Historical Perspective on Global Warming/Climate Change

Here is some historical perspective on the “unprecedented” global warming. To understand the effects of global warming we merely need to see what happened when the Earth was warmer than it is today. The last major warming period was the medieval warming period which dwarfed even the worst case scenarios of global warming alarmists. During this period, 800 – 1200 AD, there were no rising sea levels. Polar bears did not become extinct. Island nations were not swallowed up by the sea, and no mass starvation. In fact this warming period accounted for a major upswing in human advancement. Crops were able to be grown longer and farther north. Vikings were able to grow crops in Greenland, hence the name. The warming period helped Europe out of the dark ages because of longer growing seasons and the warmer climate allowed for greater mobility for longer periods of time which created a more suitable environment for trade in larger geographic areas.

Here is a graphic that brings in perspective so called global warming/climate change and that what we are experiencing today is not unusual and in fact not even that remarkable in Earth’s climate history. It proves that climate change and warming periods are just part of Earth’s normal cycle and has nothing to do with human activity. Unless your willing to make the case that Vikings drove SUVs.

global warming, climate change, climategate, Al gore

hat tip: wattsupwiththat.com

No wonder Michael Mann and CRU tried to hide the medieval warming period.


  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on December 13, 2009 - 2:10 am

    Hey Ken, look at this:

    LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

  2. #2 by Ken on December 13, 2009 - 3:09 am


    The same AP that refused to cover the story because they are in bed with the warmers?

    This story is only a few weeks old. Investigations will take months if not years but the AP was able to conduct an “exhaustive” study in such a short period of time? Please.

    The main stream media has lost all credibility and claim to any objectivity, especially where global warming is concerned. They cannot ignore a story for weeks then suddenly come out and say they have thoroughly investigated it without the laugh track going off in the background.

    OBTW you just lifted 36 words from an AP story. You owe them $26.50 for the rights to post their content.

  3. #3 by Uncle Rico on December 13, 2009 - 7:51 am

    This story is only a few weeks old. Investigations will take months if not years but the AP was able to conduct an “exhaustive” study in such a short period of time? Please.

    And yet, somehow you Ken, without anywhere near the resources that the AP has at its disposal, have been able to single-handedly complete a comprehensive study of the e-mails in question and conclude based upon that review (as you have on several occasions now), that the entirety of the science of global warming is a massive hoax perpetuated by socialists (who, parenthetically are in bed with the likes of General Electric, Disney, Viacom, AOL Time Warner, and other multi-national capitalistic conglomerates) to deprive you of your “freedom” (read, desire to be a complete resource hog devoid of any accountability). Please.

    As an aside, you and Erik the Red disagree on the genesis of Greenland’s name. According to Erik (see, The Saga of Erik the Red), “In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, ‘Because,’ said he, ‘men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.'” As between you and ETR, I’ll trust the latter on this one. He was far less self-interested in the matter.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on December 13, 2009 - 9:44 am

    The Medieval Warm Period between about AD 800–1300 was not a global phenomenon.

    Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ than in the early- and mid-20th century.

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on December 13, 2009 - 9:53 am

    This morning, Faux News decided to debate the question, “Does climate change exist?”

    But there is no debate, except in the minds of the denialists.

  6. #6 by Ken on December 13, 2009 - 10:30 am


    Where there is no debate there is no thinking.

  7. #7 by Uncle Rico on December 13, 2009 - 11:02 am

    I’m being moderated. Its part of the global climate conspiracy.

  8. #8 by Glenn "The Voices in My Head Are Frighteningly Loud Today" Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 11:07 am

    By the time this is over, no one will have been a warmer, just like no one voted for Obama. The stickers are already disappearing at an incredible rate up in WA State. Even Gregiore the liberal governor has figured out that the phony health care reform is just going to get dumped on the States lap as an unfunded Federal mandate.

    2010 cannot come soon enough.

    As for the warming, snowing at the beach, and broke records for cold last week, but hey, those are the chances in the shortest days of Dec.

  9. #9 by Glenn "The Voices in My Head Are Frighteningly Loud Today" Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 11:11 am

    “the Earth may have been slightly cooler”

    Ah conclusive Richard, call Al Gore, I think you are on to something, or on something, you have a prescription for oxy? The gig is up and the fraud is over, what the heck are you insisting on continuing to play the fraudulent three card monty? It is over!!

    Politically this is DEAD!!

  10. #10 by Glenn "The Voices in My Head Are Frighteningly Loud Today" Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 11:23 am

    This is quite good in laying out the fraud.


  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on December 13, 2009 - 11:52 am

    Uncle Rico:

    I found your comment, (#3), and released it. You would NEVER be moderated on this blog – you’re one of the best commenters here.

  12. #12 by James Farmer on December 13, 2009 - 11:53 am


    My guess is you bought on to the Cheney doctrine that justified invading Iraq if so little as a 1% chance existed that terrorists there were planning an attack on America and such invasion would thwart such plans.

    The fact that you now refuse to apply that same standard to global warming makes you, but again, a hypocrite of boundless extent. You really do appear like a hypocritical screaming tea-bagging idiot, and teaming up with Glenn Hoefer to make your case provides little help with that appearance!

  13. #13 by Larry Bergan on December 13, 2009 - 11:56 am

    Ken said:

    OBTW you just lifted 36 words from an AP story. You owe them $26.50 for the rights to post their content.

    Not unless the Bush administration changed copyright law to further censor us.

    This story is only a few weeks old. Investigations will take months if not years but the AP was able to conduct an “exhaustive” study in such a short period of time? Please.

    Really! How long did you spend on it before you posted your tirade?

    By the way, the AP is NO friend of the left; they abandoned us years ago. Maybe they are worried about the earth.

  14. #14 by Glenn Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 12:53 pm


    Can you say scam?

    The fact that you can only change the posters name in defense of this pathetic scam, and then continue on to imagine that you are all doing good work is funny. The AGW warmers are undone. Cooked as it were!


    What was it James, a bourbon Saturday night? Better watch it, whiskey and alcoholics are going to have to pay a hefty carbon tax on their hooch from now on in. Mass carbon polluters those distillers. I hear booze storage fees are up as well, and you have to have a haz-mat plan to accommodate spilly drunks if you are to have a party.

  15. #15 by Glenn Hoefer, sometimes posting as "describing the fraud" on December 13, 2009 - 12:56 pm

    Save excoriating Ken, James, you own an SUV and have a lifestyle that is energy intensive, and have not a leg to stand on…and in your general condition 2 legs is the least you need.

  16. #16 by James Farmer on December 13, 2009 - 2:08 pm

    Glenn (describing …):

    Are you referring to the 6-cyl 4-runner that I drive? The one that I use to get back and forth from my small home in upper pinecrest, where there is already nearly 3 feet of snow? The one that I will probably drive 200k+ miles if it makes it that far? Is that the SUV you refer? If so, then what is your point, especially when you compare that rather small vehicle to the RV you used to drive around? Oh, and please, tell me how my lifestyle is more energy intensive than yours or Ken Bingham’s or why such even matters.

    And BTW, please knock off the alcoholic, whiskey drinking rhetoric. I have no idea why you insist on going there, why you continue to embarrass yourself by going there, or how in any way, shape or form it relates to what is said on this blog. On the other hand, if it is relevant, then make your case why such is so. You continually make zero case for any other thing you say here, but maybe you can do better with that.

    At some point, Glenn, you may as well just try and say something that has a modicum of relevance or common sense. I know it will be hard for you, but you might just give it a try regardless.

  17. #17 by Glenn Hoefer aka "describing the fraud." on December 13, 2009 - 2:42 pm

    It matters because you are SUV scam fraud hypocrite James. just wait until the more motivated folks get around to NASA AND NO AA…..

    I guess you never read Rifkin’s book that describes anyone who owns an SUV, never mind driving does as muh damage to the Earth as 100 3rd worlders.

    Look you are boozehound, so if don’t want trouble, don’t make any. Stop with name changes. Really though with the lofty status you toy with you know it makes yoiu look bad, which is why you are now whining. Drunks advocate global warming so they don’t pass out and die in a snow bank. Don’t know about amphetamine dealers and the like. Do you?

    You know I don’t care about carbon burning, and have a smaller footprint than any of you anyway. As for the aspect of personal attacks made here constantly from the progressive side when it knows not what to say about evident fraud all over their side of a host of issues, you get what you deserve.

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on December 13, 2009 - 2:43 pm


    I think I figured out what you meant by our side having to study things for years that your side spews out in a couple of days:

    (Excerpt from NYT article by Ron Suskind which everybody has heard about by now, but will always bear repeating)

    [emphasis mine]
    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush, (Karl Rove?) He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Interestingly, James mentions another of Ron Suskind’s revelations about the most corrupt and cowardly administration in American history: The One Percent Solution.

    Do you really want to associate with these guys Ken? You’re just to fluffy for that.

    Note: I added the Karl Rove part.

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on December 13, 2009 - 2:44 pm

    I was just thinking, climate change denialism has apparently morphed into a lunatic conspiracy theory. Like other conspiracy theorists, the denialists seem to enjoy bringing up already-debunked nonsense arguments— as if they represented new insights.

    It’s just too easy to refute the nonsense, all it takes is an Internet connection and Google.

  20. #20 by James Farmer on December 13, 2009 - 3:04 pm

    It matters because you are SUV scam fraud hypocrite James.

    Oh, I see. Well, that about explains it, then. Thank you for the detailed analysis, Glenn, as to why the fact that I drive a 1999 6-cyl 4-Runner makes me a hypocrite when it comes to discussing global warming. Not sure what the discussion re drunks and snow banks, etc., refers, but I guess that makes me a hypocrite also.

    I’ll try and do better in the future, Glenn. You really got me on this one. I suggested you comment with a modicum of relevance or common sense, but in no way was I prepared for the substance-packed analysis you just brought to the table. I think you have really turned the corner. Congratulations!

  21. #21 by Glenn Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 3:54 pm

    Uncalled for and irrelevant nonsense by Glenn Hoefer.

    Deleted by the authors.

  22. #22 by Glenn Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    What lies ahead for corrupt politicians, scientists, and the lying like attempting to give away citizens sovereignty.


    Completely called for and well known facts about James and his hypocritical superior attitude that needs kicking down a few pegs. Easy to do if you have the patience to listen to him.


    Don’t worry it will all appear again when needed. Just stick to leaving folks posts alone Larry or Cliff, or James and bear up.

    Then drink up.

  23. #23 by Uncle Rico on December 13, 2009 - 6:27 pm

    Stop with name changes.

    Good use of irony.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation of the low hangin’ fruit.

  24. #24 by Ken on December 13, 2009 - 6:57 pm


    Your attempt to show some kind of alleged hypocrisy by being hypocritical yourself is getting tiring. Can’t you stay on topic? I don’t think global warming hinges on whether or not someone supported the Iraq war.

  25. #25 by Cliff Lyon on December 13, 2009 - 7:08 pm

    More evidence of conspiracy: Homer Simpson is a climate denier!

  26. #26 by James Farmer on December 13, 2009 - 7:46 pm


    Do you deny the analogy? Shall we go back and see what you thought re Dick Cheney justifying the war in Iraq if there were a 1% chance? I think the analogy is more than apt. On the other hand, if you think that standards should evolve according to the subject matter, then just say so.

    PS. Be careful with the “evolve” thing.

  27. #27 by Ken on December 13, 2009 - 8:45 pm


    wattsupwiththat.com destroys your AP article by pointing out bias, conflicts or interest, and unethical reporting standards. The worst being the fact that one of the reporters involved in this “exaustive” study by AP is actually part of the story.

    Here are the contributors to the AP story

    Associated Press writers Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein from Washington and Ritter from New York.

    One of the climategate emails is from none other than Seth Borenstein who is one of the contributores to this “exaustive” study. So he is reporting on a story he is involved in and finds nothing untowards in the emails? This is the very definition of a conflict of interest.

    On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

    Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
    It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
    Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?

    Seth Borenstein
    Associated Press Science Writer
    The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
    Washington, DC

    Not to mention that Seth Borenstein is on a first name basis with the primary players of Climategate. How cozy is that?

  28. #28 by James Farmer on December 13, 2009 - 11:02 pm


    Just in case you missed the question, do you deny the analogy re Dick Cheney and the 1% possibility?

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on December 13, 2009 - 11:55 pm


    There is nothing in the stolen e-mails that calls into question the science of global warming.

    I’ve said this before, there are a dozen climate research centers running twice that many general circulation models. The clincher is, real-world observations confirm some of the worst-case model scenarios.

    Take a look at this recent presentation by Dr. James Hansen of NASA. Pay particular attention to the climate tipping points.

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on December 14, 2009 - 12:25 am


    I’m still angry at the Associated Press for glossing over some extremely important stories about election fraud, but you’ll notice they didn’t try to hide the fact that Seth Borenstein was one of the authors of the article. Your “news” sources would have left that out – yes, I’m talking about Fox “news” and just about every other “reputable” right wing source.

    I mean, you’re not going to make the case that in EVERY case possible, the Bush administration didn’t allow lawbreakers to investigate themselves – lawbreakers, Ken, not climate modelers.

    Why won’t you answer James’s question about why, if Cheney isn’t willing to take even a 1% chance of somebody attacking us, he isn’t willing to give climate change a second look?

  31. #31 by Larry Bergan on December 14, 2009 - 12:31 am

    Come on Ken, create another reality that we can study.

  32. #32 by Ken on December 14, 2009 - 8:15 am

    Led by African nations along with China and India have walked out the the Copenhangan Hajj to protest rich countries trying to screw over developing countries.

    Unlike western leftists they can see that the current course of the global warming debate with Cap’n Trade is nothing more than a massive power and money grab for governments and multi-national corporations.

    I still think the fix is in though an they already have some kind of agreement inked. There has already been one secret protocol exposed with the ‘Danish Text’. Who knows how many other ones are lurking in the shadows?

  33. #33 by Ken on December 14, 2009 - 8:16 am


    There is nothing in the stolen e-mails that calls into question the science of global warming.

    It sounds like you have fallen under some kind of Jedi mind trick, or a DNC talking point. I really can’t tell.

  34. #34 by James Farmer on December 14, 2009 - 8:50 am


    Still wondering. Do you deny the analogy set forth above. Should not the same standards you apply to Cheney pronouncements apply to others?

  35. #35 by Cliff Lyon on December 14, 2009 - 8:56 am

    Ken, The level of conspiracy required to perpetuate your canard is unprecedented.

    I think James’ point is; perhaps you should consider your sources, since that was the cause of your being about 100% wrong about Bush, Cheney, Palin, Rummy et. al.

  36. #36 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2009 - 9:05 am


    By all means, tell us what’s in the stolen e-mails that indicates to you that global warming is a hoax. While you’re at it, tell me what is the DNC’s connection with climate science?

  37. #37 by James Farmer on December 14, 2009 - 9:14 am


    Good luck getting a substantive response. It has been three weeks now, and Ken has yet to provide a modicum of analysis re the emails beyond linking to various agenda-driven websites and slinking to Hoefer and tea-bagger style screaming tactics.

  38. #38 by glenn on December 14, 2009 - 9:39 am

    The political ramifications of the ongoing fraud.

    Not only is the science fraudulent, but the attempt to pigeon hole the 3rd world into stopping their development while keeping our own production intact while fraudulently taxing the US and European public to create a slush fund that will do nothing but line the pockets of the criminals propagating this fraud from one the one end of “science” to the halls of government.

    Like it or hate it, the content of the e-mails has done the job. The fraud is exposed, and the whole scam is over. The Earth warms, the Earth cools, wow.

    Bernie Madoff did a way better job for a longer time than the clowns running this scam.


    Richard..Hansen’s going down, just a matter of time.

  39. #39 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 9:52 am

    A google connection is only going to feed you what you wish to hear Richard, your cognitive consonance is ruling your perception. Cognitive dissonance will arrive soon for you all you warmers…I hope.

    Then you can eat the crow you have been giving Ken for years. Supporters of fraud you are, out of willful stupidity or collusion with the political agenda. You tell me.

    Between the HuffPo and Yahoonews can we say that they are somehow politically motivated towards hiding the fraud that cannot be hidden? End to end of this attempt has been a fraud. Europeans know with certainty that it is, and this is a joy to watch.


  40. #40 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 10:24 am

    and finally, if the East Anglia Fraud was not a a fraud, then why is this phenomena happening? Was not transparency promised? Is this what truthful scientists do? Is this what people do when their data is unquestionable? Too funny.

    No matter, the fraud continues, and if these warmer East Anglia guys are not frauds, they are clearly too stupid to do any intelligent research given their decisions post the Fraud’s discovery. What a bunch of dummies!!


  41. #41 by Ryan on December 14, 2009 - 10:30 am

    Wow. The shrillness of each side of this debate is impressive. I wonder if someone could create a hockeystick graph to map the inverse relationship of emotional arguments vs. actual evidence and analysis?

    I know. Let’s have an opposite day. First, everyone go into your most humble, ‘I might be wrong’, mode. If you’re a AGW skeptic, suspend your knee-jerk reaction of labeling anyone who supports it is part of a mass global conspiracy. If you embrace AGW, suspend your knee-jerk reaction of labeling all skeptics as crackpots.

    Now, are you well-informed enough to convincingly argue the opposing point of view as (or more!) effectively as those you disagree with?

    Perhaps the shrillness will die down? Maybe the quality of arguments would go up? Perhaps some points could be conceded on either side? Bruised egos could be soothed? We could MAYBE discuss ideas without it resorting to personal attacks and attempts at self-validation. With the quality of the arguments above, you’d think that our personal lives were being unfulfilled somehow!

  42. #42 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 10:33 am

    To help with Jame’s and Richard’s approaching cognitive dissonance, and the rest of the warmer world in America, which is at least 2 weeks behind the evident reality emerging in Europe.


  43. #43 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 10:48 am

    Sure Ryan, the warmer side is simple. Man made CO2 is causing the world to warm to the extent that were all going to die in a future boiling cataclysm, with our cities flooded…and here…we have the fraudulent data and wrong assumptions to prove it. Hope you don’t notice, but I was trying to hide the data. I wrote a bunch of e-mails to my colleagues to get them on board with it.

    Let me go get the cooked data and show you how this works. Never mind that the data showed recent cooling, what is needed is a crisis mentality for the imposition of a global tax, so never mind the cooling data. It is unimportant to the greater goal. If I keep this up, I might well end up in a gaol(jail).

    What’s that you say Ryan, you wish to see the data? First let me cook it and then keep it from freedom of information requests, and when I get caught I will remove it altogether so you cannot see it, like in the link I posted directly above.

    Then when all of the science is settled, we will attempt to foist a tax on the public that makes the carbon, and give the developing world a wish sandwich.

    Want me to keep going or fill in more details? There is lots more, and what is going to come out in the near future will be more than convincing that fraud is the new hypothetical scientific method.

    All the rage. Easy too. Sure the world is warming, and that will be a good thing which many do not appreciate. Otherwise the better part of the land in the Northern Hemisphere would be under ice, as it was 13k years ago before it warmed up and melted all of it, some 2 miles thick.

    Wait, while I put another log on my fire, I have more.

  44. #44 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2009 - 10:52 am

    There is no fraud. Climate change denialists are crackpots. Sorry if the facts sound “shrill” to some people.

  45. #45 by cav on December 14, 2009 - 11:00 am

    But Ryan, shrillness IS the fix that is in.
    No way will any of this crazed back-n-forth change what’s becoming of our planet. Especially when truth has already been victimized.

    The shrillness coincidental to the apocalypse / rapture is perfectly natural. You don’t think the dinosaurs went down without at least whimpering. Tyranosaurus’ shrill death squall is a thing of legend. It wasn’t until many eons later that the sheep calmly lay down with the lions.

    I know, I should be ashamed, and I am.

  46. #46 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 11:15 am

    So let’s see, we start with global warming, and then when that isn’t working out in the sales dept. the management decides to call it climate change.

    Then accounting does a few tricks and gets caught at it, and here we are. The science is not sound Richard.

    Richard so there is climate change. Who is denying that? What is the problem as you see it? Why will it be “bad”? Elaborate. If the no choice in the matter is warming or cooling Earth, which would you prefer and why?

    I personally cannot wait for sea level rise to drown the hundreds of pisshole cities on the maritime coasts of the world and restore all the wetlands that are crucial to a healthy ocean. We will build brand new state of the art cities inland with green tech built in as opposed to retrofitting the piles of crap we currently have. Lot’s of people will die off, and this will be good for the Earth.

    So what is the problem other than living in Utah which could fry or flood, depending on how Greenland melts off?

    Not to mention how cities underwater make no carbon. Seems to me that no matter what, the solution for making too much carbon are built in. If carbon is not the cause of warming, then it won’t matter.

    What are you driving Richard? How do you heat/cool your house? What are your plans to personally lower your carbon footprint? You have a long way to go. Keep in mind owning a car, never mind driving it, causes as much damage to the Earth as 100 3rd world folks living their lives.

    No wonder Copehagen is going nowhere.

  47. #47 by cav on December 14, 2009 - 11:30 am

    I thought the Copenhagen Summit was going nowhere because the agreements that were likely to be penned, or were already penned, just unloaded the responsiblility for solving the UNQUESTIONABLE impacts of capitalist effluent onto the Bagladeshi. Once again, the cream de la ruling class will reap any benefits, while being able to point the finger (give the finger) to the little people who are suffering the problems created by runaway greed.

  48. #48 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 11:44 am

    Lookout Cav, no matter what everyone in the 3rd world will always have their matches, as do all of us.

    2010 and this nonsense is over. The world will continue to exist.

  49. #49 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2009 - 11:47 am


    I have elaborated, at length, about the facts of climate change in this forum. You claim, without evidence, that “the science is not sound.”

    You have pontificated at length about how you somehow think climate change won’t affect you, and emphasize with hyperbole how little you care for the human beings who are already facing the effects.

    You have also pontificated about carbon footprints. Individuals cannot reverse atmospheric carbon dioxide levels back down to below 350 ppm. We would need a crash program to convert to a green economy. I’m not optimistic. I’m realistic. I expect the consequences will play out before anything significant is done.

    The current state of the climate debate has devolved into white noise, static, and meaningless diversions. Glenn, you are doing your part to add to the jamming.

  50. #50 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 11:52 am

    Rather makes you wonder what the motivations of the folks here that support the fraud in its totality really are.

    I have not believed in AGW since the first time I heard about it, simply because of what I have been taught as accepted science in University at the Geology Dept. This now with the scientific fraud will force real scientists to collect more data for years, until anything political comes out of it.

    I am looking forward to the doing of absolutely nothing and I hope it warms. Biggest winners? Canada and the Ukraine. Biggest losers? Those who are invested and won’t make a dime on what Ken calls Cap’n Trade. Last time it warmed up and Greenland melted off The Great Basin filled. Where you are in SLC, was under 800 odd feet of water, and not too long ago really. 20,000 years ago.

    Crap and traitors is more like it.

  51. #51 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 12:08 pm

    Climate change has already affected my ancestors for the better. Warming made living in Europe possible, now I’m here.

    I have empathy for those harmed, if it were up to me I would quit being a useless bastard president bailing out banks and move those folks if they need to be moved. That is a solution.

    Richard, now you are just being scared. Go plant a tree. Never drive your car again and then wait and watch and see if the carbon levels go down. I think you are just lazy about it. I don’t judge energy usage, but many here do being the profligate sloths they are and change very little, expecting some dumb ass government to fix something so vast when the country does not even possess an energy policy apart from war.

    Why waste the time arguing with you about your religion Richard? I know it is warming and we are not the cause of it.

    Side: Why are the poles on Mars melting, why are all planets in the solar system heating up?

    My intention is to provide the white noise to destroy any credence to the idea that we are causing global warming, for by now it has been shown to be a farce, and the quarter billion it took to flap gums in Copenhagen would go a long way to relocating people.

    Simply believing in the fraud and promoting it as you do on the web creates tons of carbon and from what we see to know useful purpose. Maybe turn your shit off? I make no judgments on your energy wasting, or misguided attempts to stop what cannot be stopped, and wasting the time and money and carbon on that, rather than using it to adapt.

    The ilk of a warmer like yourself has to be stopped from realizing their control dream over a place so complicated, some simplistic man made theory brings justification of a tyranny on to the face of the planet.

    For levity….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

  52. #52 by Richard Warnick on December 14, 2009 - 12:14 pm

    The burden of proof is on those making the accusation. There is no “fraud.” Just irresponsible accusations. Part of the “white noise,” as you say, that is intended to drown out intelligent discussion.

    Cap and trade is a separate issue. I say it’s a bad idea, particularly as embodied in the ACES bill. Better to let the EPA issue regulations and/or institute a carbon tax. Congress shouldn’t pass a giveaway to polluters and call it a climate change bill.

  53. #53 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth-grader" Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    Of course there is fraud, are you really maintaining that it isn’t? It is why no one will argue it, it is just too stupid to bother.

    Irresponsible accusations? Then let the schmucks defend themselves!! Why are you defending them? I reckon it is a powerful cognitive consonant reaction. Hard to admit you have been had. That is what keeps 3 card monty games going. That and FRAUD of course.

    The man involved resigned in shame. Something American’s might want to wrap their heads around as the continue to Blogoyovich their way through life.

  54. #54 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth-grader" Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 12:45 pm

    …and really Richard, in a debate that has become so politicized and is akin to a Cathedral to environmental progressives, the case is heard in the court of public opinion, the accused have to answer or they are roasted slowly on a media spit. Ala Tiger bar-b-que.

    Public opinion is judge, jury, and executioner, and need not explain itself. It is done, and those that did it, whatever you call the fraud Richard, let themselves in for it. Their methods and incompetence destroyed the science and collusion of corrupt politics.

    I guess the thing to learn, is never let a scientist do politician’s job. Or, if you wish to commit fraud don’t hire a scientist. Or if you can’t convince people of your facts, baffle them with bullshit. Al Gore to a T.

    Let us agree that we don’t matter in this anyway right or wrong, it is elite scam that was cooked up. The fear of Terror is waning, what can we use to terrify the human herd this time? is the call.

    It isn’t working, and I am pleased as it has signs that common humanity is entering a more intelligent paradigm. It finally realizes that its leaders have lied, and are lying to them constantly, in every way and every issue all the time. A great future awaits, and it is going to get hot in so many ways.

  55. #55 by James Farmer on December 14, 2009 - 12:53 pm

    Of course there is fraud, are you really maintaining that it isn’t? It is why no one will argue it, it is just too stupid to bother.

    Doubtful, Glenn, as any other time you have been in a position to argue using facts, you have done so, or at least tried. On the issue of this alleged fraud, you (and Ken) refuse to try because you know there is no fraud.

  56. #56 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 2:53 pm

    Crap and nonesense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  57. #57 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 3:18 pm

    Crap and nonesense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  58. #58 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 3:21 pm

    Crap and nonesense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  59. #59 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 3:30 pm

    Crap and nonesense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  60. #60 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 6:23 pm

    Crap and nonsense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  61. #61 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 6:28 pm

    Crap and nonsense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  62. #62 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 6:32 pm

    Crap and nonsense authored by Glenn Hoefer and deleted by 1U management.

  63. #63 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 6:59 pm

    Al Gore with his foot in his own bullh*t. The fraud continues.


  64. #64 by Ken on December 14, 2009 - 7:04 pm

    The false prophet Al Gore has been caught red handed spreading false information on global warming. He has been making a prediction that there is a 75% chance of the North Polar ice caps could be completely gone during the summer months within 5 years citing Dr. Maslowski.

    Dr. Maslowski himself denied ever making such a claim.

    “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

    Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

    This isn’t the first time Algore has made this claim. Gore didn’t say anything about this being old news in fact he has said “New computer modeling suggests” and “new studies suggest”. He never said it was some off-the-cuff remark made by a scientist several years ago.

    So Mr. Gore believes he can put words into scientists mouth and get away with it. Maybe he could have pre-climategate but no more.

    I now expect to see the media do a complete hatchet job on Dr. Maslowski.

  65. #65 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 8:44 pm

    Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. –Harry S. Truman

    Thank you for the highest from of compliment, censorship. Whoever is doing this is fairly to be called fascist. At least we know what we are dealing with.

  66. #66 by Glenn Hoefer on December 14, 2009 - 8:44 pm

    Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. –Harry S. Truman

    Thank you for the highest form of compliment, censorship. Whoever is doing this is fairly to be called fascist. At least we know what we are dealing with right Ken?

  67. #67 by Ken on December 14, 2009 - 9:53 pm

    What I would like to know is how long ago did Al Gore get this information about the North Polar ice completely melting within five years? If it was more than five years ago then the Ice cap should already be gone. If it hasn’t been five years then we need to know so we can set our count down clocks.

  68. #68 by Cliff Lyon on December 15, 2009 - 6:32 am

    Interesting argument Ken. I fear you missed a prior comment in which I showed that as recently as 3 years ago Climatologists were predicting the same thing would happen in 40 years.

    No one said 5 years five years ago. Find it.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  69. #69 by James Farmer on December 15, 2009 - 9:10 am

    If ken would only get over his aversion to various messangers – e.g., Al Gore – he might start to see the forest amid the trees.

    The “fraud” thing re global warming predictions has been debunked over and over – indeed, Ken himself cannot or refuses to make so much as a prima facie case for the fraud he so loudly alleges occurred.

    Yet on Ken screams at the top of his lungs – “fraud, fraud, fraud” – the transformation to proud tea-bagger is about complete for our very own Ken Bignham.

  70. #70 by Glenn Hoefer on December 15, 2009 - 9:16 am

    Further off-topic, irrelevant nonsense from Glenn Hoefer deleted by 1U management.

  71. #71 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2009 - 9:17 am

    If former VP Gore said that the sky is blue, right-wingers everywhere would claim he was lying. Gore was merely stating the obvious, something for which the evidence is abundant and publicly available.

    For example: Arctic Melt Opens Northwest Passage (2007)

    The famed Northwest Passage—a direct shipping route from Europe to Asia across the Arctic Ocean—is ice free for the first time…

    Climate models had projected the passage would eventually open as warming temperatures melted the Arctic sea ice—but no one had predicted it would happen this soon.

    “We’re probably 30 years ahead of schedule in terms of the loss of the Arctic sea ice,” said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.

    …The opening of the Northwest Passage is clearly shown in a mosaic of 200 satellite images from the European Space Agency (ESA).

  72. #72 by Ken Bingham on December 15, 2009 - 10:28 am

    If I did the same thing Al Gore did I would be thrown out of school. He cited a source stating it was “fresh” information from a “recent study” based on “new computer models” that the North Polar Icecaps would be gone in 5- 7 years.

    The scientist Gore cited denied ever making such a statement. Then Gore’s people have to admit this was something said during a conversation between Al Gore and the scientist “several years ago”.

    Mischaracterizing someone’s words and downright putting words is someone’s mouth is unethical regardless of the veracity of the information.

    The sad thing Richard, Cliff and many of you is if these things were done in any other context you would be able to see how wrong it all is but since it involves issues and people you support you are totally blind to it.

  73. #73 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2009 - 10:51 am


    I’ll admit Gore is a lousy spokesman, maybe if he were better he might have won the 2000 election by much more than a mere half million votes 😉

    From Matt Yglesias:

    Al Gore, speaking at Copenhagen, cited the work of Dr Wieslav Maslowki to the effect that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” In fact, according to the Times (UK) “Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice.”

    Gore misspoke. But the Arctic Ocean ice is melting, as you say the veracity of the information is not in contention. It’s melting faster than some models predicted. True, this is not new and exciting information– it’s been known for years.

  74. #74 by Ken Bingham on December 15, 2009 - 11:08 am

    Some melting in the North Polar region would be a boon because it would open up new shipping lanes, new virgin fisheries, and oil exploration. since all the ice already sits on the water it displaces its entire volume therefore the whole thing could melt with negligible if any rise in sea level.

    Yes, I can say this kind of toungue-in-cheek because even though there is evidence of some melting its not going away anytime soon. Plus it drives the greenies insane.

  75. #75 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2009 - 11:16 am


    You are correct as far as you go, but remember the tipping point problem.

    Melting of arctic permafrost releases methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas (more than 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide). Scientists fear that the release of so much methane may initiate a sort of feedback loop, wherein methane release increases the rate of global warming, in turn spurring more permafrost melt and more methane release.

    Greenland’s ice sheet is also melting faster than predicted. If the entire 2.85 million km³ of ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise 7.2 m (23.6 ft.)

  76. #76 by cav on December 15, 2009 - 12:20 pm

    And everyone needs to plug the mechanics of our Earths annual trip around the sun. It seems that in our winter, the north pole is hidden from direct sun. Yeah, you don’t have to be a genius, but it certainly helps to have your head somewhere other than up your…

    Further, some thought might also be given to wind driven cargo haulers, since peak oil is no less a fantasy than melting ice sheets.

  77. #77 by cav on December 15, 2009 - 12:23 pm

    PS, There are also rea lestate opportunities, and imagine the house-boat communities floating in the summer sun.

  78. #78 by Richard Warnick on December 15, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    Media Matters: Beck, Breitbart ignore long-term trend to claim Arctic sea ice is increasing

    Cherry-picking the data, just like the false claim of “global cooling.” Faux News strikes again.

  79. #79 by Ken on January 1, 2010 - 4:09 am

    More bad news for warmers


    New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.

  80. #80 by Richard Warnick on January 1, 2010 - 12:40 pm


    If 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere, and we keep emitting more and more carbon dioxide, what happens?

  81. #81 by Ken on January 1, 2010 - 3:52 pm


    You missed the point of the study. It showed that even though we have increased carbon output the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains steady which means the Earth is taking care of it quite nicely thank you.

    If the Earth was as fragile as so many environmentalists believe life never would have had a chance.

  82. #82 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 1, 2010 - 5:32 pm


    It’s nice to see that scientists are not being censured for producing climate data inconsistent with the climate change model: such as here. To hear you talk, Ken, it was like such data was impossible to publish in scientific journals. You were like the Ben Stein of global warming.

    As for the Earth’s fragility, it might interest you to know that it’s this very fragility which makes life possible. Massive emissions from volcanoes, cyanobacteria, and limestone deposits are a big part of why we are how we are today. Life had a chance because the Earth’s atmospheric conditions are subject to emissions and have such an impact on climate.

    I guess the Earth is a big balloon, and we can keep blowing it full of lousy chemicals until it pops–but that’ll be a long time from now, so keep the party going until then.

    But maybe I should let Wolfgang Knorr speak for himself:

    Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed.

    Anyway, there’s a lot more evidence to take into account about various carbon sinks.

    I’m not saying global warming is a sure thing. I’m just letting you know that you should wait before revving your engine and popping open the champagne. This thing isn’t figured out or solved quite yet. That goes for you, too, Richard.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  83. #83 by cav on January 1, 2010 - 7:13 pm

    While the Earth may be less fragile than some environmentalists fear, surely you can imagine a threshhold past which she will have to re-envision cockroach supremacy.

    I’ll meet you half-way there and we can discuss whether we can then turn our effluent stream into something valuable to humans. Mkay?

  84. #84 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 1, 2010 - 7:32 pm

    My comment, due to its several links, appears to have been sent to the spam bucket/basket/bonfire/spitoon/rye with cheese. Please restore it, Ken. Thanks.

  85. #85 by Larry Bergan on January 1, 2010 - 11:43 pm


    Found you comment. It was in the spam filter alright.

  86. #86 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2010 - 9:57 am


    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. I challenge you to find a source that says the amount of atmospheric CO2 is “remaining steady.”


    People who have to plan for the management of natural resources, human infrastructure, and national defense are already dealing with the reality of climate change. For example, India is building a 2500-mile border wall to stop climate refugees from crossing over from Bangladesh. This stuff isn’t theoretical, it’s happening.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: