One more time:

weather <> climate.

GlobalClimateChange--
GlobalClimateChange4Repuglycons...

---

One more time:

weather <> climate.

GlobalClimateChange--
GlobalClimateChange4Repuglycons...

I am a realist and a constitutionalist. I find many of the things democrats and republicans do are wrong. If you don't know the difference between a progressive and a constitutionalist, don't call me names that don't apply.

---

I am a realist...don't call me names that don't apply.

So like--

what "names" are you talkin' 'bout???

-----------------------------------

---

I am a realist...don't call me names that don't apply.

So like--

what "names" are you talkin' 'bout???

-----------------------------------

I know you intentionally misspelled it, but you called me a republican as if you didn't know. While I do agree with some of the ideas that party has, I find overall that they are not much better than the democrats.

---

I am a realist...don't call me names that don't apply.

So like--

what "names" are you talkin' 'bout???

-----------------------------------

I know you intentionally misspelled it, but you called me a republican as if you didn't know. While I do agree with some of the ideas that party has, I find overall that they are not much better than the democrats.

Don't worry--
I'd be upset too...

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205091825.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+International

"But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming."


So.... the sun makes the earth warm. Who would have guessed?

---

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2010/02/new-paper-interglacials-milankovitch-cycles-and-carbon-dioxide.html

The money quote"Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature."

---

And then there is this one from Climate Research news

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

And Just Watt's Up With This???
http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno...

All this has alredy been addressed in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc, Firebird.

Maybe we didn't get rid of enough DDT--
or maybe we got rid of too much...

---

Has all the controversy about hacked e-mails, Indian glaciers and Chinese weather stations gotten you confused about what's really happening to the planet's temperature? Here's something to chew on: According to satellite temperature data compiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), January 2010 was "the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."

That quote comes from UAH scientist Roy Spencer, and it's worth taking note of, because some climate activists are pretty vehement about placing the former NASA climatologist among the leading ranks of willfully blind climate skeptics.

For years, skeptics cited discrepancies between the satellite data compiled by Spencer and his colleague John Christy and temperatures from surface stations as proof that global warming wasn't happening. Indeed, in a follow-up post, Spencer notes that he was "surprised" at the readings for the lower troposphere, but concedes that they have been confirmed by sea surface temperature readings from January. The year is starting out at a pace that could make 2010 the hottest yet--
4repuglycons...

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

And Just Watt's Up With This???
http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno...

All this has alredy been addressed in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc, Firebird.

Maybe we didn't get rid of enough DDT--
or maybe we got rid of too much...

Again lie by omission! You may want to look at Watt's Response to that link.

---

Has all the controversy about hacked e-mails, Indian glaciers and Chinese weather stations gotten you confused about what's really happening to the planet's temperature? Here's something to chew on: According to satellite temperature data compiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), January 2010 was "the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."

That quote comes from UAH scientist Roy Spencer, and it's worth taking note of, because some climate activists are pretty vehement about placing the former NASA climatologist among the leading ranks of willfully blind climate skeptics.

For years, skeptics cited discrepancies between the satellite data compiled by Spencer and his colleague John Christy and temperatures from surface stations as proof that global warming wasn't happening. Indeed, in a follow-up post, Spencer notes that he was "surprised" at the readings for the lower troposphere, but concedes that they have been confirmed by sea surface temperature readings from January. The year is starting out at a pace that could make 2010 the hottest yet--
4repuglycons...

And just how hot was it? That sounds like a set up for a joke but the truth is it wasn't very hot. Take a look at this and see if it is really a problem link Don't forget that we are in an El Nino that causes warmer than normal weather for a year or two. This is also why we are getting so much rain and snow. The warm water puts a large amount of water into the atmosphere and when that hits cold arctic air it causes heavy snow or rain. When the ocean is cool as in la nina we get less than normal rain/snow fall. Droughts and good crop years have been going on for so long they are even mentioned in the bible.

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

And Just Watt's Up With This???
http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno...

All this has alredy been addressed in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc, Firebird.

Maybe we didn't get rid of enough DDT--
or maybe we got rid of too much...

Again lie by omission! You may want to look at Watt's Response to that link.

Now why would I give any credibility to a propagandist ex tv weatherman (weather <> climate...)--
bought and paid for by right-wing lobbyists???

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

And Just Watt's Up With This???
http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno...

All this has alredy been addressed in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc, Firebird.

Maybe we didn't get rid of enough DDT--
or maybe we got rid of too much...

Again lie by omission! You may want to look at Watt's Response to that link.

Now why would I give any credibility to a propagandist ex tv weatherman (weather <> climate...)--
bought and paid for by right-wing lobbyists???

Because your not open minded?

---

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/noaas-new-website-climate-gov-first-day-sin-of-omission/

Lie by omission

And Just Watt's Up With This???
http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno...

All this has alredy been addressed in CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc, Firebird.

Maybe we didn't get rid of enough DDT--
or maybe we got rid of too much...

Again lie by omission! You may want to look at Watt's Response to that link.

Now why would I give any credibility to a propagandist ex tv weatherman (weather <> climate...)--
bought and paid for by right-wing lobbyists???

Because your not open minded?

Yep--
that must be it...

---

open minded to what? Science is science. agendas being what they are. you'd think that most denialists were educated in science. The reality is they are just talking point people for the industries that are doing all the polluting. Why would a polluter want to stop making money at polluting

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

open minded to what? Science is science. agendas being what they are. you'd think that most denialists were educated in science. The reality is they are just talking point people for the industries that are doing all the polluting. Why would a polluter want to stop making money at polluting

Any time a group says the debate is over, it means they have run out of arguments or don't want to face the facts. Climate gate has proved that there was a large amount of false science out there that never has been questioned. The skeptics have seen this problem and they want answers that for a long time were not provided till someone spilled the beans. I would love it if industry was providing all the support you claim because then both sides would be heard. Also, when are you going to get it through your head that CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food. If the CO2 drops below 150 parts per million, all the plants on earth die. The little bit we have bumped the CO2 levels have resulted in better plant growth and test have shown that plants would be very happy with far more than that.
I don't know about you, but I can do many different unrelated things and am always open to learning more. I have learned far more after getting out of school than school ever taught me. Just because I don't have a MD or PHD in my name doesn't mean I don't know my stuff.

---

Also, when are you going to get it through your head that CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food.

"Carbon dioxide concentrations analyzed by a
portable gas chromatograph ranged from less than 1% in
healthy forest, a typical figure for forest soils, to more than
90% at several locations within tree-kill areas. Where CO2
concentrations exceeded 30%, most trees were dead."--
4repuglyconsToo...

---

Also, when are you going to get it through your head that CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food.

"Carbon dioxide concentrations analyzed by a
portable gas chromatograph ranged from less than 1% in
healthy forest, a typical figure for forest soils, to more than
90% at several locations within tree-kill areas. Where CO2
concentrations exceeded 30%, most trees were dead."--
4repuglyconsToo...

I can agree with that, to much of a good thing can be bad as well. At night plants use oxygen and produce CO2 so very high levels of C02 would be harmful. On the other hand, 1% CO2 is the upper limit for humans so I wouldn't want to see anything nears the levels in that article. As I stated in the climate thread, we are currently less than .04% and the upper limit should be between .1% and .25%. I would favor the .1% just to be safe.

---