Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
If you deny global warming then explain the melting polar ice caps, and how the U.S. and Russia are both racing to put military bases in the north where they could never before reach because of the ice that was once there:
This year's Arctic Ice via satellite:
Climate change is just as it sounds, a climate being changed. Happens all the time. Much strong evidence there is a human role in both the negative and positive of it. Global Warming obviously is not true because the earth is flat and therefore not a globe. Simple to solve as that.
That being another subject though lol, climate change is real. It is simply too big to be hidden but alas let's not fault those that try to bury the problem and clean it up, but instead encourage them at the least, and try to think and get everyone to agree to good ways to fix the problems in climate change stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3rhyxpeMA
[video=youtube;QA3rhyxpeMA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3rhyxpeMA[/video]
That being another subject though lol, climate change is real. It is simply too big to be hidden but alas let's not fault those that try to bury the problem and clean it up, but instead encourage them at the least, and try to think and get everyone to agree to good ways to fix the problems in climate change stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3rhyxpeMA
[video=youtube;QA3rhyxpeMA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3rhyxpeMA[/video]
Ken I work with a guy who frequently broke through the ice in the military in the early 80s. The issue is the oil there.
Why is it so hard to believe you are being duped? Why can't you see the scam is all about controlling you? You have been VERIFIABLY lied to about where we were supposed to be in regards to coastal flooding and other disasters associated with GW. Why doesn't that bother you? They told you most of NYC was going to be under water by now. They lied Ken. The globalists want power and control over you, the :"scientists" have been bought off through gov grant money that disappears if they speak against the scam, scientists WHO HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN have threatened with JAIL for speaking against GW.
Why is it so hard to believe you are being duped? Why can't you see the scam is all about controlling you? You have been VERIFIABLY lied to about where we were supposed to be in regards to coastal flooding and other disasters associated with GW. Why doesn't that bother you? They told you most of NYC was going to be under water by now. They lied Ken. The globalists want power and control over you, the :"scientists" have been bought off through gov grant money that disappears if they speak against the scam, scientists WHO HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN have threatened with JAIL for speaking against GW.
how about getting some data from a reputable source, instead of a tabloid?
like, for example, the national snow and ice data center?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and maybe looking at more than 2 data points?
does that sound like a good idea? like maybe a good statistical practice?
like, for example, the national snow and ice data center?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and maybe looking at more than 2 data points?
does that sound like a good idea? like maybe a good statistical practice?
K
I am not duped at all !!!
Read where and why those ice breakers are being used, as there are multiple sources on this issue as well as news reports.
The area the ice breakers are at the ice use to be so thick that they could not get through even with them, as you do realize the ice can be to thick for even them to break ??? But now where they are advancing the ice is now thin enough that they can advance to areas they have not gotten to before, and because of this the U.S. and Russia are both racing to put military bases and missiles in those areas.
Which is why there is a big push for military budget again to beat the Russians to those areas.
Read where and why those ice breakers are being used, as there are multiple sources on this issue as well as news reports.
The area the ice breakers are at the ice use to be so thick that they could not get through even with them, as you do realize the ice can be to thick for even them to break ??? But now where they are advancing the ice is now thin enough that they can advance to areas they have not gotten to before, and because of this the U.S. and Russia are both racing to put military bases and missiles in those areas.
Which is why there is a big push for military budget again to beat the Russians to those areas.
How convenient of you not to date your photo. And why? Because it is old!
This year's Arctic Ice via satellite:
This year's Arctic Ice via satellite:
2012 was the lowest minimum arctic sea ice cover ever recorded. 2014 was the 6th lowest in history. (if anyone's keeping track of this -- oh yeah, the NSIDC is keeping track. see link in my previous post).
But THAT'S just the point. Isn't it? The reliability of the source. Who do you think decides how much funding NASA gets? And what do you think happens to Gov scientists who refuse to tow the line on the scam?
[h=2]A former NASA scientist has described global warming as “nonsense”, dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as “an unsubstantiated hypothesis” and saying that it is “absolutely stupid” to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.[/h]Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is “no reproducible evidence” that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)
Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
He also said:
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.
“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”
Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”
When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.
“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.
“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”
Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic.”
[h=2]A former NASA scientist has described global warming as “nonsense”, dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as “an unsubstantiated hypothesis” and saying that it is “absolutely stupid” to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.[/h]Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is “no reproducible evidence” that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)
Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
He also said:
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.
“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”
Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”
When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.
“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.
“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”
Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic.”
you guys like pictures? this one's an actual composite from satellite (the one in the previous post was actually a simulation from satellite data, not a real picture)
& it's even dated, for the calendar-savvy! with a legend!
notice that there is less than half the sea-ice cover last week compared to the same day 35 years ago?
that's not an upward trend, folks.
& it's even dated, for the calendar-savvy! with a legend!
notice that there is less than half the sea-ice cover last week compared to the same day 35 years ago?
that's not an upward trend, folks.
Fired for "Diverging" on [h=1]Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’[/h]
Professor's fellowship 'terminated' after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’
Climate Statistics Prof. Caleb Rossiter: 'If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this. Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them...because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’
IPS email of 'termination' to Rossiter: 'We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJune 12, 2014 11:31 PM with 31 comments
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
[Climate Depot Note: Intimidation of skeptical scientists has been well documented.Climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson — who converted from warmist to skeptic – resigns from skeptical group after ‘enormous group pressure’ from warmists – Now ‘worried about my health and safety’ – ‘Colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship’
Many politically left of center scientists are also converting to skeptics: Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’
Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’]
Caleb Rossiter
Climate Depot has obtained a copy of a May 7, 2014 email that John Cavanagh, the director of IPS since 1998, sent to Rossiter with the subject “Ending IPS Associate Fellowship.”
“Dear Caleb, We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies,” Cavanagh wrote in the opening sentence of the email.
“Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same,” Cavanagh explained.
“We thank you for that work and wish you the best in your future endeavors,” Cavanagh and his IPS associate Emira Woods added. [Full Text of IPS email is reproduced further below.]
‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue’
On May 13, 2013, a year before his termination from IPS, Rossiter wrote a blog on his website further detailing his climate views. The article was titled: “The Debate is finally over on ‘Global Warming’ – Because Nobody will Debate.” He wrote: “I have assigned hundreds of climate articles as I taught and learned about the physics of climate, the construction of climate models, and the statistical evidence of extreme weather.”
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided,” Rossiter explained.
Rossiter also ripped President Barack Obama’s climate claims in his 2013 blog post: “Obama has long been delusional on this issue, speaking of a coming catastrophe and seeing himself as King Canute, stopping the rise in sea-level. But he really went off the chain in his state of the union address this year. ‘For the sake of our children and our future’ he issued an appeal to authority with no authority behind it.”
Rosstier’s May 4, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd also pulled no punches. Rossiter, who holds a masters in mathematics, wrote: “I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.”
His Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” He added: “Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy.”
“Each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years—in America it’s 79,” he explained.
“How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science,” he concluded his WSJ OpEd.
Rossiter’s and IPS seemed a natural fit, given Rossiter’s long history as an anti-war activist. IPS describes itself as “a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power.
But Rosstier’s credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his growing climate skepticism or his unabashed promotion of carbon based fuels for Africa.
Rossiter’s website describes himself as “a progressive activist who has spent four decades fighting against and writing about the U.S. foreign policy of supporting repressive governments in the formerly colonized countries.”
“I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial,” Rossiter wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 4.
Rossiter’s Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that ‘even if the mercury weren’t rising’ we should bring ‘the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.’ He sees the ‘climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
“Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted
Read more: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’ | Climate Depot
Professor's fellowship 'terminated' after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’
Climate Statistics Prof. Caleb Rossiter: 'If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this. Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them...because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’
IPS email of 'termination' to Rossiter: 'We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJune 12, 2014 11:31 PM with 31 comments
Climate Depot Exclusive
Dr. Caleb Rossiter was “terminated” via email as an “Associate Fellow” from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), following his May 4th, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called man-made global warming an “unproved science.” Rossiter also championed the expansion of carbon based energy in Africa. Dr. Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University. Rossiter, who has taught courses in climate statistics, holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics.In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
[Climate Depot Note: Intimidation of skeptical scientists has been well documented.Climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson — who converted from warmist to skeptic – resigns from skeptical group after ‘enormous group pressure’ from warmists – Now ‘worried about my health and safety’ – ‘Colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship’
Many politically left of center scientists are also converting to skeptics: Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’
Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’]
Caleb Rossiter
Climate Depot has obtained a copy of a May 7, 2014 email that John Cavanagh, the director of IPS since 1998, sent to Rossiter with the subject “Ending IPS Associate Fellowship.”
“Dear Caleb, We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies,” Cavanagh wrote in the opening sentence of the email.
“Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same,” Cavanagh explained.
“We thank you for that work and wish you the best in your future endeavors,” Cavanagh and his IPS associate Emira Woods added. [Full Text of IPS email is reproduced further below.]
‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue’
On May 13, 2013, a year before his termination from IPS, Rossiter wrote a blog on his website further detailing his climate views. The article was titled: “The Debate is finally over on ‘Global Warming’ – Because Nobody will Debate.” He wrote: “I have assigned hundreds of climate articles as I taught and learned about the physics of climate, the construction of climate models, and the statistical evidence of extreme weather.”
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided,” Rossiter explained.
Rossiter also ripped President Barack Obama’s climate claims in his 2013 blog post: “Obama has long been delusional on this issue, speaking of a coming catastrophe and seeing himself as King Canute, stopping the rise in sea-level. But he really went off the chain in his state of the union address this year. ‘For the sake of our children and our future’ he issued an appeal to authority with no authority behind it.”
Rosstier’s May 4, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd also pulled no punches. Rossiter, who holds a masters in mathematics, wrote: “I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.”
His Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” He added: “Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy.”
“Each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years—in America it’s 79,” he explained.
“How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science,” he concluded his WSJ OpEd.
Rossiter’s and IPS seemed a natural fit, given Rossiter’s long history as an anti-war activist. IPS describes itself as “a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power.
But Rosstier’s credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his growing climate skepticism or his unabashed promotion of carbon based fuels for Africa.
Rossiter’s website describes himself as “a progressive activist who has spent four decades fighting against and writing about the U.S. foreign policy of supporting repressive governments in the formerly colonized countries.”
“I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial,” Rossiter wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 4.
Rossiter’s Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that ‘even if the mercury weren’t rising’ we should bring ‘the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.’ He sees the ‘climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
“Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted
Read more: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’ | Climate Depot
that picture's not from NASA.
anyway what's your point?
you think tabloids have better access to photos and data about arctic sea ice than the guys who actually run the ((internationally owned and operated)) satellites & polar observation stations?
that's just conspiracy nonsense. "the data disagrees with our assumptions, so we'll assume there's an enormous illuminati cabal fudging all data everywhere except the stuff our fav. tabloid reports"
need to see a graph of NASA's budget over the last 40 years? i'll let you search that one for yourself.
Funny how the warming alarmists don't ever mention the OTHER pole. Less than a year ago the antarctic ice was GREATER than it has ever been since they recorded it:
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
wait, WHAT??
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
Post, smetimes I get worked up on certain issues. This is one of my push button issues because of how obvious to me the scam is and what it's about. The important thing is your my brother in Christ. But you should read the articles you post. The data comes FROM NASA!NASA Distributed Active Archive Center at NSIDC | National Snow and Ice Data Center
wait, WHAT??
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
K
wait, WHAT??
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
now you're posting pictures and data from the guys 15 minutes ago you were railing about being completely untrustworthy? whenever it suits you, eh? but demonize the same guys if it don't suit you?
make up your mind, PennEd.
look, the jury's out. i ain't gonna argue climate change with any of you, or even give an opinion on it.
i just wanted you all to use some real data, not tabloid and obviously-biased sources, and to look at more than 2 or 3 years of statistics.
Not to mention the multiple news stories and articles showing and speaking on how the ice breakers are being able to go further North then they have ever gone before because of the thinner ice shelf and melting making it to where they can break through it now.
And how Russia and the U.S. is trying to take advantage of this in military strategies !!!
M
This is how it works...Al gore and his buddies make billions and gain political influence by making up a clear and evident lie...years later the lie is exposed...those who support his ilk and those embarrassed for believing als big lie...try to cover long enough to allow folks forget the big lie first told...change the terms from global warming to climate change...deny any and all real evidence that exposes the hoax. Its a scam guys and I hate to see you have been so deceived you cant even admit the truth of what this really was.