Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30922 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.


Cibolo, TX

#30920 Jan 15, 2013
You have serious intelligence flaws. You can't answer the question.

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#30921 Jan 15, 2013

United States

#30922 Jan 15, 2013
There's no question to answer until you explain why you posted "2H, 3H, 4He,.. " re the Sun.

You also wrote today: "Did they measured"

QED: you can't learn because you have no brain.

Cibolo, TX

#30923 Jan 15, 2013
Still waiting for your own work answer.

United States

#30924 Jan 15, 2013
WOW. "own work answer"???

To repeat: enjoy your ward's signs.

Cibolo, TX

#30925 Jan 15, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
WOW. "own work answer"???
To repeat: enjoy your ward's signs.
WOW you still have nothing to offer with the exception of useless babble.

United States

#30926 Jan 15, 2013
LOL. It's a free country, remember?

United States

#30927 Jan 15, 2013
No, it won't remember because it has no human brain.

Cibolo, TX

#30928 Jan 15, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. It's a free country, remember?
Yes it is continue with your useless babble.

Cibolo, TX

#30929 Jan 15, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
No, it won't remember because it has no human brain.
Sorry you have that issue. Now we know why you can't answer the question.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30930 Jan 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry you have that issue. Now we know why you can't answer the question.
I've never seen you post any substance; only trash!

Albuquerque, NM

#30931 Jan 15, 2013
town idiot wrote:
Now you're talking. It's good to see a classic Denier in-full.

Bay Springs, MS

#30932 Jan 15, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: The global warming misinformation machine -- essentially funded by oil, coal, and utility companies -- is all about the money.
Several skeptical scientists-Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels-have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.
the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air'that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue."
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.'
If it were for money, climatologists would have rushed to make the George Bush administration happy.(You DO realize the President appoints almost all the heads of federal agencies. Only a small number of agencies report to Congress, instead of the President.)
Political pressure on scientists
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change','global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[196] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[197]
So, yeah -- we can follow the money. I suspect it is not what your FOX pundits are telling you, am I right?
We've told them all this stuff. They don't care.

They have their agenda. Doesn't matter how stupid it is, obviously.

Bay Springs, MS

#30933 Jan 15, 2013
GeneLuna wrote:
It's been so cold lately, I wonder if I can burn my carbon credits to keep warm!
Yes, you can! Two for one this month!

Bay Springs, MS

#30934 Jan 15, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
Monday, 1/14/13:
Records were broken for the COLDEST high temperatures in 5 towns in New Mexico.
2 were tied, with one town not seeing high temps as cold since 1921.
The HIGH temp in Albuquerque, New Mexico was 28 degrees.
The National Weather Service has issued Hard Freeze warnings for SOUTHERN Arizona, right down to the Mexican border.
Global warming? I don't think so.
Au Contrare', Nickel.

This is definitely a sign of global warming...temperature extremes.

You really need to do your homework.

United States

#30935 Jan 15, 2013
wurx-fur-me wrote:
Dirty air is harmful to republicans too. You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that it just isn't there. That's just crazy. We all need to face the fact that this isn't a political problem, it's a global problem.

Three years later, still true.

United States

#30936 Jan 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Looks like nothing nut nut jobs the last time I checked. The warth has been in a warming cycle for the past ten thousand years. It has done this several times before.
Whatever you posted does not make any sense.


Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#30937 Jan 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We've told them all this stuff. They don't care.
They have their agenda. Doesn't matter how stupid it is, obviously.

At least some of them are probably paid to be deniers. This article is interesting - sorry if it's a repost, I haven't been able to go thru every page.


After all,

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!"
--Upton Sinclair

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#30938 Jan 15, 2013
You're very good at insulting people & calling them names, but not so good at applying physics.
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why the Body's Surface temperature DROPS from 33 deg C to 28 deg C when covered by clothing.

The atmosphere also increases the Radiating surface area of the Earth and can only COOL the Earth.

- ANY Laws of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect"?
- EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth?
You do understand that while the body's surface temperature initially drops from ~33º to ~28º C, it's only temporary, right? There are still metabolic (& other) processes that are changing potential chemical energy into heat, & since the blanket reduces convection, the skin will warm again.

You are misapplying Stefan-Boltzmann, or rather over-simplifying.

The atmosphere does NOT only cool the earth, it warms it. Do you understand radiative forcing? Do you understand why "greenhouse effect" is a bit of a misnomer when applied to AGW/CC? Maybe you need to do some research, & Wiki is a good starting place.



Here's a simple quote that explains why, without CO2 or other greenhouse gases, the earth would be largely frozen, & we wouldn't be here:

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about &#8722;18 °C. The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect."

That is, THE ATMOSPHERE HELPS THE SUN WARM THE EARTH, even though it's significantly cooler than the surface. This is a scientific fact. There are not just thousands, but many millions, perhaps billions, of measurements that support this.

Note that with colder temps, we'd have a lot more snow & ice, which would markedly increase our albedo, i.e., we'd reflect a LOT more than ~30% of the sun's energy. This would be a positive feedback to global cooling, & we'd be in a permanent snowball earth condition. It's only because of the slow build-up of volcanic CO2 over millenia that our previous snowball earth events were broken.

If you want to understand how to apply Stefan-Boltzmann, Beer-Lambert, etc, then look at these links:



There are others.

Here's another nice, simple Wiki quote:

"Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming."

Yes, we've reversed the Little Ice Age, & prevented the slow slide into another ice age by releasing CO2 & other gases. But we've over shot - by a LOT - & are now seeing excessive warming.

Calgary, Canada

#30939 Jan 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/20 10/07/yes-virginia-cooler-obje cts-can-make-warmer-objects-ev en-warmer-still/
Read on cooler objects can heat warmer objects.
People can WRITE about anything.

Funny how some people reading things never question what they want to believe or have other motives.

Fortunately there is REALITY to prove the TRUTH and it is entirely up to the individual to test their "beliefs" or "motives" to see if they are supported by FACTS.

In the case of Dr. Roy Spencer claim that cooler objects can heat warmer objects, there simply are no Laws of Science or Measurements to support his obviously false claims !!

There is a Law of Science, called The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that prohibits cooler objects from heating warmer objects and has been verified countless times over the last century.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”

There has never, even once in the history of mankind, where any measurement has been shown to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, including Dr. Roy Spencer's OWN experiment detailed on his website.

This is not a matter of belief, it is pure FACT.
It's funny how a four year old child knows from their limited life experience that a cold ice cube cannot heat up a warmer object and even insects know that if they are on ice they will be cooled, not heated.

Yet, mature adults will point to articles, like Dr. Roy Spencer's, and conclude from the TITLE of article that the 2nd Law of Themodynamics, all measurements and all human experience is wrong simply because they want to believe it, or convey a false message.

They will accept the title of the article as proof or claim it is proof, without even investigating the MEASUREMENT FACTS which are DETAILED in the article.
In FACT, Dr. Spencer's experiment to show that Back Radiation from a COLD SKY could HEAT-UP a warmer CAVITY he constructed, FAILED.

The CAVITY did not HEAT-UP, it COOLED, in total compliance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and ALL SUCH MEASUREMENTS EVER DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
So now I have to ask YOU:

- Have YOU actually READ Dr. Roy Spencer's articles including the RESULTS of his experiment?
- Where has ANY MEASUREMENT, in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, shown that a Cold Object HAS EVER HEATED a Warmer Object, clearly defined in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being NOT POSSIBLE?

If YOU refuse to answer these simple questions then I have one more question for YOU for EVERYBODY TO WITNESS:

WHY DID YOU POST "Read on cooler objects can heat warmer objects", when it is an OBVIOUS LIE?


Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blanco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man stabbed in Wal-Mart parking lot (May '10) Oct 8 Hazel96 79
News DMV experience a painful one (Oct '10) Sep 29 Riley 87
News Teen faces murder charge (May '10) Sep '17 Daughter of Ben 95
News Ousted Navajo Head Start leader alleges harassment Sep '17 User 2
SJC Fair Aug '17 Biker 5
A New Motorcycle Club running aroung?? (Jan '10) Aug '17 Riley 25
Sunny Aug '17 Kidd Rockk 1

Blanco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Blanco Mortgages