Does Extreme Cold Mean Global Warming Is Fake?

John Vechey of PopCap Games recently joined The Motley Fool for a climate change summit. His first panel guests were Dr. Rachel Cleetus and Dr. Joe Casola. Rachel is a Climate Economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, where she advocates for effective global warming policies at the state, regional, federal, and international levels. Joe is Program Director for Science and Impacts at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), which works to assess the current state of knowledge regarding climate change and its impacts, and to promote actions that strengthen climate resilience.

We've all heard people scoff at "global warming" when a particular region experiences unseasonable cold, heavy snow, or record low temperatures. Joe and Rachel explain how climate change can lead to cold events, even as average global temperatures creep upward.

Indeed, they explain that extreme heat waves are on the rise, often with severe consequences. Consider the case of Constellation Energy (NYSEMKT: CEP  ) , as detailed in "Physical Risks from Climate Change:"

The record-setting heat wave in Texas during the summer of 2011 led to unprecedented electricity demand and contributed to price spikes, forcing Constellation Energy to purchase incremental power in the real-time market at peak prices; the after-tax impact on third quarter earnings was a reduction of about $0.16 per share.

AES (NYSE: AES  ) lays out its risks quite cogently in its 2012 10k filing:

Physical impacts may have the potential to significantly affect the Company's business and operations, and any such potential impact may render it more difficult for our businesses to obtain financing. For example, extreme weather events could result in increased downtime and operation and maintenance costs at the electric power generation facilities and support facilities of the Company's subsidiaries. Variations in weather conditions, primarily temperature and humidity also would be expected to affect the energy needs of customers. A decrease in energy consumption could decrease the revenues of the Company's subsidiaries. In addition, while revenues would be expected to increase if the energy consumption of customers increased, such increase could prompt the need for additional investment in generation capacity. Changes in the temperature of lakes and rivers and changes in precipitation that result in drought could adversely affect the operations of the fossil fuel-fired electric power generation facilities of the Company's subsidiaries. Changes in temperature, precipitation and snow pack conditions also could affect the amount and timing of hydroelectric generation.

Watch the video below to learn more.

One company, in particular, is doing a great job of helping to reduce and adapt to climate change. This home run investing opportunity has been slipping under Wall Street's radar for months. But it won't stay hidden much longer. Forward-thinking energy players like GE and Ford have already plowed sizable amounts of research capital into this little-known stock... because they know it holds the key to the explosive profit power of the coming "no choice fuel revolution." Luckily, there's still time for you to get on board if you act quickly. All the details are inside an exclusive report from The Motley Fool. Click here for the full story!


Read/Post Comments (65) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 5:50 PM, mesotekan wrote:

    only the stupidest people in the country don't know how global warming works because the have been denying it, soon they wont be able to.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:09 PM, luckyagain wrote:

    What is the use? The Fox news watchers firmly believe that global warming is a scam. Nothing anyone can say will ever change their views. Such is life in the US where most people avoid science like the plague while in school.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:12 PM, tigerade wrote:

    Smart companies need to fully understand and be ready to adapt to global warming. Do not pay attention to the Fox News crowd. They are worthless.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:18 PM, MasterCaedus wrote:

    Just pointing this out, but these are people who are getting more money and recognition because of global warming than they'd have without it. Isn't it in their best interests to vehemently say that global warming is real, regardless of what their data could say?

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Teambbr1 wrote:

    There has been no significant warming since 1998 just look up the facts. It's funny that the alarmists dispell a localized cold snap, but because its hot in parts of the us it demonstrates global temperature rise. It's a poor unconvincing argument. That's not even taking into account thei 97% consensus scam.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Teambbr1 wrote:

    Their data is all hype master just for that reason. That's why the fight showing raw temperature data that they feed into their climate models

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:29 PM, 18RC wrote:

    There's no data in this article that shows us global warming is mostly man made or that storms and temperature fluctuations are getting worse.

    Reason? Because there is no credible scientific evidence to support those assertions.

    And that's the chronic problem with Motley Fool articles; i.e. they don't inform.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:29 PM, tbarbar90 wrote:

    d

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Teambbr1 wrote:

    Hey lucky why do they (alarmists) need to lie and keep their input data a secret.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Teambbr1 wrote:

    Didn't gore get rich from inventing the internet(sarcasm)

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:40 PM, tbarbar90 wrote:

    Global warming has been politicized which creates problems. Furthermore, if you understand how government funding works, you'd realize many studies are not "independent" since the funding agencies are often wanting to find global warming and the scientists in their quest for more funding will manage to find things that support their proposals.

    That said, I try to keep an open mind. As far as I am concerned there are two questions: 1) is global warming occurring? 2) is it man made?

    It bothers me that some of the data was manipulated by the pro warming crowd and papers by naysayers were denied publishing. How can you have a fair discussion under these circumstances? Why would you need to manipulate data or deny the other point of view if you think your data is right? It does seem to me though that it has been getting warmer.

    Another issue that complicates the study, is that many of the temperature readings are being taken in or near cities. These temperatures run hotter than in the country. Furthermore, the data from rural areas was more common years ago so the data now will be biased towards warming.

    Just try to keep an open mind and remember who is presenting the data and where their funding is coming from.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:48 PM, dnj23 wrote:

    Joe said it's based on a moving jet stream and Rachel it's based on recent heat trends. Not a very solid argument.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 6:59 PM, DrEdu wrote:

    We don't know.

    The specialists don't know.

    But please do not confuse Global Warming with Man Made Global Warming.

    I know that Religious Leaders such as Al Gore and President Obama wish to declare them 'Heretics", but Scientists have not found clear proof of MAN MADE Climate Change.

    In fact, they have been looking elsewhere, as NASA reported:

    "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:06 PM, sportsboston wrote:

    The problem with these summits is that it is comprised only of people who believe in this farce.

    I go by the measure that privare industry uses to make long and short term business decisions that are impacted by the climate. They use Weatherbell. WB must be right on else businesses could lose trillions. There is no politics, no taxes, no bs involved. Straight information makes them money. Weatherbell climatoloigists do not believe in man made climate change. They go by patterns over the past 2,000 years. They analyze real information about ocean temps,solar radiation, earth's rotation, and world wise temp;s to make business decisions.

    If they debated Al Gore, Al would mess his pants.

    Stop this religious movement based upon believing frauds and use your brains. Read. Question. Debate. Think. You might surprise yourself.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:09 PM, CyrusJr wrote:

    They should fire whoever wrote the headline. It's like they expect the reader to be ignorant.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Blknblue wrote:

    It is staggering how easily some people have believed this hoax making comments like Fox news watchers or flat earth society etc. I little research looking for an honest answer is all it takes. First off the theory, and it is still a theory, is based on average temps. Go look up on NASA where the temps come from. In 1987 they rightly determined the "average" temperature being reported was not very accurate. Thermometer readings taken from around the world at different times at different altitudes and different seasons. So they built a computer model to feed the data into it. Most likely a more accurate number but it showed an immediate jump in temp. They have updated the model several times since then no doubt adding in green house gas factors and every time the numbers jump up. The theory was based on these jumps in temp. The problem is any fool knows you cannot compare one computer generated number to another generated from a new program. So as Teambbr1 stated the actual temps have been on a slight decline since 1998. And a news story reported in Australia and England in April pointed this out. They even interviewed some of the top global warming experts who admitted the cooling but could not explain it either. The real kicker is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade, especially with China on such a growth rate. We should be boiling already if the theory was true. The final common sense test is the carbon credit game being widely proposed. It does not reduce carbon emissions over all but requires countries like the US to buy phantom credits from non industrialized nations to continue business as usual.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:20 PM, rocket7777 wrote:

    2nd stage of global warming is colder and longer winter when ice start to melt.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Fooloprunes wrote:

    If you don't believe global warming is happening, just take a look at the reduction in the summer sea ice in the Arctic, and the amount that the Earth's glaciers have retreated. I've seen the effects just up the road in Glacier National Park.

    You have to have your head in the sand (or wedged in a place where the Sun don't shine) to believe the carp put out by Faux.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Fooloprunes wrote:

    @blnknblu - Obviously, you don't know much about science. ALL scientific knowledge is described by a THEORY.

    For example, the method by which antibiotics kill bacteria is "just a theory" too. The way light travels down a fiber-optic cable to make the Internet work is also "just a theory".

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:35 PM, ThisIsUnReal wrote:

    Primates please, the Human Brain is so much more capable of reason... "The Fox Crowd"... give me a break... It doesn't seem to matter what "Crowd" you get programmed by news-wise, no one seems to think rationally about anything...

    Once upon a time... are you still with me?

    Once upon a time the earth was a huge ice covered ball... then one day the temperature rose to above freezing and the ice began to melt... more and more as the ice left the surface the speed of the heat-rise increased until today when we recognize the speed and think to ourselves "Oh My God, What Have We Done?!?"

    I'll tell you whose REALLY to blame though... It's those Darned Americans from 40,000 years ago when ice still covered half of the United States... If they had simply controlled their emissions, then the ice wouldn't have melted back to cover only half of Canada...

    Global warming IS REAL, but you have to be pretty darn arrogant to think that you can make a difference... Of course arrogance is the Obamic call of the day, isn't it... Are you REALLY stronger than Mother nature?!?

    HOWEVER...

    If you DO feel you can outdo Mother nature then here's what you can do... Paint everything white!!!

    The ice that covers the earth has a reflective white coating, as we lose that white coating the heat-rise increases... We need to replace the reflective coating if we are going to stand any chance of putting the brakes on Mom Nature...

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:38 PM, ktbonner wrote:

    One of the biggest issues holding up widespread acceptance of global warming is that the majority of 'solutions' serve the sole purpose of making someone rich.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 7:44 PM, sportsboston wrote:

    The artic ice lost is cyclical. It happens with a regular frequency. South Pole ice is actually more abundant. Mother nature is comprised of a number of elements whose fluxuations and combinations impact the climate. Use common sense. Do not listenb to scam artists. Follow the money trail. Its all about wealth creation. If you can con the people, you can steal their money much easier.

    Now say i believed,...the UN has admitted that even if it is man made, we could shut down all industrial plants, cars, ac units...in the world and it would not make even a tiny dent in climate change.

    This whole thing is insane...but people need their religion...want to believe that man is evil...that we are killing the earth...whenin fact the earth gives us life but it also gives us death.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 8:06 PM, bcelectro wrote:

    This whole argument has been framed in two different manners. Global climate change and Human caused global climate change. Climate change is normal and consistent. Human climate change is debatable! The AGW crowd will use the difference to further their nonsense with a game of semantics. There is no rational discussion with the AGW alarmists. Their sheepish minds are made up for them.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 8:13 PM, NickD wrote:

    Global warming is more of a answer to a problem.

    Population explosion is the problem.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Lawless6373 wrote:

    Global warming is a function of the average global temperature and says nothing about regional temperatures. The global temperature did shift upward about one degree F beginning in 1998. However, it very rapidly leveled off. You can check it out at:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    So, global warming (as a trend) is no longer occurring and has not for the past 15 years. However, the Co2 that some scientists blame for global warming has slowly increased at a steady rate since about 1960. I think that proves that there is no correlation between global warming and Co2. I also think that the global warming movement is a political movement, not a scientific one and scientists have been disingenuous concerning the scientific evidence to support it.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 8:34 PM, mjoinga wrote:

    Oh yes, lets forget the scientist that lied through their teeth a few years ago because their outcome didn't match what they wanted to believe. People couldn't get away from them fast enough and a coverup was tried to take care of the damage but it didn't work. So one day people will have to admit it. Global warming, what every you want to call it has been around since the earth began and will be till the end. We have nothing to do with it. And our country can't do anything about it if it were true. If anyone thinks Russia or China or any other country that uses fossil fuels are going to stop because the liberals say so are in for a big surprise. No the little guy will be. This is a scam to make some people rich. Like Barney Madoff. Remember him people. A lot of people believed him too.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 8:48 PM, tommy1954 wrote:

    first lets understand what cold is,cold is low pressure,see those clouds outside,there pockets of low pressure floating in a high pressure zone,down next to the ground is 99.8% high pressure,cuz gravity pulls down on the heavyest part of the lower atmosphere.what causes low pressure you ask,usually a disturbance like a jet flying thou,or lighting or other unknown or unseen phenomena.personal note,during the sandy event hurricane there where numerous I call them sprites,red vertical object centered over the eye,what they are is also unknown and at about 150 thousand feet.these object I do believe are of supernatural design that influence our weather on a global scale.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 9:20 PM, mgkdrgn wrote:

    The earth's climate has been changing, constantly, since this little mud ball was formed ... looonnnnggggg before man was around to release greenhouse gases.

    Oh, and just what is the "right" climate? The one during the last ice age? During the Jurassic when it was much warmer? Or maybe the "little ice age" (think Valley Forge) when a good portion of the population of Europe starved?

    Oh, how foolish of me, the "right" climate is the one that existed the day you were born, of course!

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 9:26 PM, consAREidiots wrote:

    Of course it doesn't.

    but conservative ignorance is strong - and harms the country they pretend to love.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Truth365 wrote:

    sorry but listen to the term Global warming .. the planet it's self is warning up thus the weather with change to try to cool it . it like the human body . when you run a fever the body start doing things to try to cool it ..I know myself i can work in 100 degree weather and you touch my lower chest to my belt line and it cold... global warming is the same a global change and the planet will make changes trying to do what nature has always did adapt. If you can't adapt to change you die. just ask the t-rex.. oops you can't.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:03 PM, Gymviking wrote:

    Maybe, but Al Gore means that Global Warming is definately a fake.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:14 PM, 2smartforlibs wrote:

    Extreme lies are what proves man made global warming is a hoax. How arrogant you libs are to think you have any say in the climate. Can can't get the weather for tomorrow and you think you can prove the temp will change in 100 years BS

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:23 PM, rimbaux3 wrote:

    I don't recollect the figures, but there are approximately 35 billion tons of carbon emissions now being emitted into the air and C02 has been rising and is now at 400 ppm, and all time record during the industrial age. It is fundamental physics that CO2, methane and other gases are green house emissions. Some of this is sequestered, but not enough to keep atmospheric concentrations in check. Serious climate change caused by man deniers, must account for the 'non-effect' of these massive emissions. Otherwise, their arguments are empty.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:27 PM, rimbaux3 wrote:

    According to many climate change scientists, given that C02 emissions has risen to 400 ppm, it is already too late to do anything about it. In fact, many of the deniers are linked to factions who want to curb or eliminate agencies like the EPA and Department of energy which if realized would take us back to the heavy smogs of the40's and 50's, or who want to downsize government generally. Without government and international treaties nothing can be done about climate change.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:33 PM, rimbaux3 wrote:

    With continuing congressional stalemate it is a good guess that nothing will be done about the near future effects of climate change. In that case, individuals and groups must plan to adapt to extreme effects of climate change, storms, floods, unusual high and low temperatures, shifting and decertification of agricultural area. It is about this time citizens must consider a serious costs-benefits-tradeoff analysis. Which which measures will occur at least cost to the individual. Personal adaptation or governmental and international coordinated programs?

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:36 PM, rimbaux3 wrote:

    To oversimplify, our weather system is like a heat exchanger. Put your hand in front of your running air conditioner. It is very cool. But on the exhaust side it will be hot

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:41 PM, mandoliv wrote:

    huh. I would think that the fact that they purposely manipulated mathematical formulas to get the answer they wanted would mean that it is fake. The Earth has been cooling and warming for millennia, why would it stop now?

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:52 PM, rimbaux3 wrote:

    I'm 86, I've witnessed almost a century of fiascos. The much vaunted human brain has become a farce. Because all knowledge is now determined by political opinion, politicians acting as doctors, hypocrisy endemic all thought is easy to manipulate and has become copy cat superficial. It wasn't always like that, but it is now. I lived a good life until now, but I will feel relieved to leave it. Young people, you can have it.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 10:59 PM, dancer70 wrote:

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg,

    In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists. America and the World’s ‘death knell’ – The Green Campaign (June 6, 2009)

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 11:01 PM, dancer70 wrote:

    The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the Moral, Cultural, Political, and Economic Decline of the United States of America. He vigorously concurred that the 'Global Warming' blitz is a classic Tavistock propaganda campaign of the highest priority. Apparently, no effort or amount of money or 'expert scientific opinion' is being spared to bring us this 'inconvenient truth' so that we might all become convinced that the story line laid out by the propagandists is true, and therefore we must acquiesce to the new "regulations" or laws that will be set in place to "prevent the catastrophes that will surely ensue if we don't curb Global Warming"'. I've been hearing some of the most absurd and ludicrous statements over the radio from Global Warming 'experts' concerning the dire "consequences" that will follow within 50-100 years if we don't follow their recommendations to 'put the brakes on Global Warming'. It's an insult to the intelligence of every human being on this planet to accept this unbridled hokum from those who posture themselves as 'leading academic scientists' and authorities on this subject (read Rockefeller/Rothchild-purchased and bribed ' talking heads').

    I'll be posting articles here which will dissect and expose the misdirection, deceit, and false conclusions being promoted by Global Warming promoters.

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Davand111 wrote:

    For you Global Warming / Climate Change Lemmings, here is an article which, if you can read and understand its contents, should change your little minds:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-h...

  • Report this Comment On July 05, 2013, at 11:52 PM, Davand111 wrote:

    Here is just a sample of that article for those of you lacking the initiative to read and research on your own (sorry it doesn't comport with the propaganda you've been spoon fed):

    The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

    Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

    The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:02 AM, mbee1 wrote:

    Up is down and down is up to the eco wackos. Since NASA shows zero warming since 1998 on average these record lows must be the imagination of Fox news.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Davand111 wrote:

    And finally, to the Motley Fool, if this article - devoid as it is of any substantive scientific details on its purported topic - is a reflection of your journalistic standards, then this is the first and last time I shall ever read anything on your site. But before I go, may I suggest a change in your nom de plume to the Motley Buffoon?

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:12 AM, predfern wrote:

    The following article does a good job of debunking global warming. According to Russian scientists we are heading for another little ice age. Watch for a temperature drop in 2014.

    Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax

    Posted on June 5, 2013by Anthony Watts

    Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-...

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/agw_theory_has_fa...

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:15 AM, rr383 wrote:

    What nonsense this is. We are still not as warm as 2,000 years ago. We are still recovering from the mini ice age. The early explorers were trying to find the Northwest passage which existed before the mini ice age. After the 4th crusade sacked Constantinople and it's fabulous archive of maps and knowledge showed the passage. The climate changes. Thats its job. It changes over time and doesn't remain the same. The same idiots were crying global cooling as recently as the mid 70's. Every bit as convinced as they are about global warming.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:29 AM, RHO1953 wrote:

    The mindless sheep that believe in global warming have it all their way. if it is hot out that is global warming. If it is cold out it either is meaningless or somehow proves global warming anyway. It is just the planet exercising its authority over us. This is a snake oil sales job to justify massive tax and control.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Oilvet wrote:

    Cold, hot, rain, shine what ever the global warming crowd always have a excuse that's why they call it climate change now so the data points don't have to fit the curve and the money keeps rolling in

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 5:53 AM, ronboltp wrote:

    Global warming is designed just like everything else on the liberals agenda, to gain power and control over the citizens. I have read enough articles on the findings of respected scientists to think it is totally fake.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 5:56 AM, mso88 wrote:

    Climategate exposed the reality: Global Warming is a hoax designed to perpetuate bloated grants to politically correct "scientists," while granting brutally dictatorial political powers to virtually every regime on the planet.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 6:33 AM, mwlovin wrote:

    Finally a few rational comments....most here did not even address the subject, just took the time to bash FOX, Bush, or any one they could by calling them a racist. I feel totally vindicated in that I never bowed to Global Warming, Recycling, the Liberal Left...or any of the Obama crowd.

    Times are coming and change is on the way....we will bring this country back the way it was meant to be when it was started.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Snakepit456 wrote:

    Perhaps the notion that CO2 is being portrayed as a "pollutant" in the global warming scam should be examined a little more.

    The propaganda always shows chimneys belching smoke (never mind that CO2 is odorless and colorless.)

    This of course benefits the rent seekers and speculators who will directly benefit from the bizarre government created carbon markets.

    Moreover, the beneficial effects of CO2 cited by the people who do not support the scam are much more than theory and propaganda. Continuing satellite observations show that increasing atmospheric CO2, has been literally greening the planet. Measurements over the past 30 years record a major increase in vegetation across the world's land area, including equatorial regions such as the Amazon rain Forest. A quantity called the "Normalized Difference Vegetation Index" is used to monitor plant growth, vegetation cover, and biomass production. It shows a considerable net "greening" of the earth, due largely to increased atmospheric CO2.

    The global warming cabal has been dominated by poor science feeding a reinforcing political process for too long. The world has stopped warming for close to two decades now forcing the warmers to scurry around for explanations and excuses. There are no trends in extreme weather events, despite the astrology that now feeds the attempts to make everything that happens fit the dogma.

    We should bear these realities in mind when our elected and appointed public servants, rent seeking corporations, grant seeking academics, and news outlets try to tell us otherwise.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:02 PM, DList1 wrote:

    So whenever we have heat records they claim it proves global warming and now if we have cold records it also proves it. Than everything includes opposites "proves" global warming. If everything "proves" global warming than nothing does. That is NOT science. It's metaphysics.

  • Report this Comment On July 06, 2013, at 12:50 PM, GerryaI wrote:

    Average global temperatures have stayed the same for the past 16 years, yet the fools tell us that is an increase. The US has dropped its carbon output to the lowest levels since the mid 1990's . Before the global warming fools want us to do more, they have to show us proof that there is warming and then get China, India and the rest of the world to start contributing. The sad truth is is that Global Warming is just another leftist attempt at wealth redistribution to the most irresponsible.

  • Report this Comment On July 07, 2013, at 8:29 PM, Fooloprunes wrote:

    I've never heard such a load of complete carp from people who otherwise would seem to regard themselves as "intelligent".

    It takes an enormous amount of heat to melt ice into water, but the temperature of the mixture hardly changes at all.

    Water can absorb a far greater amount of heat than the air in the atmosphere (check out "specific heat" if you don't believe me).

    The bottom line is that it's pretty useless to try to determine whether or not the Globe is Warming from atmospheric temperatures. It's much better to observe the real effects.

    The man-made CO2 blanket is getting "thicker", the ice is melting, and the oceans are getting warmer (and BTW, more acidic).

    Feel free to ignore these realities if you wish, but a wise investor will recognize that these forces must influence their investment strategy (unless, of course, they spend all their time watching FOX)

  • Report this Comment On July 08, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Davand111 wrote:

    Fooloprunes - your name suits you well because on the subject of the causes of climate change you are simply incorrect and full of SH$T. It boils down not to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which have a marginal impact on global temperatures, and has everything to do with the cycles of Solar activity and the Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillations of our oceans. I have no idea why people keep bringing up Fox news or any news agency at all - it has to do with science, not the opinions fed to the public by the news organizations which are interested in one thing - making money by playing to their demographics.

    The only people ignoring the science of the global warming extremists - the same factions who in the 1970's were screaming that they were certain the world was cooling and we were all in danger. The impact of humans on the environment is obvious, but that doesn't mean it is causing the global climate change. Read some science before forming an opinion - or simply adopting the opinion you've been spoon fed because you lack the ability or impulse to research the subject on your own.

    For your benefit, here is a snippet of information of which you clearly have no understanding or knowledge:

    The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

    Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

    The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

  • Report this Comment On July 08, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Davand111 wrote:

    Oh and Foolo-Sh$t - I mean Foolo-prunes - I read one of your earlier comments decrying that @blnknblu doesn't know much about science (how ironic) as you spouted that ALL science is based in theory. What you left out is that most of the scientific theory that endures over time becomes established as accepted fact through repeated scientific observation and study - kind of like Newton's theory on gravity for example. But of course, in your hubris, or ignorance, you left that part out - which is kind of like saying "what's 2 plus 2" and thumping your primate chest without providing the actual answer. And of course, that is what you did in your last comment on global warming as well: you mentioned the "man made CO2 blanket", and then associated it with polar ice melt and the warming oceans. But rather than delve deeper into the subject with a curious mind, you simply accepted what you've heard from the talking heads - dare I say on MSNBC? - and made rising CO2 levels the causative factor. Well, rising CO2 levels are not - and even a cursory google search will reveal the obvious - Global warming and atmospheric CO@ levels are not correlated. Look it up. And next time you accuse someone of not knowing much about science, check your dime store education and IQ into a Holiday Inn Express.

  • Report this Comment On July 08, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Davand111 wrote:

    And what's even more ridiculous Fooloprunes is your statement "The bottom line is that it's pretty useless to try to determine whether or not the Globe is Warming from atmospheric temperatures. It's much better to observe the real effects."

    Really?! "Useless"?! We don't want to try to determine whether global climate change is caused by atmospheric temperatures or rising CO2 levels? What, we should just accept it as the cause blindly without doing rigorous science? Or we should leave out of the equation any effort to try to understand the causes of climate change?!

    That's the point of science you jackanapes - to try to understand the causes of what we observe. Seriously, you're a buffoon. Holiday Inn Express can't help you.

  • Report this Comment On July 09, 2013, at 3:17 PM, cdub77024 wrote:

    Sara, Sara, Sara

    Very difficult to take your observations/comments seriously when you can't even get the write company/ticker. The Constellation Energy was "CEG" and is now part of Exelon.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Fooloprunes wrote:

    David (sigh) there is no such thing as "a scientific fact", which makes your pathetic attempt to use proof by loud assertion all the more ridiculous.

    You seem to be confusing temperature with heat. It's quite possible for something to absorb a huge amount of heat without any change in temperature. That's precisely what ice does as it melts.

    Please go forth and learn some high-school science before making any more Foolish remarks.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Davand111 wrote:

    What you are stating has nothing to do with global warming Fool o prunes - instead of weaving more subterfuge through bait and switch, or perhaps clinging onto your high school level science regarding heat and temperature (which I understand and acknowledge as true), start addressing the real issues regarding global: solar cycles and the decadal oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - or is it too complex for you to understand? WHy else do you keep ignoring my substantive points and returning to your irrelevant and very basic one about heat and temperature? I always know when someone is out of their league - they simply ignore the details provided them and return to their mantra. Start by addressing my points in detail, as I did with your comments. Otherwise, retreat to your ignorant hovel.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Davand111 wrote:

    In fact, let's begin with the absurdity of your previous comment and my criticism of it: I've cut pasted it for you here again:

    And what's even more ridiculous Fooloprunes is your statement "The bottom line is that it's pretty useless to try to determine whether or not the Globe is Warming from atmospheric temperatures. It's much better to observe the real effects."

    Really?! "Useless"?! We don't want to try to determine whether global climate change is caused by atmospheric temperatures or rising CO2 levels? What, we should just accept it as the cause blindly without doing rigorous science? Or we should leave out of the equation any effort to try to understand the causes of climate change?!

    That's the point of science you jackanapes - to try to understand the causes of what we observe.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 2:01 AM, Davand111 wrote:

    In the totality of all your numerous comments, you state absolutely nothing of substance regarding global warming, which is the topic of this article. You're a dope. As I said, take your dime store IQ and education and flush it with the rest of your crap.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 2:08 AM, Davand111 wrote:

    As for your statement about "scientific fact", I've cut and pasted what I said about it again, for accuracy:

    "What you left out is that most of the scientific theory that endures over time becomes established as accepted fact through repeated scientific observation and study . . ."

    And now, I am again calling you to task: either address the substantive details I have laid out seriously, or retreat. But don't keep telling me that an orange is an orange - I don't need convincing.

  • Report this Comment On July 18, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Fooloprunes wrote:

    Davand the Thurd,

    Again (the "You incredible nitwit" is implied but unstated) there is no such thing as an accepted scientific "fact". It's all a bunch of scientific theories.

    In fact (he, he), the fact that your butt remains glued to your chair, is, in fact, one of the least well understood areas of science. We know there is an apparent force between your butt and the chair, but exactly how that force is communicated is still a major mystery.

    My only points about atmospheric temperatures are that they are incredibly difficult to measure (where do you actually stick the thermometer?) and even if you could measure the Earth's temperature, there are all sorts of physical changes (like ice melting) that will maintain a constant temperature even while the system is obtaining thermal energy (heat).

    But we don't need anything that clever. We only need to look at the receding glaciers (not far from here) to realize that the system is acquiring more heat than it did in the past. It ain't rocket science.

    Whether we like it or not, there is an increase in the thermal energy of the system. You can debate whether or not that is man-made, but all the evidence indicates that it is.

    What really distresses me is that all this information is freely available to anyone who cares to do some real investigation, but you are willing to spend lots of time launching into pathetic anti-science diatribes that fulfill your political ambition rather than trying to gain some real education.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2524763, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/21/2014 10:34:37 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement