Nashville News Blog

Right or wrong, a sign in front of your place of business is a stupid place to air your personal opinions. I wish I ate at Burger King so I could stop!

Ooh, Kevin, bad choice of quack scientists to prove your point. I bet you believe in intelligent design, too.

Robinson is a Christian fundamentalist, not a professional climate scientist. The study you refer to was co-published by the George C. Marshall Institute, which gets big-time donations from ExxonMobil. Think they have an interest in disproving climate change? You bet. If the best you denialists can do is throw out junk science by quack "scientists," the number of rational people rolling their eyes at your nonsense will only grow. Keep it up, by all means.

"Robinson is a Christian fundamentalist, not a professional climate scientist."

-- Not relevent. The fact that you bring up his religioun shows just how intellectually impotent you are. 9,000 scientists signed the petition. Care to address specifics as opposed to bringing up details unrelated? How about elaborating on what makes him a "quack scientists"? Hurry up and Google an answer, quick!!!!

The IPCC represents 1% of the world scientific community and many people SUED to have names removed from the report claiming "scientific consensus"...

20 years ago it was global cooling....then global warming....now global "climate change".

There are some major environmental issues that need to be addressed but this BS is not one of them.

Also, define "big time". Your government profits more from oil than any oil company...

Go dip your tea-bag somewhere else Kevin.

It's pertinent because fundamentalists of any ilk are, by their very nature, crazy. And I don't believe you can be a serious scientist and believe in an omnipotent entity no one has ever seen or heard from. Oh, and he isn't a climatologist. What could he possibly have to say on the subject that is illuminating?

Notice Kevin doesn't address the fact the ExxonMobil basically funded the pseudoscience he's referring to. And these 9,000 scientists he mentions? I wonder what kind of credentials it takes to get onto that list?

The point is, Robinson is a contrarian crackpot who even takes issue with evolution and natural selection--two theories universally accepted among REAL scientists. He's a fringe wacko at best.

Donnie: "If there is global warming why has the earth cooled since 1998."

Putting aside the fact that questions should end with a question mark, your assertion is neither true, nor is what your question implies. Mean global temperatures have continued to rise, even since 1998. See this graph, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

1998 was a peak year, so it's a dishonest point to pick. If you had picked 1999 or 2000 then it has certainly gotten warmer than either of those years. Also, 2005 was warmer than than 1998, so you're still wrong. What you're doing is called "cherry picking" your data, and that hurts your credibility.

In any case, the world is still much warmer than it was just a decade ago, so even if there is a temporary steadiness in mean global temperature, it is still higher than it should be, and the trends suggest it will continue to go higher. The trend is real, and comparing it to one data point does not change that.

And are you aware of how much energy it takes to raise an area the size of the surface of the Earth by even one degree Celsius? I'll give you a hint: it's huge. You can't add that much energy to the atmosphere and not expect it to be affected. And when we look, we see that the number of reported floods and cyclones around the world have indeed gone up with global climate. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_natural_disasters.jpg

That's not a coincidence. Now, it is true some of the rise can be attributed to greater reporting. However, since we are unable to affect earthquakes we can see that the reporting rate for cyclones and floods have increased at a greater rate than earthquakes. This allows us to rule out greater reporting as the sole cause for the increased rates of floods and cyclones around the world.

This is not a "boogey man" (or "boogyman", if you want it written correctly), this is a straightforward presentation of the facts. If you'd like to keep burying your head in the sand when it comes to the facts, fine, but that won't keep us from seeing that your "facts" are neither true nor relevant even if they were true.

Burger King sould have the right to tell the truth == "Global Warming is Baloney" Obama's Cap and trade is a hoax that would destroy the U.S. economy. It would be another giant step towards Marxism -- and the corruption, poverty, enslavement, destruction and despair that Marxism entails.

Obama is working much faster than Hugo Chavez at imposing socialism/communism/Marxism (or whatever you want to call the government taking over, enslaving people, and destroying the economy). No wonder the Russians are gloating:

From Pravda: “…the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people…” Read the article in Pravda… http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

The muffinman is awsome

HiEv

If you read your graph if you look the earth has COOLED since 1998.

Yes the graph shows the earth has warmed since the Mid 1800s. But what event happened in the Mid 1800s The Little Ice Age ended. Of course we have warmed if we had not Warmed we would be in an Ice Age.

The 1300s were 3 Degrees warmer than today's climate. remember the Vikings were living in greenland because the climate was warm enough to grow Vineyards.

Look at the GISS Raw Data with the Exception of 2006 ( a year of Solar Flares) the earth has cooled.

2008 was the Coldest Year since 1985, and the 2nd Coldets year since 1962.
year Dela difference
from mean

1998 1.24
1999 .94
2000 .55
2001 .78
2002 .56
2003 .53
2004 .46
2005 .71
2006 1.08
2007 .77
2008 .10

The Oak Ridge National Laboratories 150,000 climate data shows we are in about the mean climate for the 150,000 year period.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world

around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)

130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.

(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)

?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).

105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.

95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.

93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.

75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)

60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)

25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')

(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)

9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's

Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

Sorry but your Graph proved my point.

When did those of us with the intelligence to see through the global warming scam become "denialists"?

This is a deeply pejorative term hitherto associated with Holocaust denial. Is the idea to draw a comparison between those who reject the man-made global warming thesis and Nazi sympathizers?

Man-made global warming (and it's supposed dire consequences for humanity) *is* 100% baloney.