Priceless
(Daily Caller)  California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock opened a congressional hearing by reading a Washington Post article detailing the “unheard of†impacts global warming had on the Arctic ecosystem.
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and some place the seals are finding the water too hot,†McClintock read in a Wednesday hearing, adding that reports “all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.â€
McClintock went on, then asked President Barack Obama’s top climate adviser Christy Goldfuss if “this the crisis you’re referring to?†— referring to a new guidance her Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) staff issued on accounting for global warming impacts of federal agency actions.
Goldfuss said she was Very Concerned about this crisis, but wasn’t familiar with the report
“Perhaps the reason is because it was November 2, 1922 that The Washington Post carried this article,†McClintock said.
It turns out McClintock was reading a Washington Post article from November 1922, not November 2015 as many listening, including Goldfuss, likely assumed.
Of course, let’s not forget that the Cult of Climastrology is now trying to say that it was Mankind’s actions starting back in the early 1800’s that started this current warm period, because, of course they do.
Love it when little miss goldpuss smugly states that she is not a “climate scientist” and segues into a prepared warming rant about what she does know, that…since 2000 blah, blah, blah… and 16 hottest blah, blah, blah.., before the congressman shoots her down.
Pure gold!
Wow, the typist at the Daily Caller is also a Miss Cleo type mindreader, typing:
It turns out McClintock was reading a Washington Post article from November 1922, not November 2015 as many listening, including Goldfuss, likely assumed.
The Daily Caller typist knew what everyone was likely thinking!! This is what passes for journalism on the right. Sad.
In fact Goldfuss quite appropriately stated she was unfamiliar with the “report” (actually a newspaper article) the wily Rep was reading. Maybe she knew going in that McClintock was a dumbass Denier and had no interest in discourse, and was wary. She clearly didn’t take his bait although the Daily Caller typist knew what she was thinking.
The facts are clear, even beyond dumbass McClintock’s posturing. McClintock should have his “debate” with an actual climate scientist.
The Earth is rapidly warming from the greenhouse gases we’re pumping into the atmosphere. The correct response to the Jurassic comment is, “So? Please explain why you think this is relevant to today.” Anyone care to answer?
His reference to the phony so-called “Roman warm period” is a typical Denier distraction. Again, “So? How are regional changes in climate that did not alter the mean global temperature relevant to the significant increase we’re seeing today, that is certain to go even higher?” Anyone care to answer?
Is that you, little miss goldpuss?
Anyone care to answer?
Ive answered this many times..
It is relevant because CO2 is an ESSENTIAL and REQUIRED BUILDING BLOCK to all life on this planet…..
At 2000 ppm the planet THRIVED……..Species exploded into existance….
The lefts fear is rising sea levels….spend your 90 trillion fixing sea walls and all will be well with the world as more and more land is opened up to an ever increasing population…..
Do you seriously think….that it is even remotely possible for MANKIND TO ALTER THE WEATHER? TO STOP WARMING since 97 percent of all intelligent scientists agree that we have gone beyond the tipping point and that anything done today to curb co2 will be in vain.
Apparently conservative OK now thinks that puny humans are capable of causing earthquakes because of drilling tiny holes in the Earth’s crust.
The last time that CO2 concentrations were higher than they are now, humans didn’t exist.
So Liam OK maybe species will flourish if we hit 2000ppm but what will that effect be on humans, especially poor humans?
When was the last time the temps ever changed as fast as they are changing now?
Werem’t climate truthers as per Teach’s post claiming that global COOLING was about to start?
Teach what is the rate of change of temps? Holding steady ? or increasing?
Liam we didn’t even have plants on land until CO2 levels dropped below 400ppm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Did you get your scientific knowledge from Raquel Welch’s 2,000,000 BC?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
you climate truthers are as wacko as the 9/11 truthers
Watch Glenn Beck much ?
The Earth is rapidly warming from the greenhouse gases we’re pumping into the atmosphere
LOL, fool, that is exactly what the scientists were saying in the 1930s and 40s, over and over again. Today’s government funded scientists have removed the rapid 1930s warming from the historical data and made adjustments of +1.5C over a 100 year period so that they can claim we are now in a warming period and they are banking on enough people being too dumb to notice.
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blipâ€.
di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil
Your argument is that it is too late to do anything. Speaking of predictions, this is the 3rd stage of Denial.
One: There is no warming! NASA is cooking the books!
Two: Of course it’s warming, but it’s all natural! CO2 is not important. The climate has always changed!
Three: Of course it’s warming from CO2 we’ve added, but it’s too (late or expensive) to do anything now.
You’re letting your ignorance control your reason. Yes, stopping CO2 emissions will eventually reduce the warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2. Duh. The tipping point you so inelegantly refer to, is regarding whether the effects of warming will be just bad or really, really bad. Another 1C is bad, another 3C is really, really bad and another 10C (if we burn all the fossil fuels available) is inconceivably bad.
We’ve heard the argument before that humans cannot possibly alter the climate. That conclusion is more metaphysical than scientific, since the evidence supports that human-generated greenhouse gases are responsible for the current period of rapid warming. You may not accept evidence or like the implications.
Little miss goldpuss and the retard using their same old tired alarmist rants.
Even the Hag is ignoring your nonsense.
Climate truthers: the Sun’s irradiance is weaker now than it was in 1960. Any idea why the temps are going up?
Any idea why the temps dropped rapidly in the 1960s?
Unregulated cow flatulence.
the Sun’s irradiance is weaker now than it was in 1960. Any idea why the temps are going up?
Almost 20 years of El Ninos primarily has stirred up tremendous amounts of Water Vapor warming the planet. Ask any Astronomer of which I count myself as one and he will tell you water vapor has been a bane the last several years making observation spotty at best as we deal with an inordinate amount of Cloud cover of greater parts of the USA in particular. Cloud cover equals water vapor the main driver of heat….for you John.
Secondly as the earth warms, glaciers recede bringing more land mass into direct sunlight which then causes this additional earth to warm 3x’s as fast as snow or water.
Thirdly geophysicists surmise that the moon’s orbit modulates the influx of meteoric dust which may affect solar heating of the earth by absorption. Additionally studies by NOAA have been done to show that the moon does indeed affect the temperature on earth based upon the phase the moon is in. During the last three decades we have had an inordinate number of comets cross the earths direct path….leaving these trails of Iodized sodium in its wake. As the earth passes thru these trails they pick up additional greenhouse effects.
A new study by Australian and European researchers highlights the growing environmental problem caused by increasing salt levels in the world’s rivers. While many realize most of this is man made they have yet to realize that the earth continually passes in the Moons wake daily….what kind of atmosphere does the moon have?…….recent studies confirm that our moon does indeed have an atmosphere consisting of some unusual gases, including sodium and potassium….the moon leaves a trail of these molecules that the earth passes thru daily.
Fourthly We find a correlation between the razing of the Amazon rain forest and the rising levels of co2 on the planet. The clear cutting of 1000’s of square miles of rainforest has resulted in much more radiant heat as I showed in an earlier post that earth warms 3x’s faster then the same body of water…..This tremendous release of co2(by the clear cutting of these trees) along with its inability to now sink as much co2 as prior decades is relevant in any look at global warming.
Fifthly Seismic activity along the pacific ring of fire has now revealed a new phenomena called super pluming of which columns of super heated gases are driven from the oceans floor towards the surface. Superplumes have been identified under the Antarctic Ice sheet which could indeed account for the change in ice textures observed over the last few decades. Receding Ice in the poles would account for less radiation. By that I mean think about what happens when you stand near a block of ice….you feel the coolness of the ice radiating….even on a hot day….the less Ice the less reradiation of this cool air into the atmosphere.
Sixthly….The real key factor to Global warming is not Thermometer readings as the AGW crowd is liking to use right now but rather HEAT RETENTION….this was recognized by the IPCC and included in their newer reports…..Heat Retention data does indeed show a period of stable heat retention vs the so called RECORD WARM YEARS the AGW group loves to point too. In fact over my continual pointing out to NOAA that their records were not indicative to the catastrophic warming they preached their entire site was taken down and the numbers eventually went back up with newer more dire figures….with a weak explanation about they were in error because of a computer glitch.
Seventhly….Seven billion Farting humans who exhale co2 and flatulate methane have caused the earth to become a giant sauna.
And finally my top 8 reasons why the planet has warmed in the last 56 years…..No one is really sure….the co2 concept is just one of many reasons being pushed….Just as the left pushes the narrative that the right are a bunch of homophobic bigots who want black people to be murdered by police…….
The earth is warming as a direct corelation to rising co2 must be made in the context of a myraid of other things going on around the planet that all would have as much if not more dire impact on the heating of the planet.
JL here is quite a good explanation for that drop
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
Aerosols effect from sulfates were the major cause please note that while day temps were a bit cooler nights were warmer
let me no if I can help with any other questions you might have Direct Effect
The direct effect of aerosols on climate is the mechanism by which aerosols scatter and absorb shortwave and longwave radiation (a.k.a. “global dimming”), thereby altering the radiative balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. The key parameters for determining the direct aerosol radiative forcing are the aerosol optical properties and distribution in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007).
Indirect Effect
The indirect effect of aerosols on climate is the mechanism by which they modify the microphysical and, therefore, radiative properties, amount, and lifetime of clouds. A key parameter for determining the indirect effect of aerosols on the global surface temperature is the effectiveness of an aerosol particle to act as a cloud condensation nucleus – a function of the aerosol size, chemical composition, mixing state, and ambient environment (IPCC 2007).
astronomer huh ? I have a small Cat What do you use? Used it on a lot of great first dates
Water vapor? well of course warm air holds much more water vapor right? I mean YOU do know that I hope
Your “meteor dust” I haven’t seen ANY evidence that the solar irradiance upon our planet, in fact the amount is slightly LESS than in 1960, but the planet is still heating up
We have had 2 great comets lately McNaught and Lovejoy (of course not viewable except in the S.H.) Are you postulating that THEY have given us the 3 record breaking temp years ?
The “under sea volcanos ? Any evidence that THEY are increasing their production of the plumes? If they aren’t increasing why would that be a factor in increasing temps?
Also an astronomer. I have worked at a large observatory in Hawaii. My astronomy images have been used to illustrate two scientific papers. My primary personal instruments include a 6″ oil-spaced triplet refractor, a 5″ triplet refractor, a cat, a solar scope which gets the most use lately because I love looking at the Sun.
Next thing you know, john will be citing as sources blogs by failed comic book artists.
Oh wait……
It ain’t SkS, retard, but it may answer your question… so I doubt you’ll read it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/06/scientists-confirm-existence-of-largest-single-volcano-on-earth-massive-underwater-volcano-rivals-biggest-in-solar-system/
Nice JGlanton. I am a geologist with a passion for astronomy. As with all amateur astronomers you can never have enough scopes.
The cream of my crop is an Explore Scientific 6 inch(152mm) Carbon Fiber Apochromatic Refractor on a Celestron DX mount and an 18 inch ultra compact Obsession with Argo Navis setting circles and Servo Cat go to.
I use Naglers, and pentax eyepieces and I have found that the Explore Scientific 82 degree eyepieces are a real pleasure to use for the price range. As an old fart I need the wide field for more light gathering as my eyes just dont want to play anymore.
Ive never had the time to do any astrophotography as my job has kept me pretty busy for the last thirty something years…
@John
The simple point that I was trying to make is that there are MANY FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE WEATHER, HEAT and our Climate….NOT JUST CO2. I listed a few of them…I could go on for hours listing factors that affect our weather besides CO2.
[…] our friend William Teach over at the Pirate’s Cove, comes […]
I love reading this blog just to see the disturbed and sky-is-falling rhetoric by the usual gang. I do enjoy how they freak out about the latest trendy crisis and wave their flags of virtue. However, all their butthurt hysterics ignores a huge point: they aren’t convincing anyone.
Keep calling people deniers, because that tactic has worked oh so well. Keep telling people that they are anti-science, because that’s a winner, too. I know you’ll never get it, but to convince someone means to respect them first.
It’s maybe a little sad, and maybe I should feel guilty to see such Kodachrome displays of mental disorder, but it’s cathartic all the same.
See John and Jeffrey? You do have a purpose in life. It is to make us all laugh at your insufficient persuasion skills and your grasp of logic and truth. I do hope that you have some good blood pressure meds, though. If you stroke out, I’ll truly miss my fix of semi-weekly idiocy.
I just looked back at what you linked John.
Did you really just claim that we never had plants on this planted until the PPM of co2 dropped below 400?
Please John get your information from something besides WIKI. It is written by people with either a political, or Cultural agenda and the facts are often distorted and written in such a way as to imply something that is not necessarily true.
However suffice it to say that for the first roughly 3.5 billion years the earth was in its formation and transformation stages……The atmosphere was not conducive to the evolution of plants or animals and in fact life on this planet evolved in a highly ACIDIC ocean caused by a planet that was facing a crisis where co2 was at least 7000 PPM and that Oxygen was in danger of extinction over both Nitrogen and CO2. But the earth found a way to end this oxygen crisis and the rest is history….Ill let you study up on that as well.
Ever heard of Pangaea
Do a little study on your own John. There are several good books out there that give the definitive facts before all this weather related nonsense become such a hot button topic. Science was science without a political agenda and the truth was more important than the spin.
Buried way down at the bottom of your link I found something interesting…..
. A 2005 review of 12 experiments at 475-600 ppm showed an average gain of 17% in crop yield, with legumes typically showing a greater response than other species, and C4 plants generally showing less.
I will say it again…..WHY HAVENT YOU FIXED THE PROBLEM and if you really want to FIX THE PROBLEM you would be forcibly preventing the clear cutting of the Amazon rain forest.
Deforestation is the primary reason why co2 has exponentially skyrocketed during the last 30 years.
Shadow,
You don’t understand. Just because telling the truth falls on deaf ears doesn’t mean one shouldn’t continue telling the truth.
Climate realists aren’t trying to persuade deniers, who are unpersuadable. If one is not persuaded by the overwhelming evidence in support of AGW, what will it take to persuade them? Polls show that most US non-scientists mistakenly believe that scientists are having a lively scientific debate over global warming – but they are not.
Deniers attack the climate scientists professionally and personally, accusing them of crimes and indiscretions. In fact, the core of the denier movement is that ALL the evidence supporting the theory of AGW is fraudulent, corrupted, flawed, false or forged. Ironically, the only proven (and corrected) corrupted evidence was Jon Christy and Roy Spencer’s underestimates of warming with their early UAH fiasco.
Right wingers like to mock and ridicule but always feel victimized when they’re subjected to the same. Their ploy is to hold liberals to a different standard.
If you consider yourself a scientific skeptic, by all means make a scientific argument related to global warming. If your objective is, independent of all evidence, to “prove” that AGW isn’t occurring then you’re likely to be called a denier.
Laim,
I give you credit for at least trying to reason.
Certainly deforestation has contributed to the steady increase in atmospheric CO2, but the primary reason is from CO2 added from our burning of fossil fuels.
Should governments restrict individuals, farmers and corporations from logging and deforestation??