Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Graph based on satellite data showing cooling trend (red trend-line added by me).

And so you prove that you are not lying by posting a lie!! !! !! !! !! !!
Hmmm, so admitting that you are lying makes your lie not a lie?*
Also, why don't you give a link to where you got that? HMMM because it comes from a proven liar ( I proved that many posts back) and Limbaugh puppet.
Give the actual RSS site!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !
* Admitting that you added the arbitrary red line.
PS; One can tell that graph has been altered because 2005, 2010 and 2014 are hotter than 1998 and yet the graph shows those years as cooler.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/g ... s-globally
Oh yeah, NOAA, NASA etc are part of the global conspiracy run by evil Elvis!

And here is the geological cooling trend. It is very, very cold right now, and it is getting colder and colder.

This is a true graph of the past, and it takes going back several hundred million years to find periods as cold. Generally called, Snowball Earth, when million year ice ages were a thing. We are near geologic lows set hundreds of million years ago, and Global Warming is not a problem. Sea level has been rising for 15,000 years, and has slowed to one foot in a hundred years, now being claimed as a new panic, where were you for the last 450 foot?

All the excess CO2 matches the rise of mass farming, which has been strip mining the soil and blocking the formation of organic matter. 1% organic matter, 50 ppm less CO2, 2%, a health soil, we would be back at 1800 CO2 levels. The problem is farming has blocked the CO2 Cycle, leaving it no place to go.

A related but under reported problem, O2 production has declined, and we use that stuff.

Then there are the thousands of new chemicals that have been mass released, and have no place in the life chain. DDT, Dioxin, PCBs, Antibiotics, anti bacterial, and our mood and hormone drugs that can now be found in any water supply. The Lead from Tetra Ethel Lead will be around for hundreds of thousands of years.

Global Warming is a cover for bad management.

Once again, that graph has nothing to do with the topic!! !
I guess I have to keep repeating myself. Your "reasoning" is similar to saying that since the earth was a molten sea of lava soon after creation and it is cooler now, there is no global warming. VERY SILLY REASONING!
What you must look at is what would be normal now. According to the cycle idea we should be getting cooler. However, we are getting warmer. Therefore, our warming is not natural. It is caused by us humans.

It is getting colder even though 2005,2010 and 2014 are hotter than 1998?

“The world is warmer, by around 2-3 degrees C. The tropics are wetter, sea levels are higher, there is less ice and CO2 levels are rising above present levels. A vision of our future climate, perhaps, but in fact this is Earth just over 3.2 million years ago, in a period of our planet’s history known as the Pliocene. And it’s a window into the past that a group of UK scientists hope could be the best chance so far of revealing the consequences of human-induced climate change.”
FROM
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013042 ... re-climate

“When dinosaurs ruled the Earth, the climate was most likely hot and humid.”
FROM
http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/microsites/din ... hange.html
Maybe you want us to go back to a dinosaur environment. Fortunately, most understand that such a drastic change in climate would have catastrophic consequences.
We have deviated from the Milankovitch cycles. Our warming is not part of a cycle. It is not natural. It is man-made AGW!

What makes you think that we have deviated from Milankovitch cycles?

The science involved is so far from settled that to even make such claims is absolutely ludicrous.

There are also many other sources that will explain the Milankovitch cycles. I hope that site will cure your confusion.
Luckily, science is not as confused as you are about the climate. The issue of global warming has been settled, at least among scientists. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT in 98% of the scientific community that AGW is real.

It is interesting that the AGW denier cult embraced the idea of cycles and said such things as," global warming is just part of the natural cycle." Now, that cycles add even more evidence of global warming they claim that the idea of cycles is unsettled!! !!

Do you understand Milankovitch cycles? If you do, then you have to understand that it is not understood which of the three factors of the cycle are most significant. Furthermore, you have to understand that there are a number of open questions regarding significant differences between the predictions based on Milankovitch cycles and reality. The science is anything but settled no matter what magical claims you make about them.

For what it's worth, I really doubt that any legitimate climate scientists deny the existence of Milankovitch cycles regardless of where they stand on Global Warming. You act like people who don't believe Global Warming is significantly due to man must think Milankovitch cycles are bogus. I really fail to understand that.

Global warming Truther, in something as complex as global climate, he sticks to the talking point, it is all human caused. Science says I am right, all other views are proof of inbred racism.

GW Truthers also claim it is all the fault of coal and oil, and somehow taxing them will make things better.

No other views are acceptable, even the science quoted "Agricultural Practices and other factors"

GW Truthers are not seeking answers, ending coal and oil today would not alter the problem, nor solutions, like opening up the Carbon Sink of plant life, which can trap Carbon in the soil.

They are single issue, Tax It! No report on how tax money would be spent, how the problem could be solved, or projections of a future other than the bleak one they are now pushing.

Nothing they offer would reduce CO2, it has nowhere to go. Even if we quit today, India and China will keep producing.

The Global Warming Scare, it is getting warmer. Mostly around the poles, the holy icepack, but all that means is Canada and Russia have been having mild winters. Minus 30 instead of minus 35.

It has been warming for the last 15,000 years, sea level is up 450 foot, and we are still in an ice age, with only 20,000 warm years out of the last 150,000. All of Science says, the ice will return.

We are in one of the coldest periods in several hundred million years, and the last were million year ice ages. Warming over the next few hundred years is not our major problem.

Real problems, population growth, is the root of most problems. Food shortages are not caused by global warming, but by distructive farming. We are running out of fresh water. Worldwide once productive soils, one third are degraded and no longer produce. Food production has peaked, population is growing faster than ever before.

Global Warming says in a hundred years it will be two degrees warmer. In twenty-five years there will be food and water for two-thirds of the world population.

Declining food and water, growing population is a sure thing. Global Warming has been the condition before each wave of ice. One will happen, the other might in a thousand years.

So the only logical thing to do is tax food worldwide, to prevent the coming famine.

While famines are good for the food business, high demand and price, then they die and reduce demand by a third, which would ruin the farm states. We must tax food now, so we will have the funds to pay farmers to produce after a third of their customers die.

The world economy will decline when a third of consumers die, so we should tax all goods and services now, so we can continue production after the die off, and protect industry from loss.

Only higher taxes and more government regulation, and exemption from regulation, can deal with the results of higher taxes and more government regulation. Science said so.

There is some real science with Global Warming, but there are a few problems.

First, it's often not really about science at all, especially when it is by non-scientific people, more especially when it is by politicians. It is about using the science to push a hidden (or not so hidden) political agenda. It's not about what is best for mankind.

Second, the effects are often overblown. It's like many of the proponents are looking around to find any and all possible effects, no matter how minor or how unlikely, and make them a serious problem threatening the Earth and mankind. Remember the IPCC claimed that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would shortly melt and that snow in the UK was pretty much a thing of the past.

Third, to make it seem far more serious, starting points are chosen to make it look worse. For example, when the "little ice age" ended, our temperatures began climbing. That is perfectly natural. And they are still climbing. But then it doesn't look so convincing to show that history. Be arbitrarily choosing a much more recent baseline, it looks like something new is happening instead of something that has been going on for over a century. Also, considering a longer time period is more likely to show that there are always fluctuations.

Fourth, it is corrupting many scientists. For example, I remember one scientist who has claimed to have been a skeptic but is now convinced that it is real. More importantly, I remember him speaking in a seminar at a time when he says he was a skeptic in which he was clearly on the side of Global Warming as a problem. In other words, at time he claims to have been a skeptic, he was still publicly speaking about Global Warming and not as a skeptic.

Fifth, there is some really bad science going on, some of it downright fraudulent. Look at the mathematics of the hockey stick for example. That wasn't even bad science -- it was nothing but fraud designed to fool the public.

Sixth, they don't know what to do about it. But it doesn't matter because it isn't really about fixing anything. It is about control and pushing for some kind of make-believe pristine environment and making certain highly political people even more immensely wealthy than would have been imagined a few years ago.

Yes, there are greenhouse gases. Yes, under the right circumstances, they would like make the planet warmer. But we clearly do not even know what we need to determine what really happens in the real world. For that matter, we have no idea what part of any warming we seem to be seeing is natural and what is due to man. It might be 10%. It might be 90%. Yet, without even knowing that, witness the massive demands to "fix" the problem. I say that you cannot possibly fix a problem is you don't even know how the problem actually works.

The thing on Milankovitch cycles was really bizarre. If we have no possible way of giving any kind of rational projection of what the temperature should be based on the Milankovitch cycle, how can we possibly make claims that we have departed from the cycle. Maybe 100 years from now we might understand them enough to make some reasonable guess, but we certainly don't have that now. Even then, the climate is NOT entirely due to Milankovitch cycles by any means. They will certain influence the climate, but they are hardly the only factors. For that matter, we can't even make climatic predictions using all the known factors and there may easily be additional factors that are not even recognized yet.

But instead of considering the science, so many of the non-scientific advocates just mumble a few buzzwords that they clearly do not understand and call others names. That doesn't win arguments.

I know one climate researcher who says that it is ridiculous to even talk like there is some single temperature to represent the Earth's climate.

1. I am not saying that climate scientists doubt that Milankovitch cycles exist. I am saying that they are further proof of global warming. According to the Milankovitch idea, we are in a cooling period. We are not. Therefore, our contribution to global warming has cancelled out their effect. For example, I do not doubt that an air conditioner will cool my house. However, if I turn the furnace up 200 degrees the house will get warmer even with the air conditioner on. And yes, without the air conditioner on, the house would be even warmer.
2. I am saying that one tactic of the AGW deniers was to say, " global warming is just a part of the natural Milankovitch cycle." However, since according to the Milankovitch idea we should be getting cooler, it is further evidence that we are contributing to global warming. The AGW deniers can no longer use the Milankovitch cycles as a natural explanation for global warming. I am sure that the AGW deniers will come up with another explanation for global warming and that will be shot down also.
PS; The brackets [] are perfectly legit. They mean that everything within the brackets was added to the quote. In this case I added the 1 and 2 to be able to address each of your points and not confuse the two.

Name him and provide a site. So he said that "the earth's average temperature" is meaningless?
Suppose I have a swimming pool. I form a grid of 1 foot squares and put a thermometer at each intersection. I take all the temps and average them together. Is he saying that that number is meaningless? That if that average number keeps increasing I cannot claim that the pool in total is getting warmer?