Brett:I prefer climate change as it is more exact.We are going through a period of rapid climate change due to greenhouse gases.We are now in the Anthropocene, as man can now govern the Earths climate through fossil fuels. We effect our lands oceans and atmosphere. Only an immediate reduction of coal and oil will help put the enviroment back in a world of natural variations. Skeptics should apply more solid science to their arguments and not their personal
opinions, as this board is about Global Warming and not a personality cult, for the disinchanted right wing. KIPP

I personally welcome global warming. If the entire planet is 78 during the day and 68 at night, Isn't that what Jimmy "malaise" Carter wanted?

How about Climate Warming Chaos.

You many remember, 1998 is the 2nd warmest year on recent record... This is therefore interesting:

Unofficial Vancouver snow total: 7 inches http://columbian.com/article/20081220/NEWS02/812209973/-1/NEWS

"... most snow at my location since January 1998 when I had 11"

I've recently heard or read CLIMATE CHOAS.It gets better all the time.

Kipp wrote:
Brett:I prefer climate change as it is more exact.
Reply: True, the climate has always changed from warmer to colder and back again as verified through geology, ice cores etc.

We are going through a period of rapid climate change due to greenhouse gases.
Reply: Nothing rapid about it, the climate has changed to warmer and colder before in much shorter time spans. Science does not support the hypothesis that the current rise is due to greenhouse gases. Natural variability caused the rises in temperature in the past and there's no reason or evidence to think the warming from 1970 or so to 1998 was any different.
We are now in the Anthropocene, as man can now govern the Earths climate through fossil fuels.
Reply: Supremely arrogant and not supported by one iota of scientific evidence.
We effect our lands oceans and atmosphere.
Reply: True. Dumping garbage in the oceans and pollution in the atmosphere is not a good thing to do.
Only an immediate reduction of coal and oil will help put the enviroment back in a world of natural variations.
Reply: And only the wiping out of all human life would accomplish this. Humans are part of the earth and at the top of the food chain. We are as natural as trees and other mammals, to make ourselves extinct is not logical and would serve no real purpose.
Skeptics should apply more solid science to their arguments and not their personal
opinions, as this board is about Global Warming and not a personality cult, for the disinchanted right wing.
Reply: Most of what you posted above is nothing more than personal opinion and is not based upon the true scientific method. Just because one or several scientists come to some conclusions and then hamper and impede any inquiries into their methods and quantifications doesn't mean their end result is right. More than likely it's wrong otherwise they would be more forthcoming and would welcome the chance to have their theories falsified by their peers. I'm thinking of Hansen and Mann in particular here...

Hmmm....Interesting take on the etymology. But wasn't it stated in here somewhere by one of our resident AGWers that climate change as a result of excess human induced CO2 was postulated, confirmed and discussed back in the 1800's or something like that?

Really they should have called it what it is:

A phraseology or term intended to be vague enough to panic the uninformed masses so as to maintain funding levels so we can stay employed.

or maybe this little diddy:

Global agenda for what we really don't know

or maybe this:

If something is wrong with the climate in your opinion, simply blame it on something that may, or may not, be happening and then demand CHANGE.

Hmmm...

Main Entry: global warm�ing
Pronunciation: \-ˈwȯr-miŋ\
Function: noun
Date: 1969

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global+warming

1969??? but M-W doesn't explain the origin.

As for "Climate Change", climate has always changed and will continue to change.

The big debate currently is: Is the world warming, and, is man or to what extent man is the cause of the warming.

To me, when some uses the term 'Climate Change' as it is a indicator they are trying to B-S the listener. Climate Changes is spin term life 'Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice'

Global Climate Change????? --A more scientifically accurate term according to NASA and IPCC?????

Someone should explain to NASA and the IPCC that Global Climate Change happened before man appeared on the planet and will occur after man is not longer on the planet.

The issue in about man effecting change...

Global warming is meaningless. Climate change is meaningless. Catastrophic Anthropogenic tipping points (CATP) is a more accurate description of what the alarmists are now promoting, since claims extend well beyond mere climate alterations.

Kipp- And for balance, alarmists should apply some solid science to their arguments rather than spouting their personal opinions.

By the way, how did Kipp get a comment in prior to the time of the post?

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas.
Just like the ones I used to know.

That song is from the 1954 movie and the area where the days before Christmas is snowless is in Vermont.

Hard to believe that after more than 50 years of global warming, we are getting snow again this year.

In fact, the average temperature of the last 5 winters in upstate New York is colder than the average winter temperature of the 1950s. I assume the same is true for Vermont.
My source is NASA GISS data for December, January & Februrary for several NY weather stations, including Tupper Lake, Lake Placid, Saratoga Springs and others.
Here is the link.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

The world's "natural variations" are actually fairly inhospitable to people since 80% or more of the past million years has been spent in various ice ages. If AGW helped end the "Little Ice Age" then it has probably been beneficial overall.

We use too much energy to be good for us economically or pollution-wise, but a return to 1,000 AD greenhouse gas emissions may be worse for us with regard to climate than the current condition. I haven't seen any serious info to date that tells me some global warming would be significantly worse than the "Little Ice Age" or the "Medieval Warming Period."

Kipp Likes Climate Change and claims it is more accruate.
I agree it is more accurate since it refers to change and nothing more. Hense it is used to spread alarmism for any change and allows the scamers to use ANY pattern of natural climate fluctuation to advance the agenda.

As for Science to support his claims, I have asked for such links before but must have missed them.
Again, all I have seen so far are theories, speculation and poorly constructed computer simulators with severely biased input assumptions based on misconceptions about climate sensitivity.
Please link to somthing convincing.

In the mean time anyone looking to review some actual facts that will make you wonder how so many people are so easily convinced by this nonscnse, look here:

http://nov55.com/30f.html

Then ask how man made CO2 could possibly be even a minor factor?

Proof of "Global Warming" please. This is the most ridicules hoax in the history of the world in which millions of sheeple continue to fall prey.

Dennis Hlinka:
We talk about the family of man.Well,isn't that the problem.Most people can't see humanity as one entity in a universe of ubiquitous parts. Man's own ego and pride gets in the way of his higher self and his real relationships with people. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a great paper on Commodity. He saw a commidity as something that nature gave man, and something man should use in a generous way ;to be commodius. Well the fences have gone up, the public beaches have become private, and it's every man for himself. Until a person understands the meaning of generosity, and loves another as himself, we are lost.
You can't grow corn and feed man at the same time. I am willing to give up my car, for public transportation, if that would feed one person,one day, with one bowl of rice. The question is,are we all on the same page? KIPP

Chris Colose:Good news from the new administration. The most important picks so far include Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, from which post she will oversee America's participation in the negotiations in Copenhagen next December on creating a successor to the Kyoto treaty; Stephen Chu as secretary of energy, an agency whose budget is mainly devoted to nuclear weapons but that takes the lead on energy policy; Carol Browner as a special assistant to the president, who will have the job of coordinating energy and climate change policy across the administration; Lisa Jackson as administrator of the environmental protection agency, which is responsible for enforcing US environmental laws and regulations; Ken Salazar as secretary of the interior, who will oversees public lands and endangered species issues; and Bill Richardson as secretary of commerce, who will play an important role in Obama's green economic policies.It's about time! KIPP

CO2 rises IN RESPONSE to any warming, not the other way around.

And come on over here to Ohio and see just how warm it is with a windchill of -18.

Kipp wrote:
" ...this board is about Global Warming and not a personality cult, for the disinchanted right wing."

LOL! Kipp, though I'm sure it is not your intent, you are becoming an increasingly effective force that strengthens the skeptical argument on this forum.

Kipp said:
"Only an immediate reduction of coal and oil will help put the enviroment back in a world of natural variations. Skeptics should apply more solid science to their arguments"

and I would counter that people that say this and believe this poppy cock should talk to Russia, China, India, Kuwait, and the approx 130 other countries that are not supposed to do anything about it and they are not.

Until someone can make some sense out of the US saving the world, when the world we are supposedly saving is supposedly killing us.

If this is such a dire emergency, why are only approx 30 countries supposed to do anything about it?

If it's 'global' warming, why isn't the rest of the globe equally responsible?

The very fact that the UN let all of those countries off the hook, because of economics,
proves to me that there is not one shread of truth to any of it.

The history of names is interesting.
More interesting is a history of why AGW still seems to carry credibility even though it actually has none.
This article is absolutenly faciniating.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

Excerpt:
So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW.

Brett, I prefer natural climate variation. We have not yet reached the Anthropocene, by definition, as this as yet to be defined by scientists other than the egotist Creutzen. Man is a natural being, and like all other beings, affects its environment. Only an immediate appreciation of this will help place the environment into a better understanding rather than being used to tax and police humans. Unthinking New World Order supporters should show the world the science (not spun corporatist modelling myths) they "believe" exists, rather than forcing their global supremecist politics on all of mankind and the environment. Nor should these repeaters of unfounded science try to ridicule those who don't agree with this new religion.

Kipp Alpert: I see you're expanding your horizons by reading and posting at other blogs now. Your comment on Chris Coloses's ClimateChange website, the thread titled "Skeptics/Denialists Part 2: Hotspots and Repetition", caught my eye. Cut and paste the following address to your browser to refresh your memory, Kipp:
chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/

In your December 21, 2008 @ 8:50PM comment, you wrote about the bloggers at Accuweather. I found it quite interesting and felt it appropriate to share it with others here. Note that I added the emphasis.

Kipp, you wrote: "...If you ever want to pick off a couple of REALLY DUMB SKEPTICS(DENIERS), GO OVER TO ACCUWEATHER GLOBAL WARMING BLOG. They are all residing there for some reason. It's sort of like shooting skunks with your bb gun when you were a kid. You know, when you have a fight with the wife or kids just go over to Accuweather and nail a denier.It's good for you.Thanks Again, appreciate your time,best;Kipp"

Thanks for the laugh, Kipp.

Here are some names that I prefer:
Hoax
Fraud
Scam
Rip Off
TAX TAX TAX TAX
Lie
Bamboozle
Tree Hugging Nonsense
Control of your wealth and lifestyle.
Undermine of Capitalism
Flim Flam
Fraud (ooh, sorry I said that already).
Siege
Communinsm
Socialism
Obama/Gore/Hansenism
Redistributionism
Propaganda
Poltically Motivated Farce
Junk Science
Perpetual Insanity
Non-existant
Myth
Fairy Tail
Fable
Fiction
Hoax (oops sorry again...:-D)
Lunacy
Hysteria
Died In The Wool BS!!!!
Glo-BULL Warming
And my all time favorite...CROCK!!!!!
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Give me time, I am sure I can come up with more.

6 Degrees Faharenheit this morning. And has the snow stopped in Vegas yet??? Will someone please tell the Enviro nut cases to STUFF A SOCK IN IT!!!

Re: Kipp Alpert | December 20, 2008 10:03 PM

Careful Kipp,

You know, if you prefer "Climate Change", to some that means you're a wacky right winger and can't think for yourself.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/windy-citys-climate-plan/?apage=2#comment-38117

The science appears very clear - man-made "global warming" is a hoax:
- man-made C02 is only .25% of the total greenhouse gases
- ice cores show that C02 follows - not leads - temperature change (ocean releases C02 when it warms)
- Correlation between solar activity and temperature is very tight - the sun release more energy in an hour than man has released in its history
- It was warmer during the Romand and Medieval times even though industry was not present.

However, as a liberal, I am all for the promotion of "the hoax" - we should reduce development and capitalism which has harmed our planet. 3rd world countries have got it right - simple huts with limited power.

My only fear is that we are in a cold cycle that could last 20 years - not sure if "the hoax" will survive this winter.

Credit where credit is due; the original article:
http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=32

is from the NASA/JPL Global Climate Change site. We just republished the text.

Kipp Alpert says: You can't grow corn and feed man at the same time

Is this a mistake or did you really mean to say that you can't grow food and feed people at the same time? Is this some sort of Paul Ehrlich statement?

Giving up your car is not going to feed anyone so stop with the martyr act. How does owning a car take food out of another person's mouth? Zero sum is not any more real than AGW. We've wiped out hunger in the developed world to the point now that the poor people are overweight. Once upon a time being fat was a way of saying that you had enough money to eat.

I'm surprised to see several comments that start - Kipp wrote.

I assumed that almost everybody else has stopped reading his posts as I have.

"Global climate change" is a weasely, bureaucratic term. The one thing constant about our climate is that it is always changing. Putting a program together to prevent "global climate change" should be at the same level of priority as our efforts to prevent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and hurricanes.

"Anthropogenic global warming" gets to the heart of what Hansen, Mann, Gore et al want to regulate. This is what the government should be calling it. I haven't heard any of that crowd predict that CO2 emissions are going to cause an Ice Age, so global warming appear to be their only concern.

If they truly mean "global climate change" then I assume they are talking about trying to regulate the earth's climate to keep it at a nice even temperature, presumably using a programmable EnergyStar thermostat. If they really think that they can do this within our lifetime, then they need to be put in little white straight-jackets and kept in seclusion where they can't hurt themselves or others.

If they are planning to manage "global climate change" then they should pick up a copy of Dorner's "Logic of Failure ($12.95 at Amazon) and read the section on how well people were able to manage farmland in "Tanaland" in a simple computer simulation. After they have done that, they can hire the soon to be out-of-work computer modelers working for Wall Street financial companies and use them for their next successful project of modeling the earth's climate and how it will react to man-made management of it.

PAULM: We know that the greenhouse effect means that the planet radiates at a colder temperature than the surface. So it is important to realize that the greenhouse effect depends on the fact that the temperature decreases with altitude. No lapse rate = no greenhouse effect. If we introduce more greenhouse gases, then there must be some cold air aloft for the greenhouse gas to work with. This is certainly the case in the troposphere. The greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. If we are specifically talking about human-induced global warming, than that refers to the enhanced greenhouse effect along with other factors like deforestation. The greenhouse effect itself is naturally occurring, and is a necessary condition to keep the surface temperatures warm enough for life. Global Warming specifically refers to the change in conditions from pre-industrial time to today.Please understand this Science. KIPP

ChrisF:Answer this! For a planet with no infrared absorbing layer above the surface, the fourth power of the surface temperature always approximates a value determined by the incoming solar radiation. The only way the surface temperatures can exceed this value is if there is an atmosphere which acts to be a blanket to outgoing radiation.Adding greenhouse gases to an atmosphere whose temperature decreases with height must act to warm the surface by making the net downward emission greater than zero. Could you dispute this Chris.

Kipp,
I followed the link and looked at your comments on the Colose site. Pretty distasteful and, yet, insightful. However, I think that you were closer to the mark when you said there, "I know that I don't know much."

You should stick with that as opposed to the nonsense that you peddled here, "Until a person understands the meaning of generosity, and loves another as himself, we are lost."

RBNYC:YO!city man.FYI,I would if it did. Give up wasting gas to cause a global catastrophe.I'm no martyr, but I do volunteer. Do You! So you personally wiped out hunger,or the U.S., or England. Is this why people are starving in the world. Go to Harlem some night and tell those people out on the street that there too fat.

Alexandria: Welcome back. The first thing you learn about existence in science is that without CO2 in the atmosphere, you wouldn't have life. CO2 keeps the Earths temperatures just right for living things. Water vapor and the Sun are not a constant. Before the I revolution, the Earth has been taking in CO2, at 260ppm more or less. Everything was in balance and what came in, went out including too much CO2. Now there is a blanket of GHG's around the Earth, and water vapor to spread it all out. There is such a massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that the tropopause has grown, and the stratosphere is colder,like a desert. Go to this physics website for a complete understanding. KIPP

.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Bob Tisdale:Thanks. I will post more of my thoughts and understanding for you.Your never too old to learn. KIPP

mrsund:
I'm surprised to see several comments that start - Kipp wrote.

I assumed that almost everybody else has stopped reading his posts as I have.
Reply: I couldn't let his nonsense in the first post stand without argument but after checking out the link that Bob Tisdale left I see it's a lost cause.

Bob T., for some reason the authors of this blog tend to cultivate a rather more retro version of denialist than is typically seen outside of places like Free Republic e.g.

While your strange fixation on SSTs uber alles is not IMHO a reason to lump you in with the mrsunds or Patrick Henrys of the world, I can understand if you thought that was Kipp's implication.

rdd, the problem is that we *are* managing climate, albeit with little regard for the consequences.Ceasing to manage climate means reducing GHG emissions so as to quickly knock their atmospheric levels back down into the normal range for interglacials.

I'm glad to hear that you're fully on board with that goal.

Expect to be hearing "climate disruption" come into common use in the near future. John Holdren and I came up with it independently, so it's a phrase with a future!

Holdren's views are summarized here, plus there's a link to his PPT on the subject.

Hey Kippy! Regarding this:

Kipp, you wrote: "...If you ever want to pick off a couple of REALLY DUMB SKEPTICS(DENIERS), GO OVER TO ACCUWEATHER GLOBAL WARMING BLOG. They are all residing there for some reason. It's sort of like shooting skunks with your bb gun when you were a kid. You know, when you have a fight with the wife or kids just go over to Accuweather and nail a denier.It's good for you.Thanks Again, appreciate your time,best;Kipp"

REPLY: Looks like you have been found out! Oh, please, please do send them over here. Cauz I am hungry, and just ready to munch, Baby!!! Tell them to BRING IT too! Cauz this Denier is ready to tango! ahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!

SuzyTheLib says: However, as a liberal, I am all for the promotion of "the hoax" - we should reduce development and capitalism which has harmed our planet. 3rd world countries have got it right - simple huts with limited power.

REPLY: You First! But Seriously, just how old are you??? Are you like 12 or something??? Let's see how long you last in a third world country with "simple huts" that have maleria laden mosquitos buzzing around and no toilets. My guess is you will come running right back to the evil capitalism. You people (hypocrites) really are the limit.

Suzy the Libeler:
GHG's40%
Ice Cores feedbacks.Not Ice Cores.
SUN=0.12W/M squared
CO2=1.66%
How much Co2 was there during the romand period?
There are lots of arguments out there that might be expected from someone new to the subject with little scientific training, but to come from actual �experts� is unforgivable. Such examples include claiming that water vapor is �95% of the greenhouse effect� and can swamp the effects of additional CO2, the implication that trace amounts of a gas cannot influence climate, claiming that �global warming stopped in 1998,� mentioning CO2 can�t cause climate change since it lagged temperature in Vostok (without mentioning feedback mechanisms), saying that CO2 can�t cause temperatures to rise because they didn�t rise from 1940-1970, saying that most CO2 comes from natural sources so our emissions are little. Anyone who consistently uses these and other similar-style lines can safely be ignored with virtually no chance that you�re going to miss out on some divine revelation that debunks greenhouse physics. KIPP

Climate Change is whatever the AGW crowd need it to be at the time -- it mitigates looking foolish when there is a global warming conference during unseasonably cold weather, aka the Gore Effect.

Brett,

I have been a reader for several years and have always appreciated your balanced presentation of good, factual content. I stopped reading the comments but couldn't resist this time, although I should have. Could people please stop citing local weather as proof of warming or cooling? Are you seriously going to suggest that global warming is not occurring because its cold in Ohio today? The rest of the absurditys are too numerous to mention and will start a flame war that I just am not interested in. It's too bad people don't want to have an intelligent debate about this here. It is needed. Okay I promise Brett, no more reading comments for me. keep up the good work.

Reply: Thank Scott. I agree. Happy Holidays.

The name has changed from "global warming" to "climate change" or "global climate change" for ONE reason - because it stopped warming and they want to keep the ridiculous notion of "human induced" global climate effects (which was SUPPOSED to be global "warming," but the ACTUAL climate is no longer cooperating) alive, and thus keep their "cottage industry built on a pile of agriicultural commodity" going.

Mother Nature doesn't care what you call it.

But the surface of the earth is, on average, warming up.

Seriously so.

Scott,
I'm not among those who cite their local weather.
However, you'll have to admit that the MSM and the AGW faithful are very consistent in linking any extreme weather event, ice shelf collapse, or forest fire to AGW. Perhaps some here feel compelled to balance that out a bit - and I don't blame them for it.

Kipp says: So you personally wiped out hunger

I'm pretty sure that I've never made such a statement but just in case I'm mistaken, feel free to track my words down.

You, however, seem to be claiming that humans are unable to simultaneously grow corn and feed people. Quite obtuse, I'd say.

I'm in Harlem several times per week and most of the people to be getting food from somewhere. Most likely from their jobs. If you really are interested in hunger ask why so many people in Africa are hungry. Or ask Robert Mugabe, that would be an interesting answer.

Steve Bloom: I don't have a fixation with SST. I searched for years for a website that posted graphs of SST subsets. Couldn't find one. I took the time and now have regular visitors to my website.

Global surface temperature is the climate change unit of measurement most people are familiar with, but so few have bothered to investigate and present the portion that makes up 70% of it. If you've ever noticed, for the most part, my posts that are solely about SST are not presented from a skeptical or alarmist viewpoint. They're neutral, which is why I have links to my website from both sides of the debate.

The natural variations in SST are a major and under-reported portion of global temperature anomaly.

Enjoy your holidays, Steve.

D,

You're absolutely right that this occurs on both sides of the argument (Bill Clinton and Al Gore come to mind as 2 people who regularly cite extremes), and both sides need to stop doing it. The evidence is in the science and the trends on a long-term basis. The silly back-and-forth (look how hot it is! look how cold it is!)is counter-productive to a sensible discussion and shows no evidence of subsiding on either side.

"Words, Just Words", to quote a famous sage who will save us from ________________(fill in blanks) come 1.20.2009

"Mother Nature doesn't care what you call it."

Good, then I am going to call it "The Baloney Effect".

The science has taken a back seat to the politics of AGW, Climate Change, whatever you call it, because the politicians have found the One Great Issue that they can use to gain power over our lives. Power - The Great Aphrodisiac.

A descriptive quote that exemplifies "The Baloney Effect", from Edward Gibbon who wrote "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

D Caldwell | December 23, 2008 7:12 PM --- What counts is the statistics, not indivdual extreme events. For example, the trend in Atlantic hurricanes is clearly upwards.

David Benson: Your hurricane trend needs to be adjusted for the AMO. After you remove the AMO from the tropical Atlantic SSTs and account for its influence, is there an increase in the hurricane trend?