Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

catoismymotor (34.75)

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall - Forbes.com

Recs

14

March 04, 2011 – Comments (7) | RELATED TICKERS: MON , BP , MEE.DL

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall - Forbes.com

Formula for success: (1) Post a link to a article + (2) add inflamitory language + (3) bake in the blogosphere for a few days.

I'll let my fellow Fools add ingredient #2. If you wish to take direct aim at me I'll be the one wearing a asbestos camisole and Red Wings goalie helmet. 

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 04, 2011 at 6:14 PM, devoish (98.52) wrote:

Stop the f'n presses!

Increased amounts of moisture in the air fell as snow rather than ice.

So between the third report issued in 2001, and the fourth issued in 2007 we learned we can learn. Now if only you can too.

Of course the fact that we still have warmer air, increased moisture, heavier rain, ice and low and behold, also snow storms as predicted and observed since the 2007 report should not matter,

in fact if one guy in 1970 can be found who said there could be some cooling that should be the person we use to to describe the vast majority who expected warming as wrong.

Thanks cato,

I feel so much better now.

 

Report this comment
#2) On March 04, 2011 at 9:33 PM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

I thought you would be the first fish. Thanks, Devoish. :)

Report this comment
#3) On March 05, 2011 at 10:28 AM, cthomas1017 (96.83) wrote:

Ah, the "we learned and now our models are perfect" defense.  Can't possibly be that you're just plain, flat out wrong, unless of you, we use fabricated data (well documented), sensors placed near blacktop & HVAC equipment, and hysterical predictions so far out into the future as to depend upon a "forgetful" media.

 

Sufficiently inflamatory, cato?  Or is "inflamatory" just another word for "too close to the truth so as to incite those who hold MGW no less than religious fevor"?

Report this comment
#4) On March 05, 2011 at 2:41 PM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

cthomas, very sufficient, sir. I look forward to a warm rebuttal. :)

Report this comment
#5) On March 05, 2011 at 6:00 PM, devoish (98.52) wrote:

cthomas,

I can not stop you from trying to find out for yourself where thermometers are located, and whether or not climate scientists hav accounted for their influence.

I also cannnot make you you find out.

I can only suggest that maybe it was a climate scientist that brought up the idea when they accounted for their effects.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#6) On March 06, 2011 at 5:12 PM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

What ever the case may be I still wish all environmental laws (100%) could repealed.  With the leash off of corporations, man would my portfolio haul some ass!

Report this comment
#7) On March 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM, dwot (67.31) wrote:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=56296daf-ad8b-4c7a-abe8-5ecafe349e22

http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/2010/11/sea-ice-breakup-could-hit-polar-bears-hard/

Sea Ice Index trend

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Phase change energy is enormously important and grossly ignored in looking at global warming.  Ice melting absorbs an enormous amount of heat energy and works to keep the global climate fairly constant...

What we see is the ice coverage declining, what we don't see is the ice does not appear to be as thick as it used to be...

 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/081710.html

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement