Climate Change?

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Oct 24, 2014

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

**CLICK HERE TO SEE STUNNING ICEBERG IMAGES**

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.

"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Man made climate change is a myth according to Coleman, inset [AP]

I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid

John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.

US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, "are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data."

Mr Coleman's comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State's energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President's pledges to decrease it.

President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.

Despite this, the Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.

There has been no recorded global warming for 18 years [GETTY]

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.

He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was "little evidence" to support the IPCC's claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.
Click to expand...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/natur...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

joe · Oct 24, 2014

Interesting piece NotSatoshiNakamoto.

While we're on the subject, currently it's -46F (wind chill -82F) in Antarctica and today's forecast calls for sunny skies with temps warming up to -38F.
Weather in South Pole, Antarctica

Now

-46 °F
Snow flurries. Scattered clouds.

Feels Like: -82 °F
Forecast: -41 / -37 °F
Wind: 18 mph ↑ from Northeast
Location: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
Current Time: Oct 25, 2014 at 2:06:15 AM
Latest Report: Oct 25, 2014 at 1:00 AM

/General Weather Time Zone DST Changes Sun & Moon
Upcoming 5 hours
°F
Now 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM

-46 °F -38 °F -38 °F -38 °F -38 °F -38 °F

I think the most impressive polar caps I ever saw on the Weather Channel belonged to the delicious Stephanie Abrams

74 · Oct 24, 2014

I've read similar research papers as far back as several years ago. pretty clear it's theory at best and a political myth at worst. I always find it funny when people complain about CO2.

CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.

In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either.

Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance. The data for CO2 related to human health are next:

The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.000747 Kg per cubic meter of air.

Normal CO2 Levels. The effects of an increased level of CO2 on an adult person in good health can be summarized as:

Normal outside levels: 350 - 600 ppmv.

Acceptable levels: up to 600 ppmv.

Stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppmv.

Data provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

Standards: 1000 ppmv.

Stupor: 1000 - 2500 ppm.

Maximum allowed concentration in an 8 hour working period: 5,000 ppmv.

Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels:

Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmv.

The above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppmv.

Unconsciousness and death: 100,000 ppmv (OSHA).

As you can see, Carbon Dioxide does not intoxicate — it suffocates. All of the effects listed above correspond to asphyxia, not to poisoning; however, water and sand also asphyxiate and they are not considered pollutants either. Consequently, CO2 cannot be considered a pollutant merely because it asphyxiates.

Many have tried to tag CO2 as a pollutant simply because it is a product of fossil fuel combustion. However, CO2 is also a product of respiration, fermentation and putrefaction. In any case, the CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels had previously been taken from the atmosphere by photosynthetic organisms and converted into organic compounds to be used in their metabolic functions as structures for reproduction, etc. When those photosynthetic organisms later died, their remains were subjected to strong geological processes that convert organic matter into oil, coal and methane. (Reccommended reading: The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural?)

Those products are the fossil fuels that we use today to power our industries and vehicles; therefore, we are only returning CO2 to the place it once occupied during the Carboniferous Period. CO2 cannot then be considered a pollutant just because it is released back into the atmosphere by combustion of organic fuels and from many other natural processes unrelated with life.
Click to expand...

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_CO2.html

Dierking · Oct 24, 2014

Any of you guys old enough to remember when the tobacco companies used to get experts to say there was no hard scientific evidence that smoking caused cancer?

Faux machine · Oct 24, 2014

Scientist warns about climate change: LOL pass me some coal.

Scientists explain how unlikely it is ebola spreads to the US: everyone panic!

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Oct 24, 2014

Dierking said: ↑

Any of you guys old enough to remember when the tobacco companies used to get experts to say there was no hard scientific evidence that smoking caused cancer?
Click to expand...

fair point but I think it's safe to say they had a little more at stake than this guy?

Dierking · Oct 24, 2014

I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the overwhelming consensus among serious nerd-style scientists is that human activity is conclusively contributing to global warming. But, sure, there's a weatherman on TV out there who says otherwise. Every one is entitled to their own opinion, after all.

BrowningNagle · Oct 24, 2014

Climate change is very real and its very ignorant to suggest otherwise. It's almost a slap in the face to modern science to call it a myth. You can think it gets politically thrown around too much, like recently with our President choosing to discuss it over things like ISIS and the Ebola Crisis, and still recognize it's a real problem because it is. That's my problem with many on the right. Whats wrong with just saying there are more pressing issues - why do you have to deny science to make a point?

Now with Stephanie Abrams, that's another story. Her perky polar caps might not be real. I'd like to investigate that one further and get back to you.

74 · Oct 24, 2014

The biggest cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is organic respiration so everybody just hold your breath

joe · Oct 24, 2014

BrowningNagle said: ↑

Climate change is very real and its very ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

^ +1.

"Climate Change Indicators in the United States - 2014"
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/climateindicators-full-2014.pdf

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Oct 24, 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

The Gerlache Strait separating the Palmer Archipelago from the Antarctic Peninsular off Anvers Island

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.

The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.

The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’

An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica

A Crabeater seal on an iceberg in Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Crabeater seals are the most common large mammal on the planet after humans, with an estimated population of 15 million

For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.

Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.

Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.

But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.

But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?

In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

Why should it do this?

Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming. They draw their conclusions accordingly.

Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and a standstill thereafter.

The US is, after all, only a small proportion of the globe.

Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.

We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

74 · Oct 24, 2014

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

Kill the cows!!

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Oct 24, 2014

Mangolden Showers said: ↑

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

Kill the cows!!
Click to expand...

That's racist.

74 · Oct 24, 2014

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

That's racist.
Click to expand...

Speciesist?

xxedge72x · Oct 24, 2014

Don't worry, the Bilderbergs will use their assets in the Illuminati to deploy tactical nuclear Ebola bombs on strategic points in the food chain. This won't end humanity, however the biological trails in our DNA strands will activate the cosmic beacon hidden in Atlantis, which was conveniently moved to North Korea during the G8 Summit some years back and summon the butt probing little green people that only the first family knows about to restore humanity to its proper place. I totally have sources, but if I told you I'd have to kill you right before they kill me.

74 · Oct 24, 2014

xxedge72x said: ↑

Don't worry, the Bilderbergs will use their assets in the Illuminati to deploy tactical nuclear Ebola bombs on strategic points in the food chain. This won't end humanity, however the biological trails in our DNA strands will activate the cosmic beacon hidden in Atlantis, which was conveniently moved to North Korea during the G8 Summit some years back and summon the butt probing little green people that only the first family knows about to restore humanity to its proper place. I totally have sources, but if I told you I'd have to kill you right before they kill me.
Click to expand...

I thought the avatar tree hugging people were tall and blue?

xxedge72x · Oct 24, 2014

Mangolden Showers said: ↑

I thought the avatar tree hugging people were tall and blue?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they want you to think.

joe · Oct 24, 2014

Mangolden Showers said: ↑

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

Kill the cows!!
Click to expand...

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

That's racist.
Click to expand...

That's misogynistic.

The Waterboy · Oct 24, 2014

Dierking said: ↑

I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the overwhelming consensus among serious nerd-style scientists is that human activity is conclusively contributing to global warming. But, sure, there's a weatherman on TV out there who says otherwise. Every one is entitled to their own opinion, after all.
Click to expand...

The article was pretty clear that he was basing his statements on the findings of the NIPCC, a group of non-governmental scientists and scholars who decided to do their own research rather than take the word of the scientists funded by the government.
http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
Click to expand...

JStokes · Oct 24, 2014

BrowningNagle said: ↑

Click to expand...

Outstanding.

What was the issue?

_

Climate Change?

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

joe Well-Known Member

74 Well-Known Member

Dierking Well-Known Member

Faux machine Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dierking Well-Known Member

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

74 Well-Known Member

joe Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

74 Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

74 Well-Known Member

xxedge72x 2018 Gang Green QB Guru Award Winner

74 Well-Known Member

xxedge72x 2018 Gang Green QB Guru Award Winner

joe Well-Known Member

The Waterboy Well-Known Member

JStokes Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches

Climate Change?

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

joe Well-Known Member

74 Well-Known Member

Dierking Well-Known Member

Faux machine Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dierking Well-Known Member

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

74 Well-Known Member

joe Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

74 Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

74 Well-Known Member

xxedge72x 2018 Gang Green QB Guru Award Winner

74 Well-Known Member

xxedge72x 2018 Gang Green QB Guru Award Winner

joe Well-Known Member

The Waterboy Well-Known Member

JStokes Well-Known Member

Share This Page