The thing about 1922 is that there was a tiny fraction of the man made greenhouse gas produced in comparison to today.

LOL_ thanks JPM for helping us out on that one brothah.

Well that just goes to show how dangerous global warming is -- IT CAN GO BACK IN TIME PEOPLE!

What's old is new again..............

"But, you know how the global warming alarmists are -- don't let facts or common sense get in the way of furthering that agenda!"

Unlike global warming deniers who are all objective, detached observers simply seeking the truth, whatever it may be.

"Maybe, just maybe, the climate does get warmer for periods of time."

And maybe, just maybe, human activity has an effect on the environment.

But, hey, if a well-respected global climatologist such as yourself says it ain't so, then who am I to argue?

Really, Cassy, you should stick to subjects you know something about. What that is exactly, I'm not sure, but there must be something. Maybe Princess Barbie?

And thats before there were to many cars passenger planes and before linburg flew acccross the atlantic so AL GORE is a liar and the ENVIRMENTAL DEFENSE FUND is guilty of false and misleaading advertising using those scandolous tv ads using kids Someone should sue not only AL GORE but the greens as well

People who use terms like "the science is settled" are completely ignorant as to what "science" is.

People who declare "the debate is over" know that they would the loose the debate were it to continue.

This is just one example of the ways in which the uniqueness of recent warming is still in dispute - despite propagandists claiming otherwise.

"IT CAN GO BACK IN TIME PEOPLE!"

LMAO!! :D :D

The global temperatures have actually been DROPPING since 2001, and 1998 was the last year which showed any significant warming. So those still arguing that "warming is settled" are either STUPID, LIARS, or BOTH.

When I was a lad, we talked about "climate change" a lot. We just used the older, less-trendy term for it: "weather."

The global temperatures have actually been DROPPING since 2001, and 1998 was the last year which showed any significant warming.

Not.

">Top 5 Warmest Years Worldwide Since the 1890s 1. 2005 2. 1998 3. 2002 4. 2003 5. 2006

When I was a lad, we talked about "climate change" a lot. We just used the older, less-trendy term for it: "weather."

If you don't know the difference between "climate" and "weather", you shouldn't lecture those who do. Even most people who don't buy into global warming understand at least that much.

I can beat your 1922. The New York Times started the climate change scare in 1895.

That's right - eighteen ninety-five.

The real question is whether in the age of Google and instant, easy, research, if we're going to keep falling for this crap.

The real question is whether in the age of Google and instant, easy, research, if we're going to keep falling for this crap.

Yeah, for instance, if we didn't have Google, we wouldn't know that the UK experienced its coldest temperature on record in 1895. Or that NYC had its coldest July 4th ever in 1895. Or its second coldest Dec. 13. Or that in 1895, Florida suffered a cold wave that ruined the coconut and pineapple crops. Or that Houston had a blizzard. Or that...

Not that those prove anything. Except that people who cite individual events instead of long-term trends shouldn't be taken seriously.

After all, if you find a single contrary media fluff piece from 1895 or 1922, that proves that the majority of world scientists today are wrong, doesn't it?

Hey, if we can find a NYT article from 100 years ago that says nice things about Iraq, does that mean that we can end the war?

Of course, Brian does not tell us which of the several different versions of temperature series he wants to cite to, as we've already discussed in another thread, global temp series have severe credibility problems currently.

If I didn't have the internet, Brian, I wouldn't know that the infamous hockey stick graph was total crap and quite a few other things scientists have done wrt this latest climate change scare - and how the media in it's turn hyped what the scientists said.

Of course, Brian does not tell us which of the several different versions of temperature series he wants to cite to, as we've already discussed in another thread, global temp series have severe credibility problems currently.

No, actually in that "other thread" you just ignored those who punched large gaping holes in your arguments.

Great find!

"And maybe, just maybe, human activity has an effect on the environment."

Sorry, max, too many "maybes" used without even one source link makes your rebuttal pretty weak even as a layman.

At least use the same kind of authority you're looking for in naking such a comment. In this case, actually the only word that save you was "maybe".

Another opinion:

"There is another theory of global warming and cooling that Gore does not address in An Inconvenient Truth. The Solar/Cosmic Ray Theory posits that cosmic rays, not humans, cause climate change. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2007) by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder is the first book to be published on this subject. Svensmark proposed this theory in 1996 and supplies the scientific input for the book. Calder, a British science writer, "strung the words together," as he puts it. He does this very well and explains Svensmark's theory in an engaging and easily understandable way. It will be published in the U.S. March 25 (I obtained my copy from the UK, where it was published last month)."

Brian, no one - least of mantis - punched any holes in my claims. The reason you don't understand this is because - like Barney - you have no clue what the discussion is even about. Which is the lack of transparency in the data series in question, the lack of reliability in the collection and the fact that the temperature series in question include unjustified and undocumented adjustments.

Interestingly, NASA recently announced that rather than clean up GISS, they are going to cease publication.

That spoke volumes - unlike your empty comments.

hahaha. Brain wants to talk about people who shouldn't be taken seriously?

After all, the single largest emitter of methane in the world is cow farts.

The cow's system is such as they cannot emit gases. By nature a cow's digestive tract is more efficient than a humans' or that matter a horse (which do fart btw). So the next time someone says that a cow farts, tell them to go jump into a lake.

Bwahahaha!!

Former Global Warming Activist: Equations Used In Super-Awesome Computer Models Completely Wrong; Runaway Unlimited Greehnouse Warming Impossible

http://minx.cc/?post=258152

Stick AL GORE in the WAYBAC MACHINE and MR PEABODY can have SHERMIN set in for 1922 and dont give gore a fan to ccol himself off