START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

Chicken Little Climate Change

Posted 31 months ago|41 comments|332 views
Written by
Go to ABC News to see a report at the link below that the cities of Binghamton and Rochester in New York and Hartford Connecticut (both somewhere north of Kentucky) had RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES in July.

You global warming....er....uhh....global cooling.....uhh...er... climate change caused by human being NUTS give it up!

Please, please, please wake up out of your liberal funk and see what is really NOT GOING ON.

For crying out loud.


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
31 months ago: Binghamton, Rochester, and Hartford are cold right now. Yep. Wonder how that compares with the rest of the world? Oh wait, you mean you thought that the local temperatures of just three cities were actually indicative of the overall temperature of the planet?

I'll use real small words here: The world's climate is larger and more complex than an oven.

Let's say there was a city somewhere called Hotland. In Hotland, the temperature always hovers around 91 degrees Fahrenheit. Now let's say there was another city called Temperateland and one called Coldland. Temperateland typically sits around 72 degrees, and Coldland is, say, 38.

The average temperature between the three cities would be ( 91 + 72 + 38 = 201 ) / 3 = 67 degrees.

Now let's say Hotland experienced record cooling, dropping down to a breezy 84 degrees. Why, you would use this as proof, absolute proof, that global warming wasn't happening! Never mind that Temperateland is having a warm spell at 77 degrees and Coldland's cold-weather crops are suffering at a (relatively) balmy 46 degrees. ( 84 + 77 + 46 = 207 ) / 3 = 69 degrees.

This isn't even climate science, which you're obviously unqualified to even comment on. It's 5th grade math. If you can't look at the numbers and determine that the overall planetary temperature is higher, then your teachers utterly failed you.
31 months ago: I hate to say it, RSG, because I agree that climate change is bull... but your climate change post are starting to become another one of those "s-word" posts. TOO MUCH TOO OFTEN!!!
31 months ago: howleanne, may I ask why you think climate change is bull? We rely on science for so much in our daily lives, from antibiotics to the very internet we're using to chat, and current scientific consensus is that climate change is quite real. Why is science invalid in this case?
31 months ago: I guess I should have been more specific:

I believe MAN MADE climate change is bull. The climate MAY be changing, but I do not think humans have anything to do with it. People think we're SO superior and mighty that we can affect a HUGE planet, but I just have to disagree. I think humans opinions of themselves is bigger than it ought to be, and that people have a god complex.

We are not God (or gods, whatever you believe) and we don't have a large enough effect on this great planet Earth to change something as big as the CLIMATE.
31 months ago: The correct answer Howdy. Mother Earth could stamp us out in a blink of the eye and for us to be so self absorbed to believe we have anything to do with mother earth is absurd.
31 months ago: Leanne:
I'm sorry you see it that way, but if you're not paying attention, these liberal/socialist/nut jobs are on the brink of irreversibly destroying our economy, society and culture.
They don't take a break. I see this nonsense every day.
It is terribly vexing to see the liberal/socialist/chicken little/nut jobs while I sit back and twittle my thumbs?
S*****word?

Should I hold up my hand and ask permission first?
31 months ago: Heynoni:
You liberal/socialists are smooth. You are correct when you say: "current scientific consensus is that climate change is quite real".
Duh!
Believe it or not, I am no scientist, and I realize there is climate change.

If you assert: "there current scientific consensus is that climate change is caused by human beings", that is bass ackwards.

You are wrong.
31 months ago: "scientologist" posts... the "S" word.
31 months ago: Sorry.
Before I post again, I'll run around the house for a while next time.
31 months ago: Watch the walls. You don't need and rSg stains.
Howdy is saying, please spread them out a bit so you don't get painted. Me for one? NoNo care.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
31 months ago: I hear this "argument" constantly. "Big snow this year--so much for global warming (insert simple yuks here)!" Hard to resist the urge to beat them with a snow shovel.

This isn't an argument of human superiority or people subverting God (an argument which rings vaguely of dominion theology--not a great weapon to bring to a science debate). If you believe that humans have no impact on climate change, then Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy have spent their misinformation dollar wisely.

Consider this write-up from the National Academy of Sciences, November 2004:

A climate forcing is an imposed, natural or anthropogenic,
perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space. Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause the
largest positive (warming) forcing.

Annual growth of atmospheric CO2 fluctuates
widely from year to year. It is sometimes said that mean CO2 growth in recent decades has been reasonably stable at 1.5 or 1.6 ppm/yr. However, the long-term near constancy of the CO2 airborne fraction...indicates that the more steadily changing fossil-fuel emissions provide a good measure of the underlying CO2 growth rate...One consequence is that, unless CO2 emissions begin to level off soon and then decline, it will become impractical to limit additional global warming to 1°C.

Read for yourself, in context:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf+html

One month (or one year) does not a trend make. Deniers can continue to play blind man or unwitting industry dupe all they want. It's what they do.
31 months ago: How about this argument. Over 90 percent of the total GHG's in the atmosphere are water vapor which you can't control and are a direct effect of solar energy.
31 months ago: Jak:
Thanks for the info.
I went there and searched "research grants"
Guess how many hits that website "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America" had?
85,879!

That report and that website is intellectually corrupt.
I'd rely on me more than I would on them.

Are you waking up?

I AM A DENIER, AND YOU GUYS, RESPECTFULLY, ARE FOOLS.
31 months ago: Don't mistinterpret.
Thanks Howdy and Cypress.
I'll take and appreciate all the constructive criticism I can get.

Now Noni, and Yak and Siempre (on global warming) and zoolady, etc., I welcome your piling on too. I make wake you guys up one day.
31 months ago: redstateguy, if I read you right, your argument is that the scientists are wrong because research grants paid for their research.

If that's really what you believe, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing climate change with you. That is, in a nutshell, insane. I'm not even joking now, it's madness. You personally benefit from grant-funded science every day. Everything from pharmaceuticals and vaccinations to energy efficient heating came out of research grants.

You're right about one thing, though... You're sure as hell not a scientist.
31 months ago: That's right noni:
Do what liberals do when they face facts that do not fit in with their preconceived notions.
Quit!

(Actually, you go beyond what normal liberals do. You actually engage, and that is appreciated. Most never start the discussion because they are elites who would not stoop to mingle with the commoners. You are an exception.)

Bureacrats in DC believe like you do, so they think "I want to say there is a scientific consensus on human caused global warming, so I'll give millions and millions and millions to like minded scientists if they have reports that show human caused global warming."

Walla.

Noni, you are taking the position that can never happen, are you?

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago:
"One month (or one year) does not a trend make"

Nor does 10 or even 100 years, when you consider mammals have been on Earth 220,000,000 years, if you accept science's interpretation of the fossil record.

We look at the climate through a very narrow lens, microscopic in comparison to the scope of time, and say, "This is the way it has always been. We must be the cause of any change." Rather narcissistic, if you ask me.

It is this love of self that prompts us to throw caution to the winds of change.

When the next cooling scare comes about in the next ten years or so, (as in the 1970's, when they said if something wasn't done, we'd all starve to death because the crops would freeze), are we going to have to start burning tires to help save the planet?

Do your own homework, and quit relying on others to tell you what you think. Pull up the average global mean temperature for the last 100 years. Compare the global mean to the U.S. mean. See what conclusions about cause and effect come to you. Use more than one source for your studies.

Also, you might want to look up Viking accounts of their excursions into the Arctic, and their descriptions of the sea ice, which are considered accurate.

Check the climatological studies conducted on tree rings of 2500 year old conifers, also considered good indicators.

If you want to contact me in private, I'm sitting on a boatload of carbon credit vouchers that I'll let you have at a good price.

As they say on Wall Street, Let the good times roll!!
Well, maybe that's New Orleans where they say that....
At any rate, do your homework, I want the facts.
31 months ago: Redstateguy, there *IS* consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The only so-called scientists who disagree are being paid by oil companies to disagree. Now that's a financial conflict of interest. The oil companies can't afford for climate change to be man-made.

Similarly, the government has no financial interest in it, and in fact, it would be in the government's best interests to avoid labeling climate change anthropogenic, just like the oil companies, because stopping it will be very expensive.

So the government, against its own financial best interests, continues to fund research that near-universally concludes we have to do something. Why is that?

Finally, I gotta say I take umbrage with the notion that I should "quit" when you've shown nothing but contempt for science and even basic math when it doesn't fit your magical thinking. You're the one with the preconception that humans can't possibly cause planetary warming, who then rejects all evidence to the contrary.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: Hey Noni Noni,
Boy, those oil companies must have some deep pockets to pay off the 35,000+ scientists who , on record, disagree with man-made climate change. Maybe that is why gas is so high right now.
Definition of consensus: Miriam Webster online
1 a: general agreement : unanimity b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned 2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

There was also a consensus that we should invade the Middle East.
There was a consensus the sun revolved around the Earth, and the Earth is flat.

This is merely another case of whoever shouts loudest is the rightest.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: We're all getting sick and tired of the rhetoric and catch phrases being parroted by both side of the argument. I'm still waiting for everyones' research. Just the facts, Ma'am. Damn, Now I wish I had used Joe Friday as my user name.
31 months ago: Out Of The Box, which 35,000+ scientists are you referring to? It's an odd coincidence, since that's also the number of scientists who contributed to the IPCC report. Where are you getting the number?
31 months ago: Hey Joe in the Box. Really, or do you already have the info? Before I send any related info, who will you believe?

Use the worse 'truth meter' you can find before you list who you will believe. I need to clean out all of those links anyway.

I smell a baited trap.
31 months ago: "SNAP!"

Sorry, guys, can't jump in, got a medical emergency due to little brother doing a header off his balcony and now spending $$,$$$ a day in ICU. He'll live, just might have some (more) mental problems.

I will say that you're all half right. Climate change is real. Man does have an effect (small). And there ain't nothing worse than Mother Nature on a roll. I'm betting on her, and all the resiliency in her "natural" systems to cool us off or heat us up as she sees fit and all we can do is go along for the ride.

Off to the hospital, got to corral a neurosurgeon for some facts about that bone-headed sibling of mine. Can you believe it! No fracking hand rails and nine feet above the floor below! Gonna beat his butt for this one.
31 months ago: and gals.....
31 months ago: Take care of business. I hope for the best for you and yours. I'm glad for the 'SNAP'. Hold off until he recovers to make sure he feels it when you 'beat his butt'.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: Actually 3,750 scientists contributed to the last ICPP.
“AR4 is the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130 countries contributed to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.”
"However, government representatives do participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the much shorter summary for policymakers, or SPM, for each technical report. The SPM is written by the working group’s lead authors, reviewed in two stages by technical experts, and finally by government representatives before being accepted at the working group’s plenary session. Each SPM is released separately over the course of several months."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#Authors_Contributors_and_Reviewers

They say it's the best, so it must be true, right?

31,478 scientists have signed petitions opposing the Kyoto Protocol, stating the evidence does not point to MMGW

http://www.oism.org/pproject/


31 months ago: Sorry, I confused the 'SNAP' with finding understanding. I have just 'snapped' that the 'SNAP' was a neck...
Sorry again..
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: CG, I think you may have mis-read, I sense a certain hostility. Start at the beginning and catch up for a minute, you will see I am not against your beliefs.
I found out a long time ago that you can't totally trust Limbaugh or Olberman, the only person you can trust is yourself, if you are sure that you aren't lying to yourself.
I was only encouraging everybody to get off the well beaten path of rhetoric and division and do their own studying. Ferret out the truth, because it's out there.

But on a side note, do you know how much big industry and big energy is going to profit from Cap and Trade? You should read up on the billions, if not trillions of dollars big companies like G.E. and Exxon Mobile stand to make from your tax dollars that you will be spending on higher surcharges on everything produced in the United States. The government gives them an allocation of credits, they clean up their act somewhat, and sell the surplus credits to the highest bidder. Credits your tax dollars are paying for.
You're getting hoodwinked again, just like you got hoodwinked into Afghanistan and Iraq, only too late did you realize, "hey wait a minute, something's fishy here"
Not that any of this matters, the twelve or so people who read this can't do a thing to make any real difference.
We're just going to argue back and forth till it's too late.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: another quotable quote worth mentioning
Paul Krugman, Science Czar in Obama government
"And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet."

This truly is amazing. Krugman pretty much now holds the view that HE is the standard of good and proper thought. Remember, throughout history, the punishment for “treason” has been death. By the way, don’t think that people like Krugman are going to back off. Holocaust “denial” in parts of Europe is punishable by prison, and I guarantee you that people like Krugman and his zealot friends will want similar legislation in the USA for “global warming denial.” I wish I were exaggerating, but I see this coming.
31 months ago: Nope, Joe. Don't take it to heart! I really know what you are stating. I agree and have been stating these unresolved facts for along time here. Before you get insulted try looking at all of the global warming posts on this site. You will find that several of us are of the same opinion. Just dig. Sorry if you thoght the Joe joke was not appropriate. You brought it up.
31 months ago: Some old hat... a refresher course...

http://rantrave.com/Rant/Man-on-Mars-Global-Warming-on-Mars.aspx

Enjoy for the second time.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
31 months ago: Yeah I did, didn't I? No offense taken, just hoping I was being clear, back there. The alarmists state that they have an overwhelming majority, and because they say so, people just believe it without even checking.

What they don't say, as we saw in the 26th post (way to go RSG!!) is that the government does a line-by-line revision before the ICPP gets published.

31 months ago: Forrests are important. Forrests respirate atmospheric gases. 6 Billion people need wood. 6 Billion people need land. 6 Billion people need to eat plants and animals.

How much land is there per person?

How much forrest is there per person?

Did you know that the number of people in the world is increasing and the acres of forrest is decreasing?

Won't we need more forrests, for more people?

Now, who are the people so full of self-serving and false humility who think people can't influence the state of "nature" on G*d's green Earth?

I'd call them Dodos, not Chicken Littles.

Why don't you read about Easter Island, while you are at it?
31 months ago: TCG, thanks for the note. His condition is "stable". Broken T7 and a couple in his neck that aren't threatening, broken sternum and two ribs, plus cuts and bruises all down left side. They will wake him starting today after they fit him in a back brace. He is an idiot sometimes, actually most of the time.

Back to the subject.

I'm going have to spend a few days digging to get to the real data so I guess I'm going to postpone any more posts to this subject, which will return again and again. I do have other projects on the fire so might have to get a hose on them so I can better control my time online.

Suffice it to say that MMGW is not the primary cause. Nature is in charge and it is more a factor of the Sun and Volcanic dust and other gases released from same that control our long term climate.

Everything I've read so far points to MMGW as more hoax than fact and the general cooling trend helps point out that our short sightedness in weather phenomenon has caused many smart people to act real dumb and due to that we are all in for a very expensive future.
31 months ago: Peace six. Funny thing just came to mind. Today is July 16, 2009. When does the Hurricane Season begin? June 1. How many named storms to date? I guess we are in for a busy second half.

Or, does it have another meaning that the globalists are afraid is happening. It might just spoil their party.
31 months ago: TCG, caught me before I got out the door! I'm still waiting on last years horrendous hurricane season, where is all the "it's going to happen now" bad weather? Time will tell and I'm afraid I'll be much deeper under the poor house before the truth is fully known.

I'm gone till way past dark!!!!
31 months ago: OH YEAH! Last year. Seems like the natural air conditioner of mother earth might be slacking a bit here. I wonder why.
ArtMonkey
ArtMonkey
Tobyhanna, PA
31 months ago: I find the back & forth, here very amusing. Especially the incredible hypocrisy of some, to which they are humorously blind.

Red: There are thousands of scientists who deny human-
caused global warming. How do you answer that?

Blue: Well, obviously they're being paid by "big oil"!

Red: Actually, only about 17 of them got money from oil
companies. The other thousands did not.

Blue: Still... those 17 took oil money!

Red: Ugh. Okay. Well, how about the scientists who
support your theory? 80% of them took grants from
government agencies and private groups that just
happened to want them to come to that exact
conclusion. What about that?

Blue: Ermm... what about it? So what?

Red: Isn't that the same thing? Only, more widespread?

Blue: Of course not! BIG OIL!!! BIG OIL!!!

Red: But, if those other scientists took money fr...

Blue: BIG MOTHER****IN' OIL!!!!!! GAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhh.....!

Red: You okay? There's a vein starting to pop out in
your forehead. It doesn't look too good. Maybe you
should calm down and....

Blue: YOU'RE A BIG OIL SHILL!!!! YOU HATE THE EARTH!!!!
YOU WANT US TO ALL BE UNDER WATER!!! YOU RICH NAZI
SCUM!!!

Red: Umm... huh? Dude, I drive a '94 Jetta.

Blue: PLANET RAPER!!!!!!!!!

Red: Oh, lord.

Blue: AHA! I KNEW IT!!! YOU'RE A RIGHT-WING NAZI
FUNDIE!!!!! AHA!!! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG!!!

Red: Dude. Seriously. Not cool.

Blue: STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!! HE'S OPPRESSING ME!!!
HELP!!! SOMEONE!!! DID YOU SEE HIM OPPRESSING ME?!?

Red: Screw it. I'm outta here.

Blue: ...

Blue: ...

Blue: ...

Blue: ...I win.
31 months ago: ArtMonkey, you a funny guy, leave the MF out next time or they will flag you or delete your post. Pretty well summed it up though. Wins claimed by default are really not wins, just someone wanting to come out on top by any means available.
ArtMonkey
ArtMonkey
Tobyhanna, PA
31 months ago: Noted, Six. Thanks for the heads-up.
31 months ago: ArtMonkey, I see now that they caught it and **** it out. Just keep it civil and clean, I've been having trouble talking about female dogs, they keep **** them out too! I'm retired Navy so nothing you say will bother me but others are sensitive.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave