Shared publicly  - 
 
As Greenland sees a huge ice melt this summer, you should remember that climate change is just a figment of lefties' imaginations... 
19
5
Chris Harrison's profile photoAnton Wahlman's profile photoKeith Keber's profile photoDan Gillmor's profile photo
49 comments
 
+Chris Harrison It is climate. If it were weather it would have been seen sometime earlier also. This has not happened in a very long time.
 
Oh, c'mon, Dan, you're beating a strawman. The climate changes, deal with it. It's been changing every 1500 years +- 500 years for at least 60 cycles. That's not the question people should be asking. The question is whether CO2 emission reduction is the cheapest way to mitigate climate change.
 
I'm imagining pro-warming demonstrators chanting "Keep Greenland Green!"
 
+Russell Nelson Come on, there's ample evidence at this point that humans are inducing more rapid change -- and that we're heading toward a fairly catastrophic result. Reducing CO2 looks at the moment like the best option, but I'm all ears on better solutions. Right now we're not just heading toward a cliff; we're racing toward it.
 
I'm not sure that reducing CO2 is the best option.
 
+Dan Gillmor so what caused the melt 150 year ago?  Climate or weather?    You cant take a single event and make a prediction based on it.  All we know from this article is that it happens every now and then. 
 
It's happened before and will happen again.
On the positive... NYC could really use a bath.
 
Why is this somehow a problem?  I think it's called GREENland for a reason.  It probably used to be green.  If I don't develop golf courses there one day, Trump will.
 
It is absolutely amazing to observe the flippant attitude of people about the Global Warming issue. Just because it is not going to a cause a problem tomorrow does not mean that it does not exist or that it will go away by making smart comments. The climate change models show that if we continue producing CO2 we are heading towards a 6 degree celsius increase in average temperature across the globe. This means that crop yield of major grains will go down by around 50-60% since the crops are not used to such high temperatures. Can someone tell me how amusing/useful would you then find golf courses in Greenland?
 
+Mark Hennessy We are over-due for a significant x-class... maybe we will get the biggest we've seen in recorded history - and the first real one since the advent of modern tech based on satellites and electric grids. At least the auroras will look more beautiful with the lights out. 
 
+Mark Hennessy You totally misunderstand the reason for the concern for global warming. It is not about whether we have a vote or not; it is about whether we are preparing to respond to it or not. Right now the what the climate sceptics are saying is that since we do not know who is responsible, we will not take any action to limit the damage.

This is like arguing about who set the fire, while the house burns down.
 
+Vinayak Joshi Maybe it is time to stop claiming every weather event is directly related to climate change...
 
+Chris Harrison Even those that were predicted by the climate change models?? This one was - see "An Inconvenient Truth" - melting of Greenland ice is specifically mentioned.
 
+Vinayak Joshi Oh please. An Inconvenient Truth... so full of holes I can see straight through it. Maybe look into the inconvenient truth about that whole Gore money-making/rip-off machine.
 
Nothing like peer pressure and ridicule to invalidate scientific evidence. Enjoy the fires, the drought and all the other anomalous "weather events" caused by the sun LOL. Meanwhile, just turn up the A/C. If it gets too hot, you can always take a drive to the mall.

"I cannot tell if to depart in silence,
Or bitterly to speak in your reproof, 
Best fitteth my degree or your condition."
 
I'm astonished by deniers' ridiculous claims, senseless assumptions, and distortion of basic science.  Yet, they flock to the topic!  I can't comprehend their willingness to repeat fantasies and falsehoods about science, history, and other areas of knowledge.

Are they really that ignorant?  Or... are they paid to say the stuff?

Imagine the humiliation they'll face in a decade or two if G+ posts are still available for search. Yikes! 
 
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
 
Sure melting happens every 150 years. It is the EXTENT of melting that is the point of concern. Melting over 97% of the area is what is bothersome. It is expected that this increase can result in tipping the balance towards cascading effects.
 
+Mark Hennessy, I'm astonished because I comprehend science.

You're astonished because you believe any claim you fabricate should prevail over reality.

I hope you're covering your tracks.  The Climate Crimes trials of coming decades are likely to be brief, and brutal.
 
A mainstream newspaper article from 2009 and some hand-waving about sunspots? Well, I'm convinced.
 
+Mark Hennessy, your intellectual conceit is not reinforced by making up words like "megamaniacal" (presumably in reference to megalomania). LOL, we could play this game all day long. 
 
From the NYT article: "_It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there_ " Dr. Michael Mann, one of the victims of the theft of data used to question scientific evidence of global warming. Mann is referring to the difference between the rhetoric (which is suspicious) and the actual facts of the data (which is not and has never been). +Mark Hennessy, straw man much?
 
But yes, for responding to the avalanche of groupthink observed today on this thread, Al Gore and the AGW-POLICE are going to come after we so-called AGW deniers like Pinochet went after economists and politicians and take us up in a helicopter and disembowel us, then toss our lifeless bodies into the Pacific Ocean.

Lol, hope they sell tickets! Seriously, not so much for your obstinacy, but just simply for all those royal "us's", "we's" and "our's" and associated pluralities. Unless of course you keep a mouse in your pocket.
 
So you are the representative spokesman of the hygienic group, +Mark Hennessy? Is that an elective or appointed position? The passage I quoted seems to contradict your lament about the numbers sharing your view by posing these brave few as an oppressed minority.
 
As soon as someone conflates sunspots with weather or climate, pull out the popcorn: it's time for a show.
 
The links to recent scientific papers casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming are really flooding in to the thread, aren't they?
 
It's as though +Mark Hennessy believes that an educated audience would buy his flavor of beans.  Crazy.

As noted before, though, crackpottery may just be his side job.  He did argue that people will say anything for money; that would explain it.
 
+Mark Hennessy , how do account for the fact that we're pumping quite a bit of green house gasses into the air. CO2 being a green house gas isn't still up for debate, is it?

You say climate is changing, but you don't believe humans have any influence over it? That seems an untenable position based on just about everything we know in all the various realms of science. The only plausible debate you can have is how much worse are humans making it, not whether or not we're involved.
 
+Mark Hennessy, that's not really an answer.  That's avoiding the question.

I don't believe I said anything about water vapor (which we may be responsible for increasing through our daily lives), and I certainly didn't say we need to get rid of all CO2 in the atmosphere.  The claim I made was that we are pumping an extreme amount of additional green house gasses (CO2, Methane, etc.) that the earth has no easy way of dealing with.  If you accept that these things are green house gasses, then you cannot also claim we don't add to the problem when we are pumping them into the atmosphere.   The only valid claim a person can make is that humanity isn't adding that much, which is a dubious and unhelpful stance at best.
 
So, +Mark Hennessy, bottom line: how many people do you think you have convinced today? How many have given your view serious consideration? Might there be a more productive use of your time?
 
So I get that right-wing free market proponents don't want to see regulation of, you know, anything at all, but if there were a carbon market, wouldn't that be a huge opportunity to get in there and make money?

Whenever there's a market, there's always middlemen and people that learn how to operate or warp a market for their own profits. Why not say, "Yes! New market! I'll get in there early and make bank!" instead of calling such plans an evil plot. A carbon market offers the rare opportunity to create incentives to reduce carbon emissions while also making money for everyone that figures out how to make a greener mousetrap. Win-win.
 
+Mark Hennessy It appears you've learned the Fox model of debate very well: turn words and ideas over to mean their opposite and hope no one notices, and never let a fact get in the way of a good story or righteous indignation.

I bet you're a nice guy in real life. But this thread has painted you into a rhetorical corner from which you can't escape, and the logical stress fractures are showing. I'm out.
 
Stunning, isn't it?  +Mark Hennessy actually does not understand any of what's happening.  Not in climate, not in science -- not in direct discourse.  When will he wake up?  Stay tuned!

PS:  Mark, you wildly creative guy, I didn't "advocate for trials."  LOL

I simply recommended that you cover your tracks. Think about it ;-)
 
I'm not here to convince anyone. +Mark Hennessy, you wrote that at 3:15 am, according to the timestamp. So okay then, mission accomplished. Good job. 
 
+mathew murphy, Mark does exhibit that ignore-the-relevant-data attitude required of any birther -- but they're typically driven by a political, even racist, agenda.  And, there is a bizarre "prize" to win.  If their smears can weaken the presidency, their friends and family will share a feeling of superiority, however misguided, or short lived.

The peculiar thing about Mark (and even the less dogmatic deniers) is his insistence on a fantasy that will cause harm to all the people around him, and everything he cares about.  There is no upside -- not even a temporary or emotional one.  It's all lose:  look like a fool now; be proven more wrong with every passing day; eventually, know that he made the problem worse by his deception.

It's fascinating to ponder the source of that pathology...
 
Looking at the time stamps from the above posts, I agree that this issue is worth losing some sleep.  At any rate, I read some time last couple of weeks (Scientific American?) that the major scientists involved in congressional hearings refuting anthropogenic global warming have changed their positions and are now in agreement with it.  I am sure they've had a lot of time and resources (GOP money?)  to really dig through the vast amount of studies, and yet can't help but disprove themselves.
 
Also, note that my article is quite clearly about anthropogenic global warming; the word "anthropogenic" is right there in paragraph 2. You are the one trying to shift the debate by pretending that people are not discussing anthropogenic global warming.
 
They faked the moon landing too, right?
 
+mathew murphy, here's the author's letter in the 30 Jul NYT (in case that link wasn't already live when you read TP):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

As your link notes, the largest funder of that study was the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) "  ( http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/ )... which until now have been successful in funding only the sort of disinformation +Mark Hennessy promotes. 

So, facts do catch up to even the nuttiest of the bunch -- as they will catch up to Mark, too ;-)
Add a comment...