Comments retroproxy has made

  • CO2 Warming Potential Minimal & Insignificant

    CO2 comprises about one-third of one percent of all "greenhouse" gases. CO2 has already reached concentrations where it physically cannot keep warming the atmosphere even if more CO2 is added. This is because CO2 absorbs energy at limited bandwidths in the energy spectrum. Once all the energy available at those bandwidths is already being absorbed then no more warming can happen even when more CO2 is added. CO2 has used up its already skimpy warming potential. Anthropogenic global warming is therefore fictional. No matter what Al Gore, James Hansen and CNN say, CO2 hasn't and can't catastrophically warm the planet. The sun and oceans rule climate. On President Barack Obama's call to action on energy and climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • CO2 Not a Pollutant

    CO2 is a beneficial trace gas necessary for life on Earth. It is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food. CO2 cannot cause catastrophic warming. Once CO2 reaches certain concentrations in the atmosphere, its potential for warming diminishes since CO2 can only absorb radiation at limited bandwidths. When CO2 reaches a saturation point it physically cannot keep absorbing the limited radiation available. This has been proven through lab experiments while CO2 alarmism is based on computer simulations that didn't predict the current cooling period. The "global warming" from the late 70s to the late 90s was not unusual or unprecedented. Most of the warming was due to the positive (warmer) phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, more frequent and warming El Ninos, and a very active sun. The Pacific Ocean switched back to its cool phase after 1998, and the Earth has experienced cooling since then. The sun is unusually quiet as well resulting in further cooling. Humankind's paltry CO2 emissions haven't nor will they ever radically alter the climate unless our emissions become exponential which will never happen. CO2 legislation is simply a profit-generating/anti-capitalim scheme that will benefit a few while harming many while creating a new Socialist order. Let the ad hominem attacks begin.... I love how the CO2 alarmists get so crazy when then ideology is questioned. Alarming CO2 alarmists is so much fun.On Does a serious bill need action from China? posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • Obama's Inauguration Carbon Footprint

    The Institute for Liberty estimates that Obama's Inauguration will generate a half-billion pounds of CO2. That's very irresponsible for an administration that wishes to impose Draconian CO2 cap-and-trade profit-generating schemes and other useless CO2 legislation. See the analysis here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ObamaCarbonBigfoot.pdfOn IPCC chief challenges Obama to further cut U.S. emission targets posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • 2008 0.14C below average

    Romm's story is silly now that 2008 turned out to be 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07 according to the Met Office's Hadley Centre. So, the global cooling trend continues. For the record, that's no net warming since 1998, and 1998 was one of the warmest on record only because of the monster El Nino that year. CO2-induced global warming doesn't exist. Climate is driven by natural cycles, and man's CO2 emissions haven't, can't, and won't drive catastrophic climate changes. On One month's worth of data laughable as proof of global cooling posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • Just Some Data

    Here's a current look at the Arctic ice extent: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    Here's a graph showing data of ice extent back to 2002: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    And finally a graph showing the rate of CO2 rise alongside the temperature trend since 2002: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpgOn Arctic sea ice update: 2008 poised to repeat -- or beat -- 2007 posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • I'm a Skeptic

    Nobody guides me, Russ. I've read it all, including your propaganda. I once believed the CO2-induced warming myth. I've researched this topic extensivly from all angles for many years. I think for myself. It's highly dangerous when politicians start claiming the science is settled and the debate is over. There is no consensus. That's a lie too. Skepticism is a necessary component of science. If skepticism is suppressed then science doesn't work. A large number of scientists in a variety of fields refute CO2-induced warming and numerous scientific data supports the skeptics (the deniers as you call them). The fact is CO2 is an essential trace gas that hasn't and can't by nature cause catastrophic warming. Anthropogenic global warming is based on computer models where it is assumed that CO2 will cause warming while ignoring all other natural climate variables. Those computer models didn't predict the current global cooling trend. They predicted steady warming until we all burst into flames. Instead we've had no net warming in 10 years and steady cooling since 2002 coinciding with a shift to the cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The data doesn't lie. Only politicians do. I'm ready for more ad hominem attacks from the "believers" so go for it.On Youth delegates in Poznan stage mock 'Jeopardy' game to get message out posted 12 months ago 8 Responses

  • CO2 Not the Cause of Warming

    I am not a skeptic of "global warming" but I am a skeptic of CO2-induced global warming. The planet did warm by less than one degree celsius from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. No doubt. But it is purely coincidental that CO2 emissions rose during that period. CO2 comprises about 0.038 percent of all greenhouse gases (GHGs). During the last warming period that ended in about 1998 CO2 levels rose by about 0.008 percent. That's eight-thousandths of a percent. "Global warming" was nothing more than a continuation of the natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and isotope data from ice cores proves it as does numerous other proxy data. It is impossible for CO2 to catastrophically warm the planet and override the natural climate cycles. We are truly arrogant if we think our paltry CO2 emissions can radically change the climate. Since 1998 we've seen the climate shift back to global cooling exactly at the time when the Pacific Ocean switched to its cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and this coincides with an unusually quiet Solar Cycle 24 with minimal sunspots. During the warming period from the 70s to the 90s the PDO was in its warm mode. The oceans warmed and the climate warmed. The sun was also very active with high sunspot activity providing more radiation and more warming. Numerous data exists that disproves anthropogenic global warming. Go ahead and kill the coal industry. You'll all reap what you sow. I'm investing in a good woodstove so I don't freeze during the next two to three decades of global cooling. Use your brains and think for yourself. CO2 is insignificant.On Bush policies cause U.S. GHG emissions to soar 1.4 percent in 2007 posted 12 months ago 2 Responses

  • Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Lie

    It's a shame that youth have been brainwashed so terribly. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is one of the biggest lies in the history of mankind. Earth's climate is driven by natural cycles of the sun and the oceans and changes in the planet's tilt and orbit over long periods of time. 400 years ago the Earth began emerging from the harshest period of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The planet has naturally warmed by about 0.5 degrees Celsius per century since then. Glaciers began receding naturally as the planet recovered from the LIA. The warming is not linear. It has followed a distinct pattern of cooling and warming phases that coincide perfectly with sunspot activity and oscillating ocean temperatures. The last warming phase ended in about 1998. Since then the Pacific Ocean has switched to its cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and we've had global cooling since 2002. Nobody can refute this data. It is available to anyone who seeks it. Each phase of the PDO lasts 20-30 years, so global cooling is likely until 2020 to 2030 before natural warming will resume. The radiative forcing of CO2 which comprises about 0.038 percent of all greenhouse gases has not had nor will it have any significant effect on climate. Look up the data. Do the research. Think for yourself. By all means I believe we should start investing in "green" energy technologies but we shouldn't drastically cut CO2 emissions before we have a viable "green" infrastructure. It would be economic suicide. Replacing our entire energy infrastructure will take decades and trillions of dollars. What we need is the political will to admit CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is an essential trace gas that makes life on Earth possible. On Youth delegates in Poznan stage mock 'Jeopardy' game to get message out posted 12 months ago 8 Responses

  • I Love CO2

    The radiative forcing of CO2 is miniscule. CO2 is not a pollutant; it's not dirty. CO2 is an essential trace gas necessary for life. Increasing CO2 levels benefits the biosphere, but has virtually no effect on climate. It's a fact that concentrations of CO2 have increased by about 0.008 percent in ~30 years, and they now comprise about 0.038 percent of all greenhouse gases. How can any logical person continue to believe the radiative forcing from a gas that comprises one-third of one percent of all GHGs will override natural climate cycles and catastrophically warm the Earth? We've had no warming in 10 years, and global mean temperatures have fallen steadily since 2002. Climate has always changed, and will always change, and a little extra CO2 will do nothing. Here's the data showing global cooling as CO2 emissions rise: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2.jpgOn Some thoughts on the merits of regulating greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act posted 12 months ago 5 Responses

  • Bark Beetle Outbreaks are Natural

    The catastrophic global warming that carbon haters want so badly isn't happening. Global mean temperatures rose by about 0.7 degrees Celsius during the 20th century with cooling and warming periods along the way. Since 1998 there has been no warming, and since 2002 we've had a global cooling trend. So manmade global warming isn't the cause of bark beetle outbreaks, because manmade global warming doesn't exist. Drought, disease, and high tree density are the main causes of outbreaks, and since there is no global warming, the droughts were natural, however, high tree density may be due to man's forestry practices.On The New York Times blows the bark beetle story posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

  • Climate Measuring Network Seriously Flawed

    Significant errors exist in the collection of temperature data. We can't trust the data released by NASA because independent researchers have proved the data is corrupt. Please visit http://www.surfacestations.org/ to see the ongoing physical site surveys of the ground monitoring stations where the NOAA (NASA) collects its data. Other data shows global net cooling since 2002. I don't believe NASA.On NASA says October is sixth warmest on record posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

  • Unprecedented?

    All of these "record" low ice extents have been set only since the advent of satellite technology. Aside from observations going back one, maybe two centuries, we really have no way of knowing if the conditions in the Arctic are unprecedented. Therefore, we can't claim with certainty that CO2 is the cause of recent "record" low ice extents. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for all the carbon haters, but it's the TRUTH. CO2 emissions have risen and we've seen the lower and lower sea ice levels but that doesn't prove that CO2 is the cause. Numerous data presents a strong case that naturally changing ocean and wind currents influence the Arctic ice far more powerfully than the miniscule warming effects of CO2. Furthermore, sea ice growth has been fast and furious this Autumn with some of the fastest growth ever recorded, and current sea ice levels are right at the 1979-2000 mean. Look here to see all the glorious arctic ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic. .... And look here: On Arctic Tock ... posted 1 year ago 1 Response

  • Where's the Warming?

    Where is the catastrophic warming? The IPCC predicted we'd be seeing significant warming by now, but in fact we've seen no global net warming for a decade with a cooling trend since 2002. The fact is CO2 doesn't and won't produce the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC computer simulations. Natural climate drivers override any miniscule effects of the essential trace gas known as CO2, essential because without it life on Earth wouldn't exist. CO2 is beneficial for life. It is plant food. Plants thrive when exposed to higher concentrations of CO2. Satellite data has shown the Earth has actually grown greener year after year as CO2 levels have increased. Meanwhile, global mean temperatures haven't risen alarmingly. Over the course of the 20th century, they rose by a net of about 0.7 degrees Celsius. They've fallen by about that much since 2002.On Carbon is forever posted 1 year ago 35 Responses

  • Misleading Graph

    The problem with this graph is it starts at 1960. Widespread glacial recession began at the end of the Little Ice Age when the Earth began naturally warming. If the graph begins when the Little Ice Age ends around 1850 it's easy to see that glacial recession is not unique to the latter half of the 20th century. It began far before CO2 emissions became significant. Just because CO2 emissions have increased and glaciers are melting doesn't prove CO2 emissions are causing the glaciers to melt. Furthermore, numerous glaciers around the world are growing, including glaciers in Alaska that haven't grown since the Little Ice Age ended. CO2 isn't heating the atmosphere catastrophically, and it isn't the reason glaciers are melting.On 'But the glaciers are not melting'--Except ... they are! posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

  • Consensus? Right.

    You're living in a fantasy world. There is not a a consensus among today's scientists. I've thoroughly researched climate change for five years and have found numerous reputable scientists who disagree with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Real empirical science and mathematics has proven that apocalypitic global warming brought on by manmade CO2 emissions isn't happening nor will it happen even if we doubled our CO2 emissions. The IPCC makes its predictions based on computer simulations, set up to result in the warming they desire, and the IPCC ignores empirical data and climate history. Furthermore, numerous sources have verified that we've had no warming in 10 years with enough cooling to elimate all the warming of the past 30 years, and this cooling is still happening. To claim there is a consensus among scientists that apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming is real and then ignore anything that refutes that claim is asinine and anti-scientific. In science skepticism of any theory is healthy and warranted. When data that contradicts a theory is ignored, ridiculed, altered and covered up it's no longer science. Do some actual research and free your mind from the lies.On Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus posted 1 year ago 4 Responses