Y2Kyoto: I'll Miss The Polar Ice Caps

Well, look, if we stopped taking these guys seriously every time they were hilariously wrong about something, we wouldn't be treating them as if they had any credibility at all. Then how would they save the world?

Yup, for well over a hundred years the "experts" have handed in their predictions and news papers have never been able to resist a good gloom and doom story.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/4845d3def4c1832b?pli=1

what does the national enquirer say?

and the latest 'cause' of gorebull warming is....

(drumroll)........ MILK !!!! (and chicken)

but it came from a university, so it must be true...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-05/uoe-wmi051112.php

Scientists say the 360,000 tonnes of milk wasted in the UK each year creates greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100,000 tonnes of CO2. The study by the University of Edinburgh says this is the same as is emitted by about 20,000 cars annually.

The research identifies ways that consumers could also help curb greenhouse gas emissions – by reducing the amount of food they buy, serve and waste. They also suggest the food industry could reduce emissions by seeking more efficient ways to use fertilisers.

Researchers also say halving the amount of chicken consumed in the UK and other developed countries to levels eaten in Japan could cut greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 10 million cars off the road.

This is nice. The prediction from 2007 is flatly factually wrong. We now have a prediction for this year. So far not doing so well.

I will have to check on this but I think that the temperature record for the last five years is clearly outside the IPCC limits. So (if this is true) it is not a matter for argument; the theory FAILS.

these guys are real einsteins; i took a mapping course and on the front of the course notes showed a prediction from the 90's showing Florida underwater by 2010, no scare mongering there

The predictions were probably understandable given the anomaly in sea ice that developed in autumn 2007 -- but at the time there was a divergence of opinion that either rapid melting would continue for several years, or the open water would feedback into the winter regime of 2007-08 in the form of additional snowfall around the arctic basin. The second hypothesis is what actually transpired and this had the effect of restarting the ice regime at a level more consistent with data from before 2007. I expect we are going to see another episode like this eventually, most likely after the next large El Nino event and probably towards the middle or end of this decade. And it may prompt the same debate and discussion then.

" after reviewing his own new data,Nasa Scientist Jay Zwally "

Not only is he wrong,he's compounding the problem by reviewing his own data in an attempt to give it more credibility,and even worse, he's using my street name.

Obama hasn't figured a way yet to monetize this part of the Great Global Warming Scam so he can pay off his buddies a la Solyndra.

So all the sturm & drang about the Arctic is being wasted until the grifters running the scam can figure out how to get rich from the panic.

Going for a nap,please wake me up when one of these GW idiots is right with a prediction..Is anyone else getting sick of watching..THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW movie...Seems to be on every 2nd day on some channel trying to scare folks with a GW BS story.

Likely still won't change AGW believer Lorrie Goldsteins mind.

Reminds me of grade six when teachers told us Alberta would be under 1-2 miles of ice sheet.

So who are the fools who renewed their NGS magazine? Has Dr. Frootloop joined the NG staff? Anyone miss NG cable channel if it vanished tomorrow?

Revnant Dream "Reminds me of grade six when teachers told us Alberta would be under 1-2 miles of ice sheet."

One day, not long ago I looked at my 1971 science text for non-science students. It mentioned the theory of carbon dioxide caused global warming. It isn't all that new but I don't remember us crapping our drawers. All I remember is 3 easy credits.

National Geographic has been getting way too political lately. I yearn for the days of naked tribes with the only politics being that of superiority. Look at these naked people doing their cute human sacrifices. Isn't it dear?

God I had Natgeo... patuie! I don't even want to spell the name out. Such beautiful pictures such, politically correct snootiness, such hoity toit hubrus in their writing.

Years ago I telephoned them and asked a simple question: "Can you please send the pictures and no print? I will pay the same price". Not that I thought they would.

The straw that broke the camel's back and caused me to cancel my subscription, came in one article where they described their ancestor and benefactor Alexander Graham Bell. In the article they gave apologies for 'old Alexander's excess weight by explaining that it "was the style of the time". Simmering brats.

ward, Lorrie Goldstein is a CRITIC of the AGW scam--a stern critic! So, what's up?

Why do Mark Serreze & Jay Zwally still have thier Government Jobs... Fire the incompetent fools! They faked data and LOST

I found this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

And this:

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/arctic-sea-ice-lets-see/

............... "TOP" scientists .................

The best kind!

If all the sea ice melted it would not change the ocean levels one bit.
Fill a glass with water and add an ice cube. Let the ice cube melt and the water level never changes due to the fact the ice has already displaced its volume due to bouancy.

Sometime back in the 70's, as a subscriber to Natgeo (I'm with you fossil), they used to offer a lifetime subscription for $100 instead of the yearly $9.95 or whatever the hell it was.
Big bucks back then!
Just wondering if any readers here took up that offer, and if so, has it remained in force, or have they come up with a tear jerking excuse to renege?

Earth day predictions by the "experts" in 1970.
Just love some of these.

http://quixoteslaststand.com/2012/03/16/some-lighthearted-reading-for-the-weekend-earth-day-predictions-of-1970-2/

AGW: an ill-defined hypothesis using no standardized system of measurement, having no falsifiable parameters and making no useable predictions.

My standard response to environmentalists:

"No thanks. I'm prefectly happy with the religion I have now."

Thanks for the link peterj @ 12:02AM, AGC was always my favorite.

Shouldn't you maybe wait until September to crow over this? I mean, there is a very strong chance that as the article said, the Arctic could be nearly ice free by the end of summer.

Of course, what does National Geographic know? Buncha scientitians with thar learnin' and books and all.

Gotta agree with you John. Science and neocons (not to mention education in general)are not well acquainted. Look at the stats of essentially any presidential election; the least educated states voted Republican. I've pretty much given up trying to explain climate change to rightwingers (not to mention the stem cell debate, the '5000 year old earth' debate, the birther debate, the flat-earth debate, ad nauseum). Their ideology is far more important than facts. I'd have more success teaching a monkey checkers.

@ steve at May 16, 2012 2:00 AM
"I'd have more success teaching a monkey checkers."

Perhaps it would be more rewarding as research does not seem to be your strong point. Just hang in there though because brainwashing is so very hard to undo.

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2725

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

We feel your pain but agree that teaching monkeys and the gullible youth is far more rewarding than trying to sway people that have actually done their research and know self serving bullsh1t when they see it. You hang in there, because Gore and Suzuki are counting on you to keep them in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. You know.....the 1%. Don't forget all the "experts" still enjoying the gravy train.

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

I have so much more but I fully understand this debate is like religion and you are a true believer. Keep the faith brother and teach those monkeys checkers. When you have mastered that you can come back and perhaps we can teach you chess.

And John, at the National Geographic they don't even know how to spell "scientist". They make their money selling pictures with the personal opinions of the photographers relating to said pictures.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

So many scientists that understand the funding will be cut off if they admit there is no problem. That in itself is the biggest problem. Also the vanity that doesn't allow them to say "we made a mistake".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

I am with you too snagglepuss.

BTW, I meant to call them "simpering brats".

I think it been about 30 years since I have even glanced at a NG book. Recently I happened to accidentally watch a NG documentary. What boring tripe!

Peterj

Your 'research' just astounds me. I think I'll trust the several thousand actual scientists that support climate change than some trolodyte and his internet 'research'.