How'd you guys know my nickname was Global Warming?
In all seriousness, anyone who thinks that a snowstorm in VA means that global warming isn't legitimate has no business being in a position of leadership. Ask any middle school kid to distinguishing between "global" vs "local", "climate" vs "weather", and "trend" vs "anecdote".
Okay I understand that a lot of Republicans are against measures to curb climate change, but both Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and Senator John McCain, at an event during the 2009 campaign said that they believe in anthropogenic global warming and that we should probably do SOMETHING to stop it.
I've never heard of a state party breaking with it's own governor. Odd...
Some people cannot determine the difference between climate and weather and that one snow event does not determine the entire worlds weather pattern and temperature.
Here's some REAL SCIENCE... [icecap. us / images / uploads / Gray _ Rebuttal _ to _ Emanuel. pdf], [wattsupwiththat. com / 2009 / 12 / 04 / jo - nova - finds - the - medieval - warm - period/], [co2science. org], [sciencemag. org / cgi / content / short / 291 / 5508 / 1497] ...that should be a good start.
Thanks for making the effort, but that's not real science.
1. The essay by William Gray is full of factual errors (which is probably why it wasn't published anywhere else but a lunatic web site). Here's more about the opinions of Professor Gray:
logicalscience. com/skeptics/Gray.html
2. Like the Gray shpeel, the entry from the BLOG of Anthony Watts is also not peer reviewed. What little review there is (in the comments by Slioch) rips the piece to shreds.
3. Your last link is broken, but I found the article:
dx. doi. org/10.1126/ science.291.5508.1497
This is real science; good work. But the peer review refutes the argument set forth by Dr. Broecker (who is an actual climate scientist, unlike Anthony Watts).
Broecker argued that the Medieval Warm Period "was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation."
However, right below that, you can see that Bradley (and 5 others) replied ...
... 4 months later with a rebuttal, buried halfway down this page:
sepp. org/Archive/weekwas/2001/ June30.htm
They countered, "Broecker's statement that only borehole temperatures and snowlines can reconstruct temperatures to within 0.5 C is not supported in the literature."
BTW ... also note another excellent letter from Bradley (above the response to Broecker).
Also note this interesting observation from Broecker 13 years ago:
Considering your righteous indignation, I'm not going to try to change your immovable beliefs, so I'll give you the tools to challenge them...that is if you value truth and not blind partisanship. Look up these phrases: "CO2 follows temperature", "Water vapor greenhouse gas", "heat island effect", "solar variation" (the little that is known about the effect of the sun on the climate), and bad temp readings by official weather stations. I've got a lot more...
Speaking of peer review, Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU refused to have their climate data peer reviewed (as exposed by their leaked, and confirmed authentic emails). This data is the official data which IPCC reports are based off of, and the justification for Cap and Trade Tax. Don't you think its odd that the official scientists of Climate Change didn't want their data looked at? Why the secrecy?
So with global warming, the air is getting warmer, but must remain below a certain threshhold of local temperature in order to produce snow, meaning that the local air can only hold so much moisture to begin with so....
For the explanation of the air being "supercharged" with moisture, it would have to be too warm to snow. Meaning all that white stuff outside is really just...a figment of our imaginations?
This just proves that the republicans and Eirc Cantor can't comprehend the science behind climate change.
Are the Virginal Republicans so ignorant to actual science that they can try and put this type of dishonest and ethically wrong material out to the public?
Not only is the republican party moronic they are void of all ethical hypocrites!
Thank you for proving my point, at least I can make an intelligible sentence!
Republicans can't argue with the facts so they just attack with rhetoric!
Stating the total concentration relative to all atmospheric gasses is totally irrelevant to this subject. What matters is the ability of a gas's absorb to trap and release radiative energy! What does matter is the amount of radioactive forcing of a particular gas
The point is that we can hardly predict what weather we're going to have in our neighborhood next week, but somehow we can predict what's going to happen worldwide in the next few decades? With our data set of the past 100 years or so we can document a trends that have been around as long as the Earth itself? Come off it, people. Democrats can be just as manipulative and sneaky as Republicans--and they're looking for a power grab with this one.
3. This is kind of a big deal because scientists have, for more than a few decades, made predictions based on the obvious notion that if you pump billions of tons a year of green house gases into the atmosphere for a century the Earth will start to warm. These predictions have been validated. That's what science does and that's why it is our best tool for understanding the natural world.
4. The data set consists of data that reached far past 100 years and we have been able to document trends for hundreds of millions of years through proxy data.
5. Start listening to the actual scientists instead of d-bag politicians and pundits and you won't come off like a fucking dumb shit like they do.
Was it our CO2 spewing cars that produced the medieval warm period in year 1100 - 1300? You know, the one which allowed the vikings to farm Greenland?
Take into account that climate scientists and politicians alike have a lot to gain financially by making these dire predictions, and you'll come to the conclusion that maybe it's okay to question authority, lemming.
Furthermore, global warming -is- about predicting the weather. Who would give a fuck if the weather wasn't predicted to change? Are you denying the existence of stories about hypercanes and the polar ice cap evaporating? Have you seen Al Gore's movie? Nevermind, stupid question.
If you're so concerned, donate your -own- money to fixing the perceived problem. Don't advocate that other people should be forced to do so. I'm not denying global warming--I'm questioning the predicted effect.
Are you really going to reference Al Gore in light of all the inaccuracies pointed out in his movie recently? He's a laughing stock, and he's all but disappeared from the pubic eye since the East Anglia CRU had its emails released. AGW is a flaming mess right now, some are even calling it pseudo-science. Anyone with a shred of intelligence or desire to find the truth can determine that it's overall mechanics are flawed.
The post was a reply to a reply from MrGordon25, who stupidly said that climate change isn't about weather prediction. It's as if he's denying that people like Gore are using these doomsday scenarios to scare people into being compliant.
The original post is about a page behind this one.
They can't predict the weather next week, sheep. All they give is a percentage chance. If they predict a 50% chance of rain on Tuesday of next week, they're right whether it rains or not.
When they can predict the amount, exact time, and location of the precipitation in the next week, then I will give them enough credit to trust their predictions for what will happen a couple decades from now.
@spatiotemporal Yeah, this guy is just trying to queue up some points for his campaign. I think he may also has a short penis. So cut him some slack. ;)
If one or both poles is ocean, and the climate warms, then snowfall at the pole increases. In fact, it increases enough to trigger an ice age. This is how ice ages get started.
Record breaking snow is due to storms with lots of moisture, the only temperature requirement is that it be below 32. I'm from Canada, but I would assume that temperatures below 32 in Virginia in February are quite common. So the fact that there was an abundance of moisture at a temp below 32 in February in Virginia does nothing to disprove global warming. Last I heard global warming had to do with temperature changes, not changes in precipitation. This video is completely ignorant.
What a crock this "global warming" or "climate change" is. There's no scientific PROOF that man-made carbon emmissions cause any kind of climate change. This crap is a farce, PERIOD!
Wow, this video is completely ignorant. If anyone had an open mind or ear, they'd know that we have another "el nino" on our hands. In northern Michigan here, we have half of the snowfall we had last year (we usually get 200+"). So, just because a few southern states are getting snow doesn't mean climate changes isn't happening, because weather is screwy everywhere this year.
That's the point (and why alarmists had to rename AGW as Climate Change), the climate is ALWAYS changing, and on various cycles at the same time. Severe weather patterns have been going on and recorded since well before people were driving SUVs.
I do not believe that human activity is changing the climate of the Earth. The Earth's climate has constantly changed since its been in existence. In my view, it would never be proper for the government to tell Americans what kind of vehicle they can and cannot drive and how they can and cannot heat/cool their homes. I don't believe that the American people will ever stand for government policies that errode their personal freedoms for the sake of political science.
This is a wonderful ad. To the Democrats, the truth hurts when it doesn't assist with their hopes of imposing their extremist environmental agenda on the rest of us. We don't need job killing, anti-freedom "Cap and Tax" laws. I'm thankful that the Republican Party is committed to fighting for our freedoms.
Is there freedom for me to poison the air you breath in your home? What if I blasted my music at three in the morning next to your house? I'd imagine you'd say my freedom to make noise did not trump your freedom to have quiet.
If you believe the consequences of global climate change are severe, than not doing anything to stop them is anti-freedom. You are robbing island nations of the ability to exist, and tropical nations of the abilties to maintain agriculture.
To claim this winter is proof of no global warming is just as asinine as claiming that it does. And those of you who keep going on about "hottest decade" and the rest of the alarmist claims, you might want to hold off on that until the temperature datasets have been corrected, since being exposed for the manipulated fraud they are. Your house of cards is falling apart, one claim at a time...
This winter is typical of winter in the century before last. It pretty much proves that any warming we saw over the past century of last few decades was a natural cycle and we are going are comign full circle and returning to the normal pattern.
Its called natural climate variation and is perfectly natural.
Still sucks tho, I hate snow.
All you AGW people need to just admit you were wrong, you lost now sit down and STFU
The leading climatologists forecast more of these heavy snowstorms, not less, due to global warming. Global warming produces storms of intensifying severity, whether they be warm season or cold season storms.
(continued from below) Just like the truth of global warming and there being snow are entirely unrelated.
3) A further implied claim is that unless global warming is a problem for Virginians it is not worth Virginias caring. The destruction of entire island countries, Bangladesh and the desertification of the poorest regions of the world should, according to the Virginia GOP, be of no concern to Virginia's legislators. This point isn't really about data. It is more a question of morality.
This advertisement makes two claims and, by implication, three.
1) Global warming is a myth. Of course, it doesn't come out and say it. Rather, the implication is that because there is snow this week, it can't also be true that last year was the second hottest year worldwide on record.
2) It claims that cap and trade will cost Virgians tens of thousands of jobs. There is zero data provided to support this claim.
Note that the truth of claims one and two are entirely unrelated. (contd)
Some Great leaders of the environmental movement feel that further discussion of the evidence of anthropomorphic cause of global warming is a foregone conclusion and that it is a waste of time to spend any more time considering evidence. (but in science there is notime when you stop considering evidence - even if the evidence tends to disprove a favored position and outcome).
Michael Mann, James Hanson, Al Gore... oh wait, he's not a scientist, but alarmists believe his drivel anyways. There is a whole cadre of scientists that refuse to consider evidence if it doesn't fit within their agenda, namely funding.
Interesting that you would choose James Hanson. He's against the cap and trade system. His political views may be questionable, but I'm not aware of anyone questioning his science. Regardless, he's hardly representative of a "whole cadre of scientists" but rather at the outer edges.
Michael Mann was just cleared by a PSU investigation of wrong doing. I hope you will consider this new information.
Why is it the vast majority of scientists are biased by funding, while the few who's conclusions are favorable to powerful entrenched interests aren't?
Who ever said they weren't? As someone who used to work in a grant-funded academic position, I can assure you that funding is a major concern and a constant juggling act. The problem arises when scientists are pressured more by the politically desired end-result of their research, rather than gaining a better understanding of the topic.
@kscheffler Not sure if you're still following this thread, but I hope you have been following the ongoing investigations into Mann and his exploits, namely while he was at Virginia. Not only that, but the email trails from Climategate that show the circular back-scratching of the "peer review" process from within his group of researchers. So many scientists and policy-makers have erroneously relied upon his faulty data that he should be tarred and feathered, for real.
Hanson has been questioned quite a bit actually, and especially now in light of NASA-GISS using the CRU temps, and previous "uh-oh" moments where he and his group were caught using faulty satellite data. The list is too long to post here, but Hanson and Mann are big names in the spotlight at the moment. Also, the PSU "Inquiry" was almost a complete sham, as most people knew it would be.
This was previously posted under the name VirginiaGOP. I guess they got so many comments pointing out that this video just demonstrates their lack of logic that they had to repost it using a different name
so the earths climate only depends on areas were it snowed?
bigvic22sti 11 months ago
How'd you guys know my nickname was Global Warming?
In all seriousness, anyone who thinks that a snowstorm in VA means that global warming isn't legitimate has no business being in a position of leadership. Ask any middle school kid to distinguishing between "global" vs "local", "climate" vs "weather", and "trend" vs "anecdote".
steveoboston 1 year ago
Humanity needs a change of heart
Check out William Tarkovsky's youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation.
Share something important with those who care
ClimateAware 2 years ago
AGW Deniers -- no evidence, no logic, no intelligence
substanti8 2 years ago
AGW Science -- no evidence, fraudulent research, losing momentum.
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
in your wet dreams.
substanti8 2 years ago
Okay I understand that a lot of Republicans are against measures to curb climate change, but both Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and Senator John McCain, at an event during the 2009 campaign said that they believe in anthropogenic global warming and that we should probably do SOMETHING to stop it.
I've never heard of a state party breaking with it's own governor. Odd...
EliasAntonioM 2 years ago
Elias. Politicians believe whatever is popular. They are professional lairs.
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
Some people cannot determine the difference between climate and weather and that one snow event does not determine the entire worlds weather pattern and temperature.
Spikes10546 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ahlol99 2 years ago
The media has been trying to convince us we'll all suffer from massive global warming within a decade.
The scientists have said the hottest year on record is 1998, and that temperatures will only rice 2C in the next 100 years.
The heavy snow only contradicts the media.
palmisano 2 years ago
Average temperatures around the world have been dropping since then.
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
Where's your evidence?
substanti8 2 years ago
Don't you read the scientific climate literature? Or just CNN =P
palmisano 2 years ago
I certainly do.
But I doubt you do.
Where's your evidence?
(( yawn ))
substanti8 2 years ago 2
Here's some REAL SCIENCE... [icecap. us / images / uploads / Gray _ Rebuttal _ to _ Emanuel. pdf], [wattsupwiththat. com / 2009 / 12 / 04 / jo - nova - finds - the - medieval - warm - period/], [co2science. org], [sciencemag. org / cgi / content / short / 291 / 5508 / 1497] ...that should be a good start.
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
Thanks for making the effort, but that's not real science.
1. The essay by William Gray is full of factual errors (which is probably why it wasn't published anywhere else but a lunatic web site). Here's more about the opinions of Professor Gray:
logicalscience. com/skeptics/Gray.html
2. Like the Gray shpeel, the entry from the BLOG of Anthony Watts is also not peer reviewed. What little review there is (in the comments by Slioch) rips the piece to shreds.
substanti8 2 years ago
3. Your last link is broken, but I found the article:
dx. doi. org/10.1126/ science.291.5508.1497
This is real science; good work. But the peer review refutes the argument set forth by Dr. Broecker (who is an actual climate scientist, unlike Anthony Watts).
Broecker argued that the Medieval Warm Period "was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation."
However, right below that, you can see that Bradley (and 5 others) replied ...
substanti8 2 years ago
... 4 months later with a rebuttal, buried halfway down this page:
sepp. org/Archive/weekwas/2001/ June30.htm
They countered, "Broecker's statement that only borehole temperatures and snowlines can reconstruct temperatures to within 0.5 C is not supported in the literature."
BTW ... also note another excellent letter from Bradley (above the response to Broecker).
Also note this interesting observation from Broecker 13 years ago:
faculty. washington. edu/wcalvin/teaching/ Broecker97.html
substanti8 2 years ago
Considering your righteous indignation, I'm not going to try to change your immovable beliefs, so I'll give you the tools to challenge them...that is if you value truth and not blind partisanship. Look up these phrases: "CO2 follows temperature", "Water vapor greenhouse gas", "heat island effect", "solar variation" (the little that is known about the effect of the sun on the climate), and bad temp readings by official weather stations. I've got a lot more...
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
Speaking of peer review, Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU refused to have their climate data peer reviewed (as exposed by their leaked, and confirmed authentic emails). This data is the official data which IPCC reports are based off of, and the justification for Cap and Trade Tax. Don't you think its odd that the official scientists of Climate Change didn't want their data looked at? Why the secrecy?
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
So with global warming, the air is getting warmer, but must remain below a certain threshhold of local temperature in order to produce snow, meaning that the local air can only hold so much moisture to begin with so....
For the explanation of the air being "supercharged" with moisture, it would have to be too warm to snow. Meaning all that white stuff outside is really just...a figment of our imaginations?
TheStranglehold 2 years ago
This just proves that the republicans and Eirc Cantor can't comprehend the science behind climate change.
Are the Virginal Republicans so ignorant to actual science that they can try and put this type of dishonest and ethically wrong material out to the public?
Not only is the republican party moronic they are void of all ethical hypocrites!
The party of NO
NO ethics
No morals
No scientific understanding
No caring for the citizens of the USA
dhmeiser 2 years ago
Stupid liberal. CO2 makes up .038 precent of the Earth's atmosphere. So, you want re look at global warming?
Democrats - The party of NO intelligence.
kingre7 2 years ago
Thank you for proving my point, at least I can make an intelligible sentence!
Republicans can't argue with the facts so they just attack with rhetoric!
Stating the total concentration relative to all atmospheric gasses is totally irrelevant to this subject. What matters is the ability of a gas's absorb to trap and release radiative energy! What does matter is the amount of radioactive forcing of a particular gas
dhmeiser 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, that and CO2 follows average temperatures. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor!!
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
The point is that we can hardly predict what weather we're going to have in our neighborhood next week, but somehow we can predict what's going to happen worldwide in the next few decades? With our data set of the past 100 years or so we can document a trends that have been around as long as the Earth itself? Come off it, people. Democrats can be just as manipulative and sneaky as Republicans--and they're looking for a power grab with this one.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
So much stupid in so few words. Congrats, you're a fucking moron.
1. We can predict the weather accurately in a weeks time.
2. Climate Change isn't about predicting weather.
mgordon25 2 years ago
3. This is kind of a big deal because scientists have, for more than a few decades, made predictions based on the obvious notion that if you pump billions of tons a year of green house gases into the atmosphere for a century the Earth will start to warm. These predictions have been validated. That's what science does and that's why it is our best tool for understanding the natural world.
mgordon25 2 years ago 2
4. The data set consists of data that reached far past 100 years and we have been able to document trends for hundreds of millions of years through proxy data.
5. Start listening to the actual scientists instead of d-bag politicians and pundits and you won't come off like a fucking dumb shit like they do.
mgordon25 2 years ago
Was it our CO2 spewing cars that produced the medieval warm period in year 1100 - 1300? You know, the one which allowed the vikings to farm Greenland?
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
skepticalscience. com/medieval-warm-period.htm
substanti8 2 years ago 3
Take into account that climate scientists and politicians alike have a lot to gain financially by making these dire predictions, and you'll come to the conclusion that maybe it's okay to question authority, lemming.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Furthermore, global warming -is- about predicting the weather. Who would give a fuck if the weather wasn't predicted to change? Are you denying the existence of stories about hypercanes and the polar ice cap evaporating? Have you seen Al Gore's movie? Nevermind, stupid question.
If you're so concerned, donate your -own- money to fixing the perceived problem. Don't advocate that other people should be forced to do so. I'm not denying global warming--I'm questioning the predicted effect.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Are you really going to reference Al Gore in light of all the inaccuracies pointed out in his movie recently? He's a laughing stock, and he's all but disappeared from the pubic eye since the East Anglia CRU had its emails released. AGW is a flaming mess right now, some are even calling it pseudo-science. Anyone with a shred of intelligence or desire to find the truth can determine that it's overall mechanics are flawed.
liOVERLOADil 2 years ago
The post was a reply to a reply from MrGordon25, who stupidly said that climate change isn't about weather prediction. It's as if he's denying that people like Gore are using these doomsday scenarios to scare people into being compliant.
The original post is about a page behind this one.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide? Perhaps you should go kill yourself before you bring any more harm to your earth-mother.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Comment removed
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Comment removed
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
They can't predict the weather next week, sheep. All they give is a percentage chance. If they predict a 50% chance of rain on Tuesday of next week, they're right whether it rains or not.
When they can predict the amount, exact time, and location of the precipitation in the next week, then I will give them enough credit to trust their predictions for what will happen a couple decades from now.
AlienProphecy 2 years ago
Global Warming --> more frequent extreme weather events (that of course includes snowstorms.) Got it??
HaoSci 2 years ago 2
There is a reason it's called GLOBAL warming, and not Washington D.C. warming.
ddic 2 years ago 2
Comparing today's weather to global climate is a little like comparing the change in your pocket to the global economy.
mycajah 2 years ago 3
Is the Republican party in Virginia as ignorant and myopic as this video makes them appear?
spatiotemporal 2 years ago 8
Yes. :]
Dyakki 2 years ago
@spatiotemporal Yeah, this guy is just trying to queue up some points for his campaign. I think he may also has a short penis. So cut him some slack. ;)
kdocki 1 year ago
These are members of Congress??????
I can't believe it! But then, I'm a wingnut. I actually don't believe the earth is flat, can you imagine?
(Did these gentlemen get beyond the 6th grade?)
But, they did supply this video with some good music. Credit where credit is due.
brathat 2 years ago
@brathat
I don't think they ever got past kindergarten.
Music is good though, you're right.
ddic 2 years ago
Comment removed
bobgcaruso 2 years ago
If one or both poles is ocean, and the climate warms, then snowfall at the pole increases. In fact, it increases enough to trigger an ice age. This is how ice ages get started.
12stringsforme 2 years ago
Record breaking snow is due to storms with lots of moisture, the only temperature requirement is that it be below 32. I'm from Canada, but I would assume that temperatures below 32 in Virginia in February are quite common. So the fact that there was an abundance of moisture at a temp below 32 in February in Virginia does nothing to disprove global warming. Last I heard global warming had to do with temperature changes, not changes in precipitation. This video is completely ignorant.
armoores12 2 years ago 2
What a crock this "global warming" or "climate change" is. There's no scientific PROOF that man-made carbon emmissions cause any kind of climate change. This crap is a farce, PERIOD!
inkydinkydooky 2 years ago
Wow, this video is completely ignorant. If anyone had an open mind or ear, they'd know that we have another "el nino" on our hands. In northern Michigan here, we have half of the snowfall we had last year (we usually get 200+"). So, just because a few southern states are getting snow doesn't mean climate changes isn't happening, because weather is screwy everywhere this year.
upblackbear 2 years ago
That's the point (and why alarmists had to rename AGW as Climate Change), the climate is ALWAYS changing, and on various cycles at the same time. Severe weather patterns have been going on and recorded since well before people were driving SUVs.
Archtraveler 2 years ago
lobal Warming bill too. Call him to ask him to shovel the global warming out of your driveway --- 202-225-4376
dclobbyist 2 years ago
I do not believe that human activity is changing the climate of the Earth. The Earth's climate has constantly changed since its been in existence. In my view, it would never be proper for the government to tell Americans what kind of vehicle they can and cannot drive and how they can and cannot heat/cool their homes. I don't believe that the American people will ever stand for government policies that errode their personal freedoms for the sake of political science.
Coots1 2 years ago
Coots1 read the basic science and then maybe your opinion will hold water.
farvision 2 years ago
This is a wonderful ad. To the Democrats, the truth hurts when it doesn't assist with their hopes of imposing their extremist environmental agenda on the rest of us. We don't need job killing, anti-freedom "Cap and Tax" laws. I'm thankful that the Republican Party is committed to fighting for our freedoms.
Coots1 2 years ago
Is there freedom for me to poison the air you breath in your home? What if I blasted my music at three in the morning next to your house? I'd imagine you'd say my freedom to make noise did not trump your freedom to have quiet.
If you believe the consequences of global climate change are severe, than not doing anything to stop them is anti-freedom. You are robbing island nations of the ability to exist, and tropical nations of the abilties to maintain agriculture.
kscheffler 2 years ago
To claim this winter is proof of no global warming is just as asinine as claiming that it does. And those of you who keep going on about "hottest decade" and the rest of the alarmist claims, you might want to hold off on that until the temperature datasets have been corrected, since being exposed for the manipulated fraud they are. Your house of cards is falling apart, one claim at a time...
Archtraveler 2 years ago
Why didn't Al Gore build a house that was "green" if he believed all this...just a money making scheme...that's why!
lostlocke108 2 years ago
This winter is typical of winter in the century before last. It pretty much proves that any warming we saw over the past century of last few decades was a natural cycle and we are going are comign full circle and returning to the normal pattern.
Its called natural climate variation and is perfectly natural.
Still sucks tho, I hate snow.
All you AGW people need to just admit you were wrong, you lost now sit down and STFU
AnnieNM06 2 years ago
Where do you get this stuff from? Really, I'd like to know.
kscheffler 2 years ago
The leading climatologists forecast more of these heavy snowstorms, not less, due to global warming. Global warming produces storms of intensifying severity, whether they be warm season or cold season storms.
wabfil 2 years ago
@Dyakki. Yeah, I do. The name of the tune is 'Shit in an elevator'. Performer: Climatesmith......
10Blackbass 2 years ago
The new paradigm: COLD = WARMING. Up = Down. Left = Right. Black = White.
Hope you "tools" enjoy making Al Gore millions and millions more dollars. Useless brainwashed "Tools" that you are...
arfywarfy 2 years ago
Call Dave Rexrod of the Virginia GOP, 804-780-0111.
Let him know what an exceptional job he did producing an ill informed, manipulative, anti-science, amoral ad.
kscheffler 2 years ago
Indeed. It's utter nonsnese. But you know, I like the music. What is this tune called? I've heard it used in something else. Anyone know?
Dyakki 2 years ago
@ Dyakki. Yeah, I do. It's called shit in an elevator..... performer is Climatesmith......
10Blackbass 2 years ago
I'm guessing you weren't serious about that.
Dyakki 2 years ago
(continued from below) Just like the truth of global warming and there being snow are entirely unrelated.
3) A further implied claim is that unless global warming is a problem for Virginians it is not worth Virginias caring. The destruction of entire island countries, Bangladesh and the desertification of the poorest regions of the world should, according to the Virginia GOP, be of no concern to Virginia's legislators. This point isn't really about data. It is more a question of morality.
kscheffler 2 years ago
This advertisement makes two claims and, by implication, three.
1) Global warming is a myth. Of course, it doesn't come out and say it. Rather, the implication is that because there is snow this week, it can't also be true that last year was the second hottest year worldwide on record.
2) It claims that cap and trade will cost Virgians tens of thousands of jobs. There is zero data provided to support this claim.
Note that the truth of claims one and two are entirely unrelated. (contd)
kscheffler 2 years ago
Some Great leaders of the environmental movement feel that further discussion of the evidence of anthropomorphic cause of global warming is a foregone conclusion and that it is a waste of time to spend any more time considering evidence. (but in science there is notime when you stop considering evidence - even if the evidence tends to disprove a favored position and outcome).
friend2all5 2 years ago
Please name one scientist that is unwilling to consider further evidence.
kscheffler 2 years ago
Michael Mann, James Hanson, Al Gore... oh wait, he's not a scientist, but alarmists believe his drivel anyways. There is a whole cadre of scientists that refuse to consider evidence if it doesn't fit within their agenda, namely funding.
Archtraveler 2 years ago
Interesting that you would choose James Hanson. He's against the cap and trade system. His political views may be questionable, but I'm not aware of anyone questioning his science. Regardless, he's hardly representative of a "whole cadre of scientists" but rather at the outer edges.
Michael Mann was just cleared by a PSU investigation of wrong doing. I hope you will consider this new information.
kscheffler 2 years ago
Why is it the vast majority of scientists are biased by funding, while the few who's conclusions are favorable to powerful entrenched interests aren't?
kscheffler 2 years ago
Who ever said they weren't? As someone who used to work in a grant-funded academic position, I can assure you that funding is a major concern and a constant juggling act. The problem arises when scientists are pressured more by the politically desired end-result of their research, rather than gaining a better understanding of the topic.
Archtraveler 2 years ago 3
@kscheffler Not sure if you're still following this thread, but I hope you have been following the ongoing investigations into Mann and his exploits, namely while he was at Virginia. Not only that, but the email trails from Climategate that show the circular back-scratching of the "peer review" process from within his group of researchers. So many scientists and policy-makers have erroneously relied upon his faulty data that he should be tarred and feathered, for real.
Archtraveler 8 months ago
Hanson has been questioned quite a bit actually, and especially now in light of NASA-GISS using the CRU temps, and previous "uh-oh" moments where he and his group were caught using faulty satellite data. The list is too long to post here, but Hanson and Mann are big names in the spotlight at the moment. Also, the PSU "Inquiry" was almost a complete sham, as most people knew it would be.
Archtraveler 2 years ago
When there are heat waves in France, and hurricanes threatening the Gulf Coast, the AGW folks say, "this is ALL BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING."
When there are snowstorms and record freezing temperatures, the same AGW people say, "that's just weather."
Typical.
hcrawford 2 years ago
TPG, I am assuming then when RFK Jr. lamented last years lack of snow in DC was a sign *of* global warming you were just as upset?
triordanmn 2 years ago
Actually, we re-posted it because I made a mistake and put it on the wrong account. It'll live here for years to come.
Enjoy!
NVDGshipely 2 years ago
This was previously posted under the name VirginiaGOP. I guess they got so many comments pointing out that this video just demonstrates their lack of logic that they had to repost it using a different name
uscltyrenti 2 years ago
OMG...someone learn the difference between weather and climate. Whomever thought up this gem is a really ignorant fool. And I LIVE in Virginia!
thepuckgoddess 2 years ago