Came here almost by accident — looking for news on the record cold in the Southern hemisphere. News about record cold, or cold temperatures in general, is much harder to find than anything on “warming” since everything is skewed by the MSM reporting.

Anyway, I have been a AGW skeptic forever and think the fraudsters should be in jail for crimes against humanity.
The whitewash was just as disgraceful. They will never sleep on this, so neither can anyone else.

In case you were not aware, you(Dr.Spencer)and your book got an excellent shout out on the American Thinker Website last night with full credits, naturally, and a beautiful explanation and summary of your findings and conclusions dispelling AGW from your book.

Won’t hurt book sales one bit! Thank you so much.

Dr. Wm. Wyatt
.

That is pure evil! Seriously. How can you claim any scientific credibility by suggesting a one ppm change will affect climate change, when water vapor, a more powerful greenhouse gas, demonstrates the planet is capable of fluctuating patterns much more intense?

Well of course Nitrogen plays a cooling role in the upper atmosphere, even if you bothered to spend some nuanced observations of how CO2 is absorbed and redistributed by water vapor (but not measured or discussed) since it is water soluble? The effects of Nitrogen at night and sunlight are the real climate regulators? Nitrogen atoms heating and cooling displace the effects of greenhouse gases because of the volume of Nitrogen, almost like an intelligent life form created the Earth? Imagine that?

Why do they use liquid Nitrogen as a coolant in industrial applications — because of its natural cooing affects on other substances?

Politics prevent change I can believe in, and I have no hope in the media? Yes we can, change that viewpoint?

Freedom is not free, it takes all you can be.

Simply put the the energy differentials required to produce those “manifestations” is reduced by warming.

The simplest and most well understood model of climate is based on energy transfer. The larger the differential, the more tranfer must take place to reach equilibrium, resulting in larger more violent storms as energy is tranferred from one extreme to the other, etc. I grant that the process in total is EXTREMELY complex and to simply say bigger temp diff makes bigger storms is simplistic, but it doesn’t negate teh fundamental truth of the simple model. AGW though, deliberately ignores this well understood basic model, and as such should be suspect.

But, with GW producing smaller differentials the logical result, long term, will be less violence.

I also take exception with jumping on the good Dr. for his use of the term “Global Warming.” Your characterization of the term as media derived is grossly inaccurate. The term “Climate Change” is a relatevily recent construct resulting from the understandably negative connotation of the original GW term. Working group records, videos of AGW proponents and policy makers are well documented as having made deliberate decisions to “adjust” the nomenclature in recent years to avoid the negative publicity as well as be able to sidestep the issues regarding recently notice temperature declines or lack of declines. In this fashion no matter what changes actually occur, “Climate Change” can be seen as being real, even if all the fuss still amounts to a “warming” trend.

I am not paid by anybody.

My father (a geologist) and one of my college geology professors have said that this caused the North Atlantic region to be in a constant cool state since it happened, and the only way to truly get back to the temperatures of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc, would be to raise the sea level enough to re-submerge the Panamanian Peninsula. Until this happens, the climate will be in a constant state of flux which includes warmer periods like we have now, and ice ages, of which we have had numerous times throughout the millenia.

Basically, this means that we haven’t seen anything regarding warming yet, and if this DID happen, we would eventually return to the giant plants and animals of the dinosaur era. All of that was able to happen without the help of humans, so who are we to think that we are significant enough to drastically alter such a dynamic, complex system as the climate of the Earth.

Figured I’d throw this in to help clarify some previous comments (that, and I don’t know how to keep my mouth shut or mind my own business!).

Thanks in advance for any clarifying comments, and thank you to everyone here for having a civilized, respectable discussion, and not resorting to the vitriolic hatred found on most websites.

One glance at this graph tells us, immediately that the entire, multi-$billion, AGW issue is a hoax.

In the past, CO2 gas been 100x higher. The present SCARE is over an uptick from THE LOWEST CO2 LEVELS in the entire period shown in the graph. That uptick is at a time when we ought to be in an Ice Age, with severe glaciation —it is NOT the CO2 saving us from that, it is ocean currents and extra-terrestrial factors.

The idea that sailors might fall off the edge of the Earth, or that massive monsters lived only a few days sail from known waters, are scares that are MORE sane than is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Back then, they did not have sufficient science, nor sufficient geographic nor oceanographic information, nor sufficient biological information, so their fears could be justified as the fears of the ignorant. Even high school graduates have NO SUCH EXCUSE, other than that *at the age of 50 or so years, they cannot think!!

Today’s fears are a result of an utter, culture wide, inability to identify what is IMPORTANT/essential/fundamental in a mess of information.

Ayn Rand predicted this kind of stupidity fifty years ago, and explains why it has been growing. Her technical writing on how ideas and concepts are formed and should function in the human mind, once understood, immediately reveals how the present insanity manages to exist.

To better understand the truth of her ideas, read Leonard Peikoff’s “Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand” as if your life depended on it. Focus on each paragraph as if it were a month of a fourth year University program. You WILL and ARE being tested. When Peikoff redirects you to Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, mark your spot in OPAR, and read ITOE three times.

First, read it as if your life depended on its instructions and methods; as if it was your bomb squad manual. Then read it again, trying to find fault, in her thinking OR IN YOURS. You are analyzing it, and will not move ahead one page until you are 100% sure you know everything described/explained in each paragraph. Then, the third time, you will read it bringing together all your new understandings & doubts, to see if one part, or another, really is what you understood it to be. You want to see if it really does make perfect step by step sense. Has she misused words… hey, check your own usage before simply saying hers is a mismatch.

Return to OPAR, and see how entire books of arguments on ethics, on politics, on art, happiness and even sex, can then be reduced to a chapter, or so, once the proper bases are clear.

Ayn Rand offers the only antidote to a return to The Dark Ages. Nowhere is Western intellectual impotence more blatant than in America’s President groveling before Muslims, and in its groveling to that President. Yes, those disparate facts ARE related… if you grasp essentials and properly connect (integrate) ideas & facts.