Climate change hits Mars!!, What? No humans on mars! How can this be? Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

What is the coincidence that both Mars and the earth are showing an increase in surface temperature at the same time? Maybe it has something to do with nature, or solar waves from the sun? Maybe more research is needed here afterall?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece



Or maybe there is a Martian invasion fleet taking off for earth right now!

[Blitz]

Good Point Spectre.

When is enough....enough.
At what point, If I said we could be under the Kyoto Protocol by switching coal to Nuclear, would you be for it? There done problem solved, or is that not enough?

I've shown a ton of links and proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong.
it is a FACT that NASA admitted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Did this make national headlines that 4 of the hottest years on record are now on the 30's? NO

FACT: the 22 models used for the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) that just concluded were tested against existing known data and proved to be wrong! They predicted warmer temps then actually happened. This was reserched by Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, the U of Rochester, the U of ALabama, and the U of virginia.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...w-nsi121107.php

What was it about "Peer" reviews. Lets see here we have a billion dollar industry, "predicting" that the temperature will rise sometime in the future, catastrophy will happen and you have people at the UN begging for BILLIONS of dollars in wealth transfer to help other countries. Gee I just can't see why they would not sign up for accepting data that shuts down their system.

Here are some peer reviewed data for you
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...3a-b35d0842fed8

Oh I love the quote " An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears."

http://gaia.tribe.net/thread/d4411609-931e...df-8ac21cce3135

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html (Possiblly supporting the above case?)

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/...DE2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Ummm so there you have it, should we continue to clean up the environment, fix our energy issues, make the world a cleaner place for kids and grandkids... Hell Yes!

Should we fly off the handle, scream that the sky is falling, start driving horse and buggys (oh the horses fart causing co2 cant do that) and shut down every factory and become hunter gatherers.

Really look at any picture of the coal burining plants in the 30's, the cars with no catalic converters, mufflers, and 6 miles to the gallon and rationally explain HOW we are polluting more than we did 30 years ago.. I say BS.

[HammaTime]

I've shown a ton of links and proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong.
it is a FACT that NASA admitted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Did this make national headlines that 4 of the hottest years on record are now on the 30's? NO

Wow, Blitz, you kind of stubbed your toe on that one! This illustrates how incredibly easy it is for someone to make outrageous claims, post a link and claim victory.

Sorry, mate, but you've now bloodied your nose with this bit of flim-flam. If you had actually read the article you linked to, you would have read that the Quixote blogger who discovered the insignificant error in NASA's data agrees that global warming needs to be addressed by cutting CO2 levels:

One thing not in question, Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen agree, is the merit of shifting away from energy choices that contribute heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Mr. McIntyre said he feels “climate change is a serious issue.” His personal preference is to shift increasingly to nuclear power and away from coal and oil, the main source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Reading further, you would have seen that contrary to your outrageous statement that you have "proven that the models that are primarily used are wrong," the reality as stated in the article is:

Mr. McIntyre and Dr. Hansen also agree that the NASA data glitch had no effect on the global temperature trend, nudging it by an insignificant thousandth of a degree.

Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.

The controversy over the study that found the 22 models were inaccurate at predicting recent change is just one study. Ironically, you've chosen to once again cite something from someone with an apparent political agenda. The lead author of that study, Dr. David Douglass, is a scientist who is well known as a climate change denialist. He even concludes his lectures with a picture of Al Gore superimposed on a mushroom cloud. A real honest broker!

Next up you cite a document produced by the political hit man that brought us Swift Vote Veterans for Truth and smeared John Murtha, a recipient of two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor in combat, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinquished Service Medal. Now, there's an honest broker for you. If Morano tells us there isn't global warming and you cite it, well, damn, I guess we should be buying it! LOL!!

Morano's article is largely based on one paper submitted by a respected researcher in atmospheric physics, Dr. Stephen Schwartz. Unfortunately, Schwartz never expected global warming denialists like Senator James Inhofe to seize his research as evidence against global warming. I encourage you to check out his website here. You'll see that his research was very limited in scope and he was primarily evaluating the influence of short-lived aerosols in the atmosphere.

Schwartz writes on his home page, "No matter how the uncertainties are calculated, they are quite large relative to the estimated total forcing over the industrial period. In view of these uncertainties, which are due largely to uncertainty in aerosol forcing, it cannot be stated with certainty that the warming influences of CO2 and other GHGs exceeds the cooling influences due largely to aerosols, although this is likely to be the case."

He goes on to state, "It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock."

Personally, I'd rather not have to tell our grandchildren that we didn't attempt to soften our impact on the environment because, due to our myopia, we feared an increase in taxation.