The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers
One of the greatest crises of our time is climate change, which threatens to create food shortages (as the Russians learned this summer), change geography, eradicate entire eco-systems and even wipe out cities and towns in coastal areas. (NOTE: If you are an anti-science know-nothing, don’t bother to comment. The clear scientific consensus indicates a warming climate caused by human activity.)
But we’ve reached the odd and depressing point in American politics where not a single Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate supports aggressive action to mitigate climate change. The last science literate, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, was defeated by tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell.
The blog Think Progress did a survey of GOP Senate candidates, and it found that even those who had previously supported policies that would curb carbon emissions have backed away, fearing a backlash from their know-nothing constituents.
Many others have simply chosen to be ignorant anti-science flat-earthers. Alaska’s Joe Miller, who defeated incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary, is an example of the latter category. He told an Alaska newspaper,
“We haven’t heard there’s man-made global warming.” [Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 8/23/10]
Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson is in the more sophisticated category, too smart to deny the science outright but unwilling to buck a tide of flat-earth voters and selfish businesses that don’t want to change their ways. This was Isakson’s response, according to Think Progress:
Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions. footprint.
Interestingly, though, Isakson doesn’t support any “proactive measures” to combat climate change.
The current GOP represents a step backward from the Bush administration, which acknowledged the threat of climate change. In 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US was “a major emitter” and was not “above the international community on the issue.” She also said that “all nations should tackle” the “growing problem” of climate change. (h/t The New Civil Rights Movement)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
679 comments Add your comment
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
10:50 am
Dave
Did you miss the part were “Climate Gate” was debunked?
Please keep up.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
10:50 am
Whenever I fill up my SUV, I pour a little on the pavement so we can get the oil used up and switch to alternative fuels quicker. You’re welcome.
Good Grief
September 16th, 2010
10:51 am
barking frog – How will Cap and Trade lower the global temperature? See, all these liberal tax ideas are nothing but ambition killers. Why would people strive to be successful if you’re going to continually punish them for such success?
Lil' Bush Bailout
September 16th, 2010
10:52 am
Im gonna approach the rest of my political life like those on the righ approach climate change.
Since there is no definitive evidence that Obama is making the economy worse, then he must be making it better.
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
10:54 am
Good Grief 10:51 Cap and Trade will lower global temps
the same way the bush tax cuts increased revenues.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 16th, 2010
10:54 am
Lil’ Bush Bailout: Since there is no definitive evidence that Obama is making the economy worse, then he must be making it better.
———————
Unemployment during every month of the Idiot Messiah regime has been higher than it ever was under our President Bush. There’s you’re evidence, chump.
AmVet
September 16th, 2010
10:56 am
I understand that there will be a meeting later this year of the greatest right wing thinkers and scientists at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
Their plan is to scientifically trump the theory of AGW with a carton of Marlboros, some duct tape and a signed photograph of Joseph McCarthy…
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
10:58 am
“MICHELLE IN ‘HELL’: ‘CAN’T STAND’ FIRST LADY JOB ”
I can’t stand the job her husband’s doing.
millenial
September 16th, 2010
10:58 am
some problems are too big for individuals or the “free market” to solve… one of these problems is global warming. our government must act more aggressively on this issue – some of you relentlessly say you want your “country back” (from what or who i am never quite sure), so why not get on board the we want our “planet back” train
… back from who? from polluters/powers that are making millions while killing us all and irresponsibly using natural resources that truly belong to everyone.
Lil' Bush Bailout
September 16th, 2010
10:59 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout-
Thats not definitive. It was going up prior to his first day in office. For it to be definitive. IT would have had to have stopped, went down, and then went back up. You can’t support that it would have stopped if someone else was in office. And on the contrary, compare total jobs lost during Bush’s last 20 month to Job losses during Obamas first 20. Ol Wingfield had a blog and a chart about it…try again though
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
10:59 am
mmuuwwaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Washington (CNN) – Thirty-one House Democrats, most of whom face tough re-election bids this fall, have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them to extend expiring tax breaks for all income levels, including the wealthy.
Dave
September 16th, 2010
11:00 am
Ah yes, the great Climategate whitewash…. gotcha…
Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.
Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”
No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”
This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State “determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.”
kevinbgoode
September 16th, 2010
11:00 am
Conservatives are only prone to agree with any “science” which originates from people owned by the industries most responsible for causing pollution. Even if these paid shills would agree with the concept of climate change caused by manmade activities, conservatives would merely gather on the statehouse steps and conduct massive prayer meetings as the only viable solution.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
11:01 am
Democratic candidates are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it.
Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform s
Keep up the good fight!
September 16th, 2010
11:01 am
Granny…. this is the same group that believes Obama in not christian, Obama was not born in the US, Acorn and Mickey Mouse stole an election, that birds flying over a DC reflecting pool were a “sign from God”, and so on and so forth….we’ve not even begun to touch on arguments that may have some degree of rationality to them. They have no plans other than say No and throw out everyone and everything. Note that no one has posted any of the legitimate science to contradict any of the real science.
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
11:02 am
Last year’s scientifically predicted influenza pandemic
should convince scientists to leave predictions to the
psychics. Science for sale is not working out.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
11:03 am
hehe.
“Soros insider trading case to be reviewed… “
Cynthia Is Sexy!!
September 16th, 2010
11:04 am
Global Warming? BAH Humbug…dont believe a word of it.
pat
September 16th, 2010
11:05 am
“You remind me of the clerics who put Galileo out of the church because he dared to say the earth revolved around the sun.”
Galileo was a muslim??? Who knew!!! LOL!
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
11:05 am
DAve
Again, we understand that you don’t get it….
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
11:06 am
I’ll bet his contributed to “climate change” in the office.
“Despite porn pledge, scientists accused of studying ‘anatomy’… “
Pullett Surprise
September 16th, 2010
11:06 am
From CNN, “The Census Bureau says the U.S. poverty rate jumped to 14.3% in 2009, its highest level since 1994, CNNMoney reports.”
From AJC, “Georgia’s unemployment rate rose slightly to 10 percent in August, from 9.9 percent in July, primarily because of layoffs in retail and construction, the state labor department reported Thursday.”
From Fox News, “Home Foreclosures Jump to Highest Rate Since Crisis Began>”
And the best our darling Cynthia can come up with is “The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers.”
CT is a mouthpiece for the “Party of NO, I don’t have a clue.”
Pullett Surprise
September 16th, 2010
11:07 am
Oh, I forgot.
Bush Did It!
Keep up the good fight!
September 16th, 2010
11:08 am
pat…. which tea party meeting did you practice that humor at? Ignorance of history and truth always gets a good laugh at both local and national levels.
Lil' Bush Bailout
September 16th, 2010
11:08 am
The Earth revolves around the sun, I need definitive proof…Rush and Hannity said the sun revolved around the Earth and they are always right.
JKL2
September 16th, 2010
11:08 am
Obama has those top secret government shoe insoles that keep his feet nice and cool while he’s busy walking around the golf course.
Maybe the DNC can start putting out reports stating “the reason the President spends so much time playing golf is conducting a personal fact-finding mission
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
11:08 am
leg lamp
you don’t get it either….it’s being reviewed for the possibility
of being OVERTURNED…..
pat
September 16th, 2010
11:09 am
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
11:10 am
Science is the newest religion.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:10 am
CO2 is the effect of heat and not the cause.
Dude, you’re a freakin genius, I bet. You need to publish this right away in the ‘Journal of Nutty Right Wing Arm Chair Hand Waving Scientists’. Contrary to your ‘beliefs’, not all Americans are dumber than thou.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:11 am
Science is the newest religion.
Belief in reality is so inconvenient. Evidence is faith! Better to believe in a 2000 year old fairy tale.
willie lynch
September 16th, 2010
11:12 am
Nothing….,
You seem to know a lot about this topic. Can you site your source for your 9:29 and 9:31 post.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award" much like CT's Pulitzer and Imam Obama's Nobel.
September 16th, 2010
11:12 am
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
11:08 am
Actually I do get it. You obviously don’t. He stands convicted and it MAY be overturned. Wonder how many billions he’ll dish out to have it overturned.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:12 am
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist.
But an imaginary sky daddy does. The bible says so!
pat
September 16th, 2010
11:13 am
Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun’s face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).
The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest). Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).
Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An alternative view, is that the Earth has been cooling since the 1930s when we had 3 of the 5 warmest years since 1860 in the US, and probably globally if the world environmental data base were cleaned up as is happening in the US. This site will be developed to show the science and the impacts related to global cooling, a very scary event compared to warming. It corresponds in the opposite way to the thousands of global warming sites. An unbiased view is at our sister-site: Climate Change Facts. The Editor started his interest in climate change in the 1970s, charged with helping industry adapt to the certainty of global cooling. Tim Ball has documented the cooling trend and its implications.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:14 am
Like religion, science, at it’s most profound is just kinda silly.
Better stay off the airliners and out of the hospitals then, they use scientifc INSTRUMENTS! Shameful.
TrueBeliever
September 16th, 2010
11:15 am
ctucker
September 16th, 2010
10:12 am
TrueBeliever@10:03, Scientists are now able to clone sheep. You don’t think humans can change the climate? You remind me of the clerics who put Galileo out of the church because he dared to say the earth revolved around the sun.
No I am not saying that humans cannot make changes. I just know that God created this earth by speaking it to be and upholds the universe by the power of His Word. We are not going to change anything He does not allow. Either God is sovereign or He is not. Which do you believe?
And for the record, I have no authority to put anyone out of the church, nor do I desire that authority. It’s beyond my pay grade.
Dave
September 16th, 2010
11:15 am
Oh I get it Granny. You don’t like my sources and I don’t like yours and we choose to read those that reinforce our beliefs…. and as one poster posted yesterday, in all the time I’ve been on here no one’s mind has changed no matter what has been posted so I’m just here for the entertainment….
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:16 am
Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount
And of course, you speak for ‘virtually all scientists’, on some blog no less!
Dave
September 16th, 2010
11:16 am
Pat, you obviousely are one of those un-informed flat-earthers…. I think you need to read more from media matters…. (I’m kidding of course)
godless heathen
September 16th, 2010
11:16 am
Climate change is a given. Rapid climate change has been documented during recent geologic times. Mankind can adapt to the changes. Folks live in all climates on the planet, ranging from the arctic to the deserts. I don’t sweat global warming (pun intended). Chicken Littles need to have something to fret about.
retired early
September 16th, 2010
11:17 am
Could it be that since most Republicans claim to be “born again”, they don’t need to worry about climate change since God will take care of them?
Does it remind you of Gov Sonny praying for rain?
Children dying from disease and starvation in many parts of the world and these Christians are so special God will intervene and make it rain.. is it raining yet…hell yeah, read this blog, it is raining idiots who continue to challenge our best science. I ask those bloggers, where do you get your info to challenge modern science…. the Bible.. are we revisiting the Dark Ages?
Do you people vote?
Oh my God; you do.
pat
September 16th, 2010
11:18 am
CONCLUSIONS
Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:18 am
Can you site your source for your 9:29 and 9:31 post.
These people don’t need CITATIONS! The bible is the inerrant word of DOG dontcha know.
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
11:19 am
no leg lamp you don’t
but you’re scramble to get it right the second time was cute
barking frog
September 16th, 2010
11:19 am
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:11 am
Science is the newest religion.
Belief in reality is so inconvenient. Evidence is faith! Better to believe in a 2000 year old fairy tale.
————————————————————————————–
You pick your beliefs. Reality slaps you in the face.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:23 am
The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.
Well let’s check you math. 0.008% is 0.00008 * 270 ppm (the commonly agreed upon baseline pre industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide level) is 0.0216 ppm, whereas in reality atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stand at near 390 ppm. Can you please explain to us the discrepancies in your calculations and statements? Thanks!
Dave
September 16th, 2010
11:23 am
“The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”
Guess I’d better do my part to ramp up my CO2 output to prevent this
granny godzilla
September 16th, 2010
11:25 am
No Dave, not at all.
Fact is your source is wrong. Climate gate was a drummed up scandal du jour. That has since been completely refuted.
Deal with it.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
September 16th, 2010
11:25 am
You pick your beliefs. Reality slaps you in the face.
I prefer beliefs that allow me to predict when reality is going to slap me in the face, and so far scientific methods and evidence works for me, very well, in fact, well enough to post text messages on a world wide broadband network with a supercomputer in my lap. But you have your bible, so you’re good. Good luck with the bible thing.