The people doing the study in the article linked below probably used some liberal carbon dating trick. (As a conservative, I will base my view on whether or not there has been extreme ice melt on what Nancy Reagan's astrologer says.)
<<carbon dating contradicts itself...do some research, MIT boy... >
Well, you should explain to me how it "contrsdicts itself".
It is amazing that MIT would let someone like me who believes in the liberal idea of carbon dating graduate.
<<By the way, the alarmists predicted much higher sea level increases back in 1990 than what has since transpired>>
Really? Show me that.
(At this point a rodent typically says "look it up".)
So are you going to answer the question or scream a bunch more jibberish?
The question was: What are the predicted sea levels for 2010 made in 1990? Higher or lower than reality?
Since you were mocking others (by spewing inane "analogous" terrorist comparisons) for citing ACTUAL climate data compared to predictions as evidence that the models don't work all that well, YOU put yourself in the position to defend your mocking of them. So please feel free to give us an example of how well the models work. You don't even need to use the sea level example.
Go ahead knock yourself out big boy. Don't make another diversion now. Did you learn that trick from Vermowitz?
Or does the emperor have no clothes? I think we all know the answer to that question.
So you know nothing about GW, but you mock others who question the wild doomsday predictions that liberals like you make based on extrapolation, assumption, and wild a$$ guessing? Does your intellectual bankruptcy help in your Acorn/moveon.org group discussions about GW? Do you speak authoritatively about "green jobs"?
Thanks for exposing your ignorance or unwillingness to admit you're wrong. By the way, the alarmists predicted much higher sea level increases back in 1990 than what has since transpired. This is but one of many reasons why they have lost credibility in the eyes of many. But you probably knew that, didn't you? Your lack of an answer said it all. You are a "lying liberal" (a redundancy in itself) so wed to his ideology that he can't be honest.
The U.S. population keeps growing. We are told that the record population is occurring during a global terrorism threat, so it follows that the record population is due to a high level of terrorism.
Thanks for that. That clears a lot up about the previous statement. You did forget the bahahahahahhahahahahahah that usually puntuates your insipid posts though.
So, is it your position that the portion of the scientific community that speaks shrilly about GW has had a consistent story in the past couple of decades? You know, about hurricanes, snow, ice, sea levels, etc? I'm particularly interested in your knowledge of their sea level predictions from, say, 20 years ago. Did they predict sea levels for 2010 back in 1990?
The Baltic Sea is freezing up much earlier than normal. We are told that the record cold in the Baltic is due to a lack of sea ice, so it follows that the excess sea ice is due to a lack of sea ice.
Perhaps we can get the genius "Vermowitz" to interpret this mouthful. Our tiny rodent brains are incapable.
Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. “In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,” he said.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed ‘science’ journal, Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
Schmidt and others also published commentary on their study here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_04/
Although inexplicably, for such a momentous study, published in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, there was one person with a keen interest in climate science who didn’t spot it:
With the help of the severe weather analyst John Mason and the Climate Science Rapid Response Team(1), I’ve been through as much of the scientific literature as I can lay hands on.
That’s right – George Monbiot and the “Climate Science Rapid Response Team,” in their exhaustive search concerning atmospheric circulation, global warming and the effect they have on winter in the northern hemisphere, apparently missed both this major study in a leading science journal AND the press releases on NASA’s own website.
What’s particularly comical about this is that the “Climate Science Rapid Response Team” claims to have scientists from NASA working for them, which means that a team of climate scientists, some of them from NASA, apparently can’t find a relevant study on climate change in a leading scientific journal.
So what do have? One agency of the US government says global warming will lead to warmer winters due to alteration of atmospheric circulation over the Arctic. Another agency says the opposite. Meanwhile, one of the most prominent pro-AGW journalists can’t even seem to find clearly relevant studies in a major science journal, even with the help of a “Climate Science Rapid Response Team”.
All of which leads one to ask the obvious question: Who’s running this circus?