Real Climate Science

They want to follow a European transport model, but no one told them that they don’t have trains and buses in LA. Are greens actually as stupid as they pretend to be?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/

I would like to ask everyone who believes the term “global warming” is a “politically correct obfuscatory term of the week that’s being fraudulently perpetrated by the government” to please do some additional fact-finding on the subject.

Focus on the facts and the data. I suggest you start by going to the journal “Science” at www.sciencemag.org and searching the term “global warming.” Read some of the articles you find there. You will find that most of the debate is about what is causing the climate to change, not whether it is changing or not.

If the evidence you find doesn’t convince you, then write to The Daily Times and try to convince us to believe your “government conspiracy” theory. Explain to us how you reconcile the facts and data you found with your theory. That would be very educational for all of us.

Give us your facts and let’s compare. I believe if you can prove global warming is not happening, you will be the most celebrated person alive and a hero.

E. Eugene Williams

Salisbury

Williams is an associate professor of biological sciences at Salisbury University. — Editor

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110121/OPINION01/101210340

DavidNutzuki at 1:33 PM January 20, 2011
Part two of two.

If you still think voters will willingly check the YES box for a politician promising colder weather and lowering the seas by taxing the air, WELL, YOU are the new denier.

Climate Change is dead in support and alive in the media as all things too big to fail, fail slowly. But fail it has and any continued support of the CO2 mistake is dividing environmentalism and not helping anyone or anything.

Just remember, a scientist supporting the CO2 theory agrees that there will be effects from CO2. And they will range from negligible to unstoppable warming and it’s been 25 years plus, of warnings and predictions. There isn’t any crime being committed by a scientist endorsing the unstoppable warming because its in the range predicted. It’s a free pass for the scientists and just to show the bureaucratic cancer in climate science, all publicly funded science groups endorse and almost all private and independent science groups are in the “negligible” range of effects.

Obviously, our effects were like passing gas in a tornado. Real planet lovers are happy about climate change being 100% wrong.

http://www.latimes.com

Mt Rushmore to drown from global warming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

The whole “Climategate” debacle turned out to be a complete set-up. The steps that SOME climate change deniers are willing to take to discredit those who subscribe to the idea of climate change has become almost comical at this point.

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/39398/

Dobrowski expected he’d see the same trend when he looked into historical movements of plants in a vast area of northern California. He dug through a remarkable record of the region’s vegetation, collected back in the 1930s thanks to a federal project started during the Great Depression. He and his colleagues from the University of Idaho and the University of California, Davis then compared that with modern vegetation surveys.

“What we found was counter to our expectations,” he says. “We found that in fact the preponderance of plants in our study area had actually moved downhill 80 meters, or roughly 240 feet.”

The author doesn’t accept the obvious explanation that the 1930s were warmer, but he has collected some interesting data.

http://www.npr.org/

Can Hansen adjust the plants back uphill?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

I was afraid of that, I wish we could still control the climate like we used to during the Dust Bowl and Hurricane Andrew.

http://www.vpr.net/episode/50338/

Accounts filed with the Charities Commission and Companies House in the last week show for the first time the extent to which the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded in November 2009, is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100

.http://www.guardian.co.uk/

$4,000,000,000 for warmists. $1,000,000 for skeptics.

Some exposé …………..

“You can almost interpret it (the election) as a kind of death knell for the species”

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com

h/t to Marc Morano