a clear violation of scientific ethics -- this does not in and of itself provide evidence that man-induced climate change is a fallacy.

There is an overwhelming amount of empirical and observational data that support the contention that nitrogen and carbon-based gas emissions related to fossil fuel consumption have had a significant deleterious effect on the planet's climate patterns over the past century.

{"commentId":10929676,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"ScienceGuy"}
    Reply#3 - Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:51 PM EST
    {"commentId":10930036,"authorDomain":"cornhusker4palin"}
    Cornhusker4Palin

    Then why did they destroy research that showed the opposite to be true. Why did they doctor stuff to conceal global cooling the last decade? Why were they engaged in balckballing of those that disagreed with them if they're so sure of their position? AGW is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated upon mankind.

    {"commentId":10930036,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"cornhusker4palin"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:25 PM EST
    {"commentId":10936631,"authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
    SamC

    (exerted from) Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'

    The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    {"commentId":10936631,"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006","authorDomain":"snvcogar"}
    • 1 vote
    #4.1 - Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:45 AM EST
    Reply
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"733703","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"733703","contentId":"3553006"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking
    Back To Top | Front Page