Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown - Women, Minorities and Al Gore Hardest Hit

[Goodman]

Indeed it does. But if we want to maximize the time we share on this planet for millennia further, it would be conducive for us to not "shit where we sleep" so to speak.

We could be talking about the difference between Homo sapiens lasting thousands of years or only a few more hundreds.

But of course, we'll all be dead within 100 years, so what does it matter, right?

Here's where you are missing the mark-
You and others like you are wasting time and energy trying to make a case using arguments that are debateable at best. Then you try use an argument many don't care about or believe to get people to do something they don't want to do AND pay more money as well (carbon taxing).
You have a very weak argument, at least for convincing people to reduce consumption and pay more doing so.

Go to the root problem. Spinning magnets is not an efficient way to satisfy modern energy demands.
Wanna be a world famous game changer? Use that science you are so proud of to develop the next energy source.
I suspect it won't be fusion, but that's just a guess. AND if you can find the free electricity bonanza in the sky you will also likely get the dubious distinction of collapsing the world's capital structure. Instant anarchy.
So- head on down to admissions and change your major to EE or physics and start working on a real, true experimental science.

[LAGC]

This is what happens when one's perspective is based upon temporal things and that person ignorantly assumes mankind is in control. Man has never controlled nature and never will. You and algore can stamp your feet and attempt to manipulate the masses, but in the end you will have made no difference other than to cause discomfort for others while you feather your own nest

In a world where we already possess enough technology in the form of a combined nuclear weapons arsenal to eradicate the vast majority of life on this planet ... you're damn straight man has control. Probably too soon, before we are mature enough or ready as a species to responsibly wield such control.

The entire greater ecosystem really does lay in the balance of our actions (or inactions), whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

[LAGC]

Nice job. You got me to jump back in.

OK, of course Mars has a different orbit than we have, it has a different axis tilt angle than we have. it's further from the sun, it has no magnetic field, it has virtually no atmosphere, it has dust storms, etc, etc...

But so what? The AVERAGE global temperature of Mars as well as the typical minimum and maximum seasonal temperature TREND is well known and recorded.

When you compare PAST averages (of Mars) to CURRENT averages, one can see that Mars is also slowly warming.

Obviously it's foolish and pointless to say "Ah HA Mars is warmer TODAY, therefore it is also experiencing global warming". I never said that and I doubt anyone else has either.

On earth, on Mars, on any planet you study TRENDS that occur over the course of years and decades to determine if the planet is warming or not.

Okay. So it shouldn't be that hard to show me a study that actually controls for all those variables then? Because every time I've seen this "Mars is warming" argument brought up before, there's all sorts of links dating back from the year 2007 that have been criticized for not taking into account the dust-storm cycle on Mars, which alone has already been shown to wildly affect global temperatures on that planet.

And, Mars IS warming a little, just like Earth is. So are the other planets. The polar region of Uranus (which we can constantly observe because the planet it tilted 97.7 degrees on it's axis and points right at us) is showing a warming trend (NASA infrared data).

According to whom? The general consensus right now is that the sun is in a slight cooling phase right now. So it shouldn't be warming up any planets whatsoever, let alone our own.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...lar-system.htm

[LAGC]

Here's where you are missing the mark-
You and others like you are wasting time and energy trying to make a case using arguments that are debateable at best. Then you try use an argument many don't care about or believe to get people to do something they don't want to do AND pay more money as well (carbon taxing).
You have a very weak argument, at least for convincing people to reduce consumption and pay more doing so.

Go to the root problem. Spinning magnets is not an efficient way to satisfy modern energy demands.
Wanna be a world famous game changer? Use that science you are so proud of to develop the next energy source.
I suspect it won't be fusion, but that's just a guess. AND if you can find the free electricity bonanza in the sky you will also likely get the dubious distinction of collapsing the world's capital structure. Instant anarchy.
So- head on down to admissions and change your major to EE or physics and start working on a real, true experimental science.

No argument there, brother. No argument there.

Indeed, it's increasingly looking like science will have to figure out a way to get us out of this mess, because obviously governments the world over don't seem to have the political will to reign things in with current technology.

Either we invent our way out this mess, or die trying.

It would nice though, at least, if more people actually recognized there was a problem. So that we can allocate the appropriate level of resources into research towards a fix.

[Goodman]

No argument there, brother. No argument there.

Indeed, it's increasingly looking like science will have to figure out a way to get us out of this mess, because obviously governments the world over don't seem to have the political will to reign things in with current technology.

Either we invent our way out this mess, or die trying.

It would nice though, at least, if more people actually recognized there was a problem. So that we can allocate the appropriate level of resources into research towards a fix.

Yeah this is the root of my annoyance with the whole issue.
When I was a kid Kennedy said 'let's go to the moon', and we did. THAT is leadership. Algore could head up new research to better the planet's future, but he chooses to keep that huge house and tell us WE need to sacrifice while he and his powerful pals get stinking rich on our naïveté. WTF??

Induction and AC current was identified and put to use in less than 70 years by a tiny number of scientists. I find it hard to believe that today we don't have the tools to advance our access to energy potential.

[5.56NATO]

The climate has always changed, but this time evil people are trying to swindle their way to power and fortune as a consquence.

[Krupski]

Induction and AC current was identified and put to use in less than 70 years by a tiny number of scientists. I find it hard to believe that today we don't have the tools to advance our access to energy potential.

We are drowning in energy. The sun gives us over 1000 watts per square meter of thermal energy... unused.

There is tidal energy from the moon's gravitational pull on the earth... unused.

Why not build huge concrete structures, a mile or more square and as tall as the tides, then let them fill and empty with the tides. Put turbine wheels and generators at the fill/drain ports and you have "free energy".

Why not build massive thermoelectric piles, heated by the sun on top and cooled by sinking the heat into the earth? Just like an RTG, but the heat comes from the sun instead of plutonium.

Safe, clean, free power with few to no moving parts and almost no maintenance required.

Or we can keep squeezing drops of oil out of the earth and burning it (or pretend to be "green" by putting up a few insignificant wind generators).

[5.56NATO]

“Weather Channel” Founder Blows the “Global Warming” Hoax Wide Open

[Goodman]

We are drowning in energy. The sun gives us over 1000 watts per square meter of thermal energy... unused....

I fully agree. Apparently it is not in the cards to exploit the natural movement of Earth. I imagine it is to keep up the lie that energy is scarce and therefore must be expensive.

I tend to forget about the ocean tide generation just because the idea is (apparently) totally dismissed by decision makers.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

“Weather Channel” Founder Blows the “Global Warming” Hoax Wide Open

He doesn't take money from the gov't to get the required outcome they're looking for, so he can't be trusted or believed by the new religion. The resident climate warming freeloader propagandist minister will probably ignore the video and simply not address the facts.

[LAGC]

He doesn't take money from the gov't to get the required outcome they're looking for, so he can't be trusted or believed by the new religion. The resident climate warming freeloader propagandist minister will probably ignore the video and simply not address the facts.

I don't have the time right now to view the whole video, but judging just based off the first minute I can already tell you: meteorologists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The more extreme weather events due to increased global warming, the more people tune into The Weather Channel or logon to weather.com to hear more about the latest disaster. Hurricanes, flooding, severe winter storms/blizzards, etc.

As with most of these non-scientific sources, you have to ask yourself: cui bono?

[El Jefe]

Fail.

Its kinda what he does. He's made a career out of it in fact.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Good job!!! Thank you for posting that video.

Can't wait to hear Professor LAGC destroy this man...lol

We'll be waiting a while I think........He's already made an attempt to discredit the guy for actually having some scientific knowledge vs how the probe introduces it self to hisanus. Meteorologists that create a whole network are suspect but "professors" and gov't employees living off of grants that the gov't expects an outcome from aren't..... Isn't that just WAYYY too sweet from douchebag#2?

[5.56NATO]

Lol when the outcome doesn't fit your hypothesis, the outcome it wrong.

[El Jefe]

Lol when the outcome doesn't fit your hypothesis, the outcome it wrong.

Or, as we know is happening with this hoax, you cook the books, you torture the data until it behaves.

[El Jefe]

He must be hitting wiki pretty hard right now.

It seems to be what Obama voters do. That's my theory on why replies from certain sectors often take so long. I wonder if his research for the community college PHD he all but has in his pocket is all done via Wikipedia?

[LAGC]

Sorry, guys, for the delayed response. School is ramping up now, these first couple weeks were mostly review, but we're beginning to get into uncharted territory, so its consuming more and more time. I'm taking 12 credits this semester which is technically full-time, and between my two jobs: working 38 hours per week -- I might have to scale back. In any case, I'm left with very little free time. As much as I enjoy shooting the shit with ya'll, I'm going to have to restrict myself so I can focus on my studies.

I'll still check in here and there from time to time, but Kadmos will have to carry the torch without me for awhile.

[sevlex]

Meanwhile back at the climate lab....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/0...hs-nearly-2-1/

Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1
Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago September 3, 2014

Record temperatures are absolute – no adjusments needed. One of the biggest complaints about climate science has to do with adjustments of temperature data, such as we’ve recently witnessed from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and have been long discussing here at WUWT about what NOAA does to US and global temperature data via techniques such as homogenization which basically swamp pristine station data with questionable data from stations compromised by UHI and micro-site biases.

But, record temperatures are absolute, and there is no possible way that any adjustments can be made to such records. Otherwise, they become meaningless. So, rather than rely on adjusted temperature data, a good independent indicator of warming or cooling is the number of temperature records that have been set. While NOAA/NCDC doesn’t make it easy to track such things, I have spent a considerable amount of time manually downloading and saving the high/low records from each month of 2014 and compiling the data in a spreadsheet.....

Heresy!! Heresy, I tells ya!

Expect an ad hominem rebuttal in 3...2...1.

[LAGC]

One cool year a trend don't make.

[El Jefe]

Total bull shit, commie fuck wad.