Global Warming; It is a SCAM

[Etmaus]

Originally Posted by jason yeaman

Exactly, and since they were there before the ice, one can deduce that it was as warm or warmer than when the ice over ran them, and before the ice melted to reveal them, yes?

No, you can't make that assumption...it's possible, however glaciers move, BTW, sometimes very quickly. It's also possible that the glacier ran over them in the process of moving in a downward slope from an atmosphere higher up where the glacier had some cracks and fissures and part of it broke off.

Glaciers are created by thaws and refreezes to some degree. They also often exist in areas just above where there are trees.

[Woodstock]

An interesting chart from Jason.

First of all, who are these guys, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann?

Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, who together operate a climatology service (Harris-Mann Climatology & Long Range Weather), say they simply want to present their evidence and provide advice to businesses on how to profit during times of extreme weather.

Cliff Harris is not a trained scientist — he studied insurance law in college — but has one of the most extensive collections of private weather records in the Northwest. Since age 11, he has compiled nearly 100 weather scrapbooks that detail major events throughout the U.S. and the world on a daily basis. Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, writes a weekly column called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press, and built a successful business off his long-range weather predictions.

Harris is also a devout Christian and believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather. "I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," he said. "Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it."

Harris acknowledges that people are playing a role in polluting the atmosphere, but he thinks society would be better off devoting its limited resources on ending poverty, curing diseases or providing universal health care, rather than investing in costly forms of clean energy or curtailing business to reduce carbon dioxide. "I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

Cliff and his wife Sharon have been married for 43 years and have 2 children, 3 grandchildren and 2 toy poodles.


Randy Mann, a KREM-2 meteorologist (the CBS affiliate serving the Spokane, Washington–Coeur d'Alene, Idaho television market) and a weekly columnist for The Spokesman-Review. Mann has an extensive background in television and radio weather production, and has provided on-air television weather forecasts to KCPQ in Tacoma, Washington; KCRA-TV in Sacramento, California, WPTZ-NewsChannel 5 and was Chief Meteorologist for WVNY Channel 22 and WEZF Radio in the Burlington/Plattsburgh area.

Mann discovered his career path at a very young age. Growing up near Sacramento, California, where snow is a rare event, he would constantly look to the skies waiting for the snow that never came. From that point, he decided to be a weatherman. Randy started an internship at the KCRA-TV weather department in Sacramento at the age of 15. Since then, he's provided on-air weather forecasts in Sacramento, California, Tacoma, Washington and in Burlington, Vermont, where he was the Chief Meteorologist for WVNY before coming to KREM-2. Mann also has doubts about the severity and cause of the earth's changing climate.

In addition to TV weather, Randy co-owns Harris-Mann Climatology, a long-range weather and commodity forecasting service and also provides the daily weather page for the Coeur d'Alene Press. He has co-authored 12 weather almanacs for various regions. In the past decade, Randy designed weather-related publications that include two North Idaho weather calendars, the International Traveler's Weather Guide, Tom Loffman's Sacramento Weather Guide, the Vermont Town and Weather Almanac (7 Editions), the award-winning 1997 Frederick County Weather Almanac and the 1998, 1999, Year 2000 and the 2001 Frederick County Weather Almanacs.

Randy has been married to his wife Sally for over 15 years and enjoys traveling.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm

http://www.krem.com/aboutkrem/bios/s...122a60dba.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools....asp?ID=176325

The TV Weathermen vs the Scientists

Based on posts in this thread, it appears the global warming debate is between the scientific community and the TV weather forecasters, a group of TV personalities without scientific training are taking on a group of scientists with Ph.Ds. and supercomputers. Who should you believe?

Considering this divide, there are some obvious questions that can be asked about the Harris-Mann chart posted by Jason. Perhaps Jason can answer them.

1. Harris and Mann give no indication where they got their data? Clearly they have meteorological records, but these records go back no more than a few hundred years at the most. How did they estimate temperatures over a 4,500 year period?
   
   When scientists publish temperature records, they clearly state how they collected their data. Before publication, scientific papers are reviewed by their peers as being an appropriate contribution to the scientific community. TV weather forecasters follow no such review process.
   
   
2. There's a curious lack of actual temperatures on the Harris-Mann chart. The terms warmer, much warmer, cold, and much colder are incredibly vague. When scientists publish temperature records, they provide temperatures.
   
   
3. Returning to Jason's question, "How do you explain the warming that occurred 7000+ years ago before the glacier over ran those trees?" It would appear from the Harris-Mann chart that there were long periods of warm temperatures that should have melted the glacier's ice long before now. According to the Harris-Mann chart, there were four periods of warm temperatures peaking in 2200 B.C., 1100 B.C., A.D. 250 and A.D. 1300. Why didn't the glaciers melt then and expose the trees?
   
   
4. Why 4 B.C. for the birth of Christ?

Enough for now.

[ender2155]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

I'm guessing that you have no trouble believing in far more implausible things than global warming.

If you watched South Park, you would get my sarcasm, and if you had read my posts, you would know I don't believe in human-caused global warming.

[worried man]

exspyguy graph posterized

that was some great research on the graph makers Cliff Harris and Randy Mann Woodstock.

-a christian weather scapbook collector who believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather. LOL

-the other guy Randy started an internship at the KCRA-TV weather department in Sacramento at the age of 15. Since then, he's provided on-air weather forecasts in Sacramento, California, Tacoma, Washington and in Burlington, Vermont. any education background? LOL

[jason yeaman]

Originally Posted by Woodstock

An interesting chart from Jason.

First of all, who are these guys, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann?

.

You prove my point so well. This is no different that people who believe a fat, loser politician who starred in a movie that uses frogs to contrast humans, CG polar bears that 'died' from swimming, and said failed politician got beat by a CHIMP.


It must really kill you that Shelley PWNT you and your frogs eh?

lol

[jason yeaman]

Originally Posted by Etmaus

You still don't get it do you? The graph you provides shows temperature changes. Yes, the temperature fluctuates, and it has done so for many different reasons.

You cannot assume that temperature fluctuations are not affected by current and relatively recent human activity.

You also cannot assume that temperature fluctuations are affected by current and relatively recent human activity.

You can, however, note that one important factor, co2 concentration in the atmosphere, has preceded global climate warming in the more ancient past (this has mostly been due back then...in the past to volcanic activity.) Note, that global climate change is a phenomena that includes temperature fluctuations but is not limited to that by definition. Changes in ice conditions, the levels of salinity and overall levels of the oceans, changes in the earth's structure in terms of different climate zones, the rainforest zone, the savannah's, the mediterranean zones, etc. All of this contributes towards the definition of global climate changes.


In the last 50 years and still now human activity is spewing co2 into the atmosphere at 150 times the rate that it ever has done so in the past. That's 150 x 50 versus, you know: how much a volcano or series of volcanic activity can go on, I don't know how long at 150 times less the rate...not twice as much or even a hundred times as much. This is according to government research done by US geologists.

Therefore, you can make the assumption that it is probable that human activity and the rate at which there is an increased amount of c02 in the atmosphere, this will precede global warming and/or global climate change in a way that has never happened before. We really don't know what will happen exactly, however, I don't think that we can assume this is all due to natural cycles.


Nonetheless, we humans, especially as of the last 100yrs or so, are notorious for trying to restrain, change or effect change upon our physical environments...why all of a sudden is it "okay" to simply let things "go as they've always gone" and not try to slow climate warming or change so that we, as humans, have more time to adjust to it with less stress?

Im not stressed...are you?

They make pills for that.

[Etmaus]

Originally Posted by jason yeaman

Im not stressed...are you?

They make pills for that.

Very funny Josan, I mean, Jasoon, I mean Jaasaan, I mean...whoever you are?

I guess I do need a pill today...

Seriously, did my post not make sense or are you just being funny? I did note a few typos and some awkward sentence construction after reading it, but I had to hurry off to work.

Are we done with the trees and the graph?

There is plenty of good evidence that we should, at least, show some concern and look at how we can make adjustments to both slow climate change and to also make adjustments.

[jason yeaman]

Originally Posted by Etmaus

Very funny Josan, I mean, Jasoon, I mean Jaasaan, I mean...whoever you are?

I guess I do need a pill today...

Seriously, did my post not make sense or are you just being funny? I did note a few typos and some awkward sentence construction after reading it, but I had to hurry off to work.

Are we done with the trees and the graph?

There is plenty of good evidence that we should, at least, show some concern and look at how we can make adjustments to both slow climate change and to also make adjustments.

i didnt understand it, so i took it literally and made it funny.

[Woodstock]

Why do conservatives deny global warming?

Many posts in this thread about global warming deny that human activity is increasing warming. This denial of human impact on the climate is stated as a firm belief, but without any apparent explanation about how they arrived at this belief. Is climate change like religion, where there are fundamental beliefs and truths that are exempted from rational thought?

Is climate change a political issue, and because Hannity a Limbaugh claim it doesn't exist, that is what conservatives should believe? Or must it be wrong because Al Gore and the liberals say it? Climate science isn’t really partisan in any meaningful way, but do conservatives think that attacking the science will score a victory against liberalism?

There seems to be some agreement among conservatives that the climate is warming, but that this warming is only due to natural causes, i.e. solar activity and/or the natural climatic cycles of warming and cooling. Do conservatives deny the existence of carbon dioxide (CO2)? Do conservatives deny the impact of carbon dioxide chemistry in the atmosphere? Why do conservatives deny warming due to increasing concentrations of CO2

Several TV weathermen have been referenced here to support the view that human activity is not influencing global warming, but these weathermen seem to be deficient in basic scientific training and seem to lack an understanding of CO2 chemistry and physics that one should acquire in high school.

The basic argument is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level. Why do conservatives deny this scientific fact and called it a scam?

[sunriseman]

Originally Posted by Woodstock

Why do conservatives deny global warming?

Many posts in this thread about global warming deny that human activity is increasing warming. This denial of human impact on the climate is stated as a firm belief, but without any apparent explanation about how they arrived at this belief. Is climate change like religion, where there are fundamental beliefs and truths that are exempted from rational thought?

Is climate change a political issue, and because Hannity a Limbaugh claim it doesn't exist, that is what conservatives should believe? Or must it be wrong because Al Gore and the liberals say it? Climate science isn’t really partisan in any meaningful way, but do conservatives think that attacking the science will score a victory against liberalism?

There seems to be some agreement among conservatives that the climate is warming, but that this warming is only due to natural causes, i.e. solar activity and/or the natural climatic cycles of warming and cooling. Do conservatives deny the existence of carbon dioxide (CO2)? Do conservatives deny the impact of carbon dioxide chemistry in the atmosphere? Why do conservatives deny warming due to increasing concentrations of CO2

Several TV weathermen have been referenced here to support the view that human activity is not influencing global warming, but these weathermen seem to be deficient in basic scientific training and seem to lack an understanding of CO2 chemistry and physics that one should acquire in high school?

The basic argument is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level. Why do conservatives deny this scientific fact and called it a scam?

Simple, it suites their agenda.