CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

businessandmedia.org...

More and more practical science types are beginning to see the insanity that surrounds the "Gloabl warming" movement. The actual evidence does not support the irrational fear being forced upon the public.

Originally posted by heliosprime

businessandmedia.org...

Great Find

This adds further support to the indications that the sun is entering a period of extended solar inactivity Especially considering how Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle right now, we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind."



www.abovetopsecret.com...'



[edit on 19-12-2008 by meaguire]

I agree with this guy.Its sheer human arrogance.
To think we are so big and important, that we could alter something like the earth.
Which is so huge and perfect in its imperfection.
The earth has its own ways of dealing with temperature fluctuations, gas buildups and over population.
How arrogant of us to think we have to control these things.
It goes back I believe to the elitists who think they are mini gods.

I will tell you what is arrogant. I find it particularly arrogant that a meteorologist would think that he knows more about climatological trend analysis than 98% of the climatologists on the planet. Something tells me that this guy needs to stick to reading doppler and leave the really complicated things to the experts.

What this guy has obviously missed is that global warming causes something known as "weather anomalies." These are weather related situations (snow in Las Vegas and New Orleans) that do not occur on a regular basis.

If I hear one more person say that global warming is BS because it "is cold here" or "snowing there," I think I will have to puke. For every place where it is unusually cold in the world, there are literally thousands of places where it is unusually hot. Face it people, global warming is real. The sooner you and people who share your opinion wake up and smell the hot, humid coffee, the sooner the rest of us can try and do something about it.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I will tell you what is arrogant. I find it particularly arrogant that a meteorologist would think that he knows more about climatological trend analysis than 98% of the climatologists on the planet. Something tells me that this guy needs to stick to reading doppler and leave the really complicated things to the experts.

What this guy has obviously missed is that global warming causes something known as "weather anomalies." These are weather related situations (snow in Las Vegas and New Orleans) that do not occur on a regular basis.

If I hear one more person say that global warming is BS because it "is cold here" or "snowing there," I think I will have to puke. For every place where it is unusually cold in the world, there are literally thousands of places where it is unusually hot. Face it people, global warming is real. The sooner you and people who share your opinion wake up and smell the hot, humid coffee, the sooner the rest of us can try and do something about it.

Correct,but that doesnt mean it has anything to do with us or is influenced in anyway by human activity....how can we seriously suggest that when animal farts cause more damage?

Problem - Reaction - Solution.

Global Warming! - Fear! - More Taxes!

It's all bs, the climate changes, deal with it. Besides, these baboons don't even really understand all the nuances of the homeostasic planetary climate system yet, all they know is the cycles (knowledge of which probably started the faux CO2 and global warming fearmongering).

It's all about the exercise of power and the empoverishment of man in the interest of an elite parasitical class. This much is obvious once you read into this. If they were really worried about this they would focus on the technology and the ecology, but you can see they just focus on the finance and suppress the clean stuff, in an organised fashion.

Originally posted by Solomons
Correct,but that doesnt mean it has anything to do with us or is influenced in anyway by human activity....how can we seriously suggest that when animal farts cause more damage?

Don't get me wrong, I do hear you. This is where we start getting into the hypothetical. However, I think it is a damn good hypothesis. It goes as follows;

1. Basically, we as humans are producing ever greater amounts of CO2(FACT).
2. As a result, the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is increasing to alarming levels(FACT).
3. We know that as CO2 levels rise, so too does the planets temperature(FACT).
4. And then, low and behold, our planet is getting progressively hotter(FACT).

To me, this all seems quite reasonable and rather easy to follow. Given that it all begins with mankind's production of an ever increasing amount of CO2, I don't think it is much of a mental leap to come to the conclusion that we are causing global warming.

Again, don't get me wrong, I too am rather "impressed" by the fact that we humans have the ability to alter planetary climatological trends. However, when you consider the sheer amount of CO2 we are producing, though "impressive", I do not find it to be illogical to think that we are capable of this once thought impossible feat. After all, we are talking about an equilibrium. Though the amount of man made CO2 is but a small percentage of the total CO2 production (natural + man made), even a relatively small addition could easily create an imbalance and throw the equilibrium out of whack.

Essentially, I think it is a combination of our creation of more CO2 and our parallel destruction of worldwide CO2 scrubbers (trees, algae, etc.). Look at it this way. Imagine a balance scale with scrubber on one side and total CO2 production on the other. Over the last 100 years or so, each year we have taken a few "grams" away from the scrubber side and added a few "grams" to the CO2 production side. At first the imbalance would be barely noticeable and have few effects. However, eventually, the production side is going to so heavily outweigh the scrubber side that the scale is going to tip completely to the CO2 production side. That is where we find ourselves today, at or very, very near the "tipping point."

That is the best way I can explain it. If you still do not see that global warming is occurring and the we humans are the cause of it, I do not know what else I can say to convince you. All I can ask is that you stay out of the way as the rest of us try to prevent the train wreck that is global warming from happening. Otherwise, the effects will be far greater than any of us would like to imagine.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I will tell you what is arrogant. I find it particularly arrogant that a meteorologist would think that he knows more about climatological trend analysis than 98% of the climatologists on the planet. Something tells me that this guy needs to stick to reading doppler and leave the really complicated things to the experts.

What this guy has obviously missed is that global warming causes something known as "weather anomalies." These are weather related situations (snow in Las Vegas and New Orleans) that do not occur on a regular basis.

If I hear one more person say that global warming is BS because it "is cold here" or "snowing there," I think I will have to puke. For every place where it is unusually cold in the world, there are literally thousands of places where it is unusually hot. Face it people, global warming is real. The sooner you and people who share your opinion wake up and smell the hot, humid coffee, the sooner the rest of us can try and do something about it.

Thank you!

gave you a star.

I agree with what your saying so much...

also wanted to add, people seem to have forgotten what true winter is..
must be all that warming that has spoiled them.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Don't get me wrong, I do hear you. This is where we start getting into the hypothetical. However, I think it is a damn good hypothesis. It goes as follows;

1. Basically, we as humans are producing ever greater amounts of CO2(FACT).
2. As a result, the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is increasing to alarming levels(FACT).
3. We know that as CO2 levels rise, so too does the planets temperature(FACT).
4. And then, low and behold, our planet is getting progressively hotter(FACT).

Then please explain this FACT.....

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

www.physicalgeography.net...

PS........please provide a specific list of the 98% of climatologist that agree with manmade CO2 causeing warming...........

Please show me the horrible manmade CO2 that made these periods of warmth happen.........

Current gloabl warming trash is about "control" of the masses. First through fear then through legislation to control every aspect of our lives.........

What's next a breathing tax, because the average human puts out more CO2 daily than any automobile........FACT....

And also look at this data......

www.geocraft.com...


[edit on 19-12-2008 by heliosprime]

Oh and one more thing....

So, human breathing process contribute to about 8.99% (claim#1) or 5.65% (claim#2) compared to the fuel burning related CO2.

micpohling.wordpress.com...



[edit on 19-12-2008 by heliosprime]

Originally posted by heliosprime

Then please explain this FACT.....

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

The "Climatic Optimum" you are referring to is more commonly known as the "medieval warming period." In doing some research about this period I discovered a few things about this recent history.

First, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

Second, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

Essentially, this idea of a medieval warm period or "climatic optimum" is naive at best (dealt only with temperature records in Europe) and most likely completely incorrect (based on more accurate ice core and tree ring studies). Basically, the best "explanation" of this time period is that it is propaganda or misinformation drummed up by polluting industries on our planet whose desired effect is to confuse people like yourself who may be on the fence about global warming. Congrats, you fell for it.

Originally posted by heliosprime
PS........please provide a specific list of the 98% of climatologist that agree with manmade CO2 causeing warming...........

Well, I will give you that my assertion that "98% of climatologists" may have been a bit optimistic. Given that no real study has be done to gauge a consensus, it is very difficult to determine a true percentage of climatologist who agree with anthropogenic global warming. However, that being said, here's what Wikipedia says: "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." I think that given the AAPG stated this, I would say that my assertion that the consensus is in the high 90s is fair.

f this doesn't prove the consensus then consider this. A 2004 article by Naomi Oreskes summarized the scientific literature on climate change and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analysed 928 abstracts (chosen objectively using relevant search terms) from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and found 75% of the abstracts indicated explicitly or implicitly acceptance of the consensus view; 25% didn't take a position on it and none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position. The author found this "remarkable". Essentially, as of 2004, no scientific literature published refuted anthropogenic global warming. This speaks pretty loudly to me.

I hope this clears it up for you man. If it doesn't I would advise you do some more research, use a little common sense, and ask yourself who benefits by swaying the populus that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. I think you will find that the planets richest corporations stand to lose 100s of billions of dollars if they are forced to make their operations less damaging to our planet. This buys lots of studies, misinformation, and possibly a few meteorologists and climatologists.

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM …

David Icke
The climate change lie has been in the preparation for decades and now has come the time to exploit it more than ever before. Obama said of his Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu:

‘His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action.’

If only. The fact is that facts are not the medium of the Global Warming Cult. It uses propaganda, constant repetition of an alleged and unquestionable ‘truth’, and control of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
This is said to be a scientific body, but that’s not true. It is a political organisation masquerading as scientific and it operates by quoting those scientists who sing from the song sheet and ignoring those who say its climate claims are nonsense.

This month the US Senate Minority Report on climate change featured 650 scientists challenging the alleged ‘consensus’ that global warming has been caused by human-generated carbon emissions.

By contrast only 52 scientists, together with diplomats and politicians, were behind the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers which has become the Bible of the Global Warming Cult that says ‘the debate is over’. Many of the ‘hundreds of scientists’ that are claimed to be connected to the IPCC are, in fact, sceptical or dismissive of the official fairy tale.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'

epw.senate.gov...

All this science on both sides is suspect considering we still don't fully understand how our Sun works. But the sun is probably the likely culprit in regards to global warming and most scientists around the world agree.

Despite four centuries of telescopic study, we still don't fully understand our Sun. But the scientists who came to the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society (held May 26–30 in Fort Lauderdale) are working hard to narrow our knowledge gap. They offered their most recent insights on topics ranging from coronal heating to the origin of the solar wind.

www.skyandtelescope.com...
www.boston.com...


[edit on 20-12-2008 by kindred]

[edit on 20-12-2008 by kindred]

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I will tell you what is arrogant. I find it particularly arrogant that a meteorologist would think that he knows more about climatological trend analysis than 98% of the climatologists on the planet. Something tells me that this guy needs to stick to reading do....

Thank God I was not the only one thinking "Who cares!" This man know how to look photogenic and read while pointing to stuff he has to look at a monitor to see. And....we are taking his word on anything because?

If they really think snow in Las Vegas disproves "global warming" then they do not understand global warming at all. If they do not understand what global warming is, how can they speak informatively about it?

[edit on 20-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Global warming has benefited from one of the greatest public relations and marketing efforts in recent history. You'll hear plenty from environmentalists about carbon emissions, clean energy, and the disappearing arctic, but here's what you will NEVER hear them admit:

Scientists have reaped MILLIONS from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming - into a cash cow!

These same scientists were trying to convince us the world was cooling just a few decades ago, when that's where the grant money was.

Read up on the carbon credit scam & so called "cap and trade". This "creates" a whole new paper trading / subsides industry. If this is allowed to happen there will be to much money in it for it to ever go away.

What Governments and Special Interest groups believe in is all the money that will come with the "carbon credit" scam and all the power it gives a government to do as it wishes against the will of the people in the "interest" of mankind

Companies are figuring out how to work the ridiculous "Carbon Credits" debacle to make big bucks. (and as they get paid, traders trade paper and real industries have to buy the paper and pass on the cost to .... wait for it... US!)

Rhodia, is a French Company, makes adipic acid which is a chemical used in the production of nylon. They have moved their operation to South Korea and Brazil. Why?

A by-product of their manufacturing process is the creation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is over 300 times more potent as an atmospheric warming agent than carbon dioxide. Rhodia destroys the nitrous oxide after it has been created and then claims carbon credit reimbursement for the green house gasses it has eradicated.

Rhodia, makes more money from this scam than they do from their primary business, They are raking in around a three hundred million dollars a year - more money than the whole of Africa is from Carbon credit reimbursements!

Also, Al Gore has a very big personal investment into bringing this carbon credit (cap & trade) to America.

www.capitalresearch.org...

Here is the deal, this whole Kyoto protocol is nothing but a money grab & power grab (you can't do anything without our "environmental" permission). Even many die hard global warming groups are starting to see that this scheme will do little to nothing in reducing carbon emissions.

daily.stanford.edu...


Global Warming - NASA Scientist Dr. Hansen caught again

Article Quotes - NASA Scientist caught lying again

vocalminority.typepad.com...

I for one did not know that this had happened. This is Gore's pet global warming gloom and doom prophet again being caught passing off bad data and when caught, they try to cover it up.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

vocalminority.typepad.com...

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

In addition, as the Telegraph article goes on to say, this is not the first time Hansen has been caught fixing the climate data! As Christopher Horner reported last September that the very same Anthony Watts caught NASA fixing the data by placing thermometers “… in Arizona parking lots, overhanging black asphalt pads, near cell towers and hot-air blowing air conditioner exhausts or next to trash burn barrels, … setting one just away from a chimney directly above a Weber barbecue grill …”

Horner goes on to explain:

This embarrassment came amid NASA also having to correct its data since the year 2000, which has been used to support many of the global warming alarmists’ “money claims”, such as Al Gore’s line that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past decade.

These power hungry nuts want the power to "punish" those they see as not paying them the money they want. (This is a great scam...awesome way to consolidate money and power).

www.telegraph.co.uk...

HERE IS A GOOD ONE.... Read this article.... It is an argument for Global Warming even though we are cooling... the response to the article is great.

www.guardian.co.uk...

A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade - But we have to say it will go out of control next decade!!! Fear & Doom = Our grant money!

It's hard to tell if there is a real problem when all of the "solutions" are centered around making Money and Acquiring unprecedented powers.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Well, I will give you that my assertion that "98% of climatologists" may have been a bit optimistic. Given that no real study has be done to gauge a consensus, it is very difficult to determine a true percentage of climatologist who agree with anthropogenic global warming.

Naughty Bluegrass, very, very optimistic.

A recent poll study showed that it's only about 97%. Only a small sample, of course, but it's an indicator.

4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.

linky

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

First, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

Well YOU sir have decieved those who read this post.......YOu have it complete wrong......here is the truth from NOAA's own website

Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 13th Centuries
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse going back in time prior to the last four centuries.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

The point again sir is WHERE IS THE EVIL MANMADE CO2 in 900-1200AD?

Even IF comparable (which is suspect based on methodology)...where has MAN caused the earlier warming? arrogance indeed SIR.....

As for YOUR 98% number still unvetted..........it is easy to say 98% of like minded members of a specific "society" agree when they exclude all those who disagree...........as is the case of you 98% number.....

Those who disagree are excluded from the count, yet, still only 98% of the koolaide drinkers agree........

Originally posted by infolurker
Scientists have reaped MILLIONS from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming - into a cash cow!

These same scientists were trying to convince us the world was cooling just a few decades ago, when that's where the grant money was.

Yes yes yes and Penn and Teller know everything, we get it. Listen, when the ritalin kicks in just do a quick little search. See how many new paradigms, technological advancements, new knowledge whatevers, that you can find that has not been raped for profit. I am not totally sticking up for climate change but the people who call it a scam just to make money have apparently just arrived on Earth a day or two ago.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


Just to clear something up, if the Medieval Warm period was cooler than now, would you please explain to us why wine production was so great in England and in the northern areas of England, where today, it is much too cool for them to grow properly?
I ask this since it is my understanding that it was much warmer during this time, warm enough for grapes to be grown and harvested without difficulty and wines to be produced. However today, the climate is much too cool for large grape harvests in England. So how could it have been COOLER than today?

I suppose the 650 scientists that disagree strongly with the "Man made global warming" group of 52 UN IPCC are heretics?

However reading the 650 dissenters list, there are some heavy hitters and actual professionals not just in the climate and meteorology field, but geology, botany, chemistry, and a host of science field that relate to this whole topic, that should not be taken lightly:

epw.senate.gov...

There is NO consensus on MMGW, and in fact, far from it. And giving Al Gore a Nobel was a huge mistake. Especially since it has been shown how his conclusions were false, or at least marred, by the data put in and the lack of certain data that is crucial to get a correct reading.

Plus there is ample evidence of corruption, bullying, and near gestapo-style behavior of the pro-MMGW side on those that dissent with their views. This behavior is almost like a cult religion where no one is allowed to question the "message" or "messenger" and if one does, dire consequences arise.

Also, I have yet to meet a single meteorologist who agrees with the MMGW nonsense. Tom Skilling is most helpful in this field! The people I meet at the Severe Storm Laboratory (Tornado safety) at Fermi Lab every spring all disagree strongly. So do the meteorologists and scientists at the Advanced Storm Spotter classes. As do the people I got to speak with from the NWS and NOAA. So I don't understand where this "consensus" is being pulled from?

[edit on 12/20/2008 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

First, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

Well YOU sir have decieved those who read this post.......YOu have it complete wrong......here is the truth from NOAA's own website

Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 13th Centuries
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century indicated that regional North Atlantic climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler "Little Ice Age" of the 15th - 19th centuries. As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century. The regional patterns and the magnitude of this warmth remain an area of active research because the data become sparse going back in time prior to the last four centuries.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Dude, do you even understand what you are talking about? I mean, I give you a quote that states that the "medieval warm period" was not warmer than TODAY and you accuse me of deception and post a citation stating that the "climate was warmer during medieval times than during the cooler Little Ice Age" (duh) and that the "Medieval Warm Period or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were...comparable to temperatures during the EARLY 20th century" (exactly what I already stated, that the Medieval warm period was cooler than TODAY). Since I obviously have to spell it out for you, I will do my best.

Temps during the MWP < Temps during early 20th century
Temps during early 20th century < Temps today
Therefore...(duh) Temps during MWP < Temps today

To put it in even simpler terms, for your sake, if
A is less than B
and
B is less than C
it stands to reason that
A is less than C

Quite frankly, I find it really sad that I had to explain your own citation to you. Do you even comprehend what you cite or do you just cite it????

Originally posted by heliosprime
The point again sir is WHERE IS THE EVIL MANMADE CO2 in 900-1200AD?

I never said there was any "evil manmade CO2" during the Medieval Warm Period. Given that globally it was not as hot during the MWP as it is today, I don't think that "evil mandmade CO2" was necessary.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Even IF comparable (which is suspect based on methodology)...where has MAN caused the earlier warming? arrogance indeed SIR.....

Again, I did not say that man created the earlier warming. I would say that the earlier warming, given that man produced very little CO2 during medieval times, was due to climactic cycles and man had nothing to do with it.

I mean, did you even read my last post where it was stated that ice core samples and tree ring studies showed that the global temperatures during the MWP were .03 degrees Celsius COOLER than they were during the early and mid 20th century??? Dude, I really hate having to wipe your nose and hold your hand on this one.

Originally posted by heliosprime
As for YOUR 98% number still unvetted..........it is easy to say 98% of like minded members of a specific "society" agree when they exclude all those who disagree...........as is the case of you 98% number.....

Those who disagree are excluded from the count, yet, still only 98% of the koolaide drinkers agree........

Well now I am almost certain that you did not read my last post. I already stated that my 98% figure was "optimistic." However, I then pointed out that "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

I don't know, I guess you can call every scientific body of national or international standing a "society," however, I prefer to call them the EXPERTS. Not to mention that I showed you that NO scientific literature (again, EXPERTS) published as of 2004 refuted anthropogenic (manmade) global warming.

Lastly, the only people being "excluded from the count" are either;
A. not a scientific body of national or international standing
or
B. not publishers of scientific literature

Quite frankly, I think these people should be excluded because they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about (don't belong to a scientific society of national or international standing and do not publish scientific literature about the subject at hand) and whose opinions aren't worth a damn thing...huh, kind of reminds me of someone.

Please SIR, if you decided to respond to this post, do so with some intelligence and understanding of the topic. Heck, if nothing else, please understand the very quotes you are citing and how they pertain to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

Just to clear something up, if the Medieval Warm period was cooler than now, would you please explain to us why wine production was so great in England and in the northern areas of England, where today, it is much too cool for them to grow properly?
I ask this since it is my understanding that it was much warmer during this time, warm enough for grapes to be grown and harvested without difficulty and wines to be produced. However today, the climate is much too cool for large grape harvests in England. So how could it have been COOLER than today?

No problem man. Essentially, though Europe itself may have NOT been cooler during the MWP than it is today, the total, aggregate global temperature was cooler during the MWP than the total, aggregate global temperature is today. Thus, since during the MWP Europe itself was indeed warmer than today, it stands to reason that the wine production would have been greater. However again, though Europe may have been warmer during the MWP than it is today, the global temperature was not warmer during the MWP.

Essentially, many people are incorrectly assuming that a warmer Europe equals a warmer planet. This is simply not the case. I hope this clears it up for you and I appreciate your respectful question, unlike that of the OP.