PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming huh...On pace to be coldest July EVER




StayTrue
07-22-2009, 09:30 AM
From my local paper (Erie, PA)

July offers bit of cold reality: Month on pace to be chilliest July ever

Average Temp in July: 71.8

Lowest July on record (1976): 66.4

Average temperature in the first 20 days of July this year: 65.3

Currently 1.1 degrees cooler than the average July on record

Average: 71.8

MUST...STOP...CARBON!!!!!

acptulsa
07-22-2009, 09:31 AM
We won't even reach 90 today. I don't ever remember a July day where that didn't happen, and I've lived here most of my life.

Natalie
07-22-2009, 09:34 AM
It's pretty hot here, IMO.

Although, there have been record cold temperatures all around the world this year.

StayTrue
07-22-2009, 09:37 AM
in case i wasnt clear those are the average temps for Erie, PA

__27__
07-22-2009, 09:42 AM
in case i wasnt clear those are the average temps for Erie, PA

Minnesota is also setting record lows. Just the other day we had the lowest recorded temperature for that day in history, and the monthly average is also well down.

More research is DEFINITELY needed into what actually makes our climate change, and if there is anything we can, or even SHOULD do to affect that, but the answer is not leaping to grab hold of junk science.

Scofield
07-22-2009, 09:51 AM
It hasn't reached 90 once this summer, and probably no more than ~85. It's usually been around 70 degrees thus far this summer. I live in New York.

Most days it's cloudy, rainy, and/or cold. I rarely even see the sun, and if I do, it's usually surrounded by big clouds.

What a crappy summer.

Krugerrand
07-22-2009, 10:10 AM
You silly bean! Didn't you get the memo that we call it "Climate Change" now. We are only to reference "global warming" on above average temperature days.

Clearly if today is not the same as yesterday or is not the same as this day last year, then the human population is inviting its own peril. We can only be saved by financially supporting Super Al.

You are either need more Kool Aid ... or :mad: you are an oil company hack! :mad:

Stary Hickory
07-22-2009, 10:10 AM
Does this mean I can stop holding my breath now?

Zippyjuan
07-22-2009, 10:12 AM
Temperatures going up or down for one year or a couple of years is not a significant trend. You have to look at long term results.

__27__
07-22-2009, 10:16 AM
Temperatures going up or down for one year or a couple of years is not a significant trend. You have to look at long term results.

Temperatures gong up or down for THIRTY years is not a significant trend. That's quite the point of all of this. Real research hasn't been conducted, all we've been given is reactionary junk science based on 30 years of insignificant data on a timeline of hundreds of millions of years.

Stary Hickory
07-22-2009, 10:17 AM
Temperatures going up or down for one year or a couple of years is not a significant trend. You have to look at long term results.

How about the enitrity of Earths existence? Either way global warming activists lose. In recent years it's been cooler, there have been ice ages off and on, there have been periods that were much hotter.

People here are not saying that one cold summer is significant, they are merely tossing right back at the global warmign religous zealots their own medicine.

muh_roads
07-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Minnesota is also setting record lows. Just the other day we had the lowest recorded temperature for that day in history, and the monthly average is also well down.

More research is DEFINITELY needed into what actually makes our climate change, and if there is anything we can, or even SHOULD do to affect that, but the answer is not leaping to grab hold of junk science.

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

pcosmar
07-22-2009, 10:22 AM
Damn. I was looking forward to my property value going up as Lake Superior overflowed the banks and my place became shoreline property.
Shucks.;)

muh_roads
07-22-2009, 10:27 AM
U of MN is claiming their lakes are drying up. I have no opinions on this.

Krugerrand
07-22-2009, 10:40 AM
or perhaps we need to some of that "global governance" that Super Al talks about:
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/07/gore-us-climate-bill-will-help-bring-about-global-governance.html#more

puppetmaster
07-22-2009, 10:47 AM
Temperatures going up or down for one year or a couple of years is not a significant trend. You have to look at long term results.

facts are that there is no significant trend.....

Danke
07-22-2009, 10:48 AM
Damn. I was looking forward to my property value going up as Lake Superior overflowed the banks and my place became shoreline property.
Shucks.;)

This cooling trend could hurt my latest business venture.

http://northbynwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bumpersticker4.jpg

catdd
07-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Whether there is global warming or not, this has been the mildest and most delightful July weather I have ever seen in Tn.

2young2vote
07-22-2009, 12:03 PM
There have been maybe 2 days that have been near 90 here in the middle of Michigan. Usually we have had entire weeks that are in the 90s and it has even reached 100 in years past. That really stinks because i work at an ice cream shop and we need hot weather to survive :(

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 01:05 PM
Jesus, this thread is full of shit.

You guys never know what the fuck you believe.

One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!

The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!

fisharmor
07-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Jesus, this thread is full of shit.

You guys never know what the fuck you believe.


No, I know what I believe.


I BELIEVE IN MANBEARPIG!

Sandman33
07-22-2009, 01:12 PM
It's pretty hot here, IMO.

Although, there have been record cold temperatures all around the world this year.

Wel of course it's going to be hot anywhere Natalie is!:D

Danke
07-22-2009, 01:25 PM
Jesus, this thread is full of shit.

You guys never know what the fuck you believe.

One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!

The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!

No, you just have a reading comprehension problem common with many liberals.

Speaking for myself, I think the globe may be warming, but it has little to do with Man's inputs. And if I'm wrong and it does, the damage of intervention (especially from government) to restrict our activities is much worse than just adapting to the gradual changes coming along. Adaption, as we have always done throughout our history.

Danke
07-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Wel of course it's going to be hot anywhere Natalie is!:D

Some just thought it, Sandman said it. Prepare for the wrath of JOSH.

Stary Hickory
07-22-2009, 01:47 PM
Jesus, this thread is full of shit.

You guys never know what the fuck you believe.

One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!

The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!

Wow man you make no sense, are you the type who believed in global warming? Because if you do, you just invalidated your own arguments.

"One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!"

Ok yea, it's not man's fault at all, the Earth warms and cools.....been happening since before man was even on the planet

"The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!"

Ok and this is inconsistent how? It just proves that man was NOT causing global warming. You have the burden of proof, not us. Both these statements are consistent. Don't be upset when the whole basis for your fear mongering global warming blows up in your face. The earth can be very temperamental....

Global warming zealots want to be right no matter what the evidence is...that is why this whole movement is a religion. It's simply not based in fact.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 01:54 PM
Wow man you make no sense, are you the type who believed in global warming? Because if you do, you just invalidated your own arguments.

"One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!"

Ok yea, it's not man's fault at all, the Earth warms and cools.....been happening since before man was even on the planet

"The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!"

Ok and this is inconsistent how? It just proves that man was NOT causing global warming. You have the burden of proof, not us. Both these statements are consistent. Don't be upset when the whole basis for your fear mongering global warming blows up in your face. The earth can be very temperamental....

Global warming zealots want to be right no matter what the evidence is...that is why this whole movement is a religion. It's simply not based in fact.

Let me rephrase it for you then: We all agree that the earth goes through long phases in temperatures. Like ice ages > warmer period > ice age, and so on.

What I'm saying is that the people on these boards always change their mind on what phase they believe we are in right now.

They either say that global warming is happening, but the result of solar cycles etc.

Or they say the globe is not warming at all, but cooling, like the OPin this thread.

Only one or the other can be true, because these phases take centuries to complete.

Whereas, on the other hand, people who believe in man-made global warming, like me, stick with one narrative, because we consider all facts and assimilate them as a whole, instead of going with the wind on a day to day basis.

Sandra
07-22-2009, 02:03 PM
We has record high for June, and record lows for July, and 8 inches of snow in mid December in Louisiana. It really looks like a shift in seasons.

Zippyjuan
07-22-2009, 02:03 PM
Global Warming is a bad term. Climate change is more accurate. It will not get warmer every year in every place. Climate change theory says that some places will become warmer and drier and some will get colder and wetter. Climate will change. No big deal on this- it has happened for centuries on the planet. The question (which is impossible to prove) is that are the activities of humans having an impact on the planet? In local areas, certainly. Tearing down forests and building cities or farms changes the planet. Those places may experience changes in weather and temperature because those trees are not around. Again, local effects.
There are natural factors which cause the climage to change. Probably one of the more significant ones recognized so far are sun spots. Changes in ocean currents are another. The two real questions is are man's activities causing more of a change than those effects and if so, can man possibly do anything to change that impact? We can spend massive amounts of our resources towards this and probably have minimal effect compared to natural cycles. This diverts resources from other uses as little to no benefit. Much lower cost if you are serious about trying to deal with it is to well, deal with it. Too hot? Move or find some sort of cooling. Too dry? Again, move or try to find some other sources of water.

Maybe air pollution helps filter out the sunshine and offsets the heat sinks that are our cities (black roads and roofs absorbing the solar heat in the daytime and releasing it at night- not allowing things to cool down as much as they would otherwise).

To say that it is hotter this month than it was last year or that you had more snowfall than any time in the last decade is no proof one way or the other of if this is actually happening or not. Yes, it is happening. Is it reasonable for humans to control the weather? They would like to think so but there are larger forces at work. Maybe we need a giant rocket to push us a little bit further from the sun. That would cool us down a bit.

There are things we can and probably need to do like finding alternatives to oil but not necessarily for climate reasons but to reduce our dependence on its imports and also because eventually we won't be able to afford it due to scarcity. Cleaning the air and water is good too- it improves our health. These are much more tangible benefits than trying to keep the average temperature from going up a tenth of a degree in 20 years.

Danke
07-22-2009, 02:11 PM
What I'm saying is that the people on these boards always change their mind on what phase they believe we are in right now.

They either say that global warming is happening, but the result of solar cycles etc.

Or they say the globe is not warming at all, but cooling, like the OPin this thread.

Only one or the other can be true, because these phases take centuries to complete.

Whereas, on the other hand, people who believe in man-made global warming, like me, stick with one narrative, because we consider all facts and assimilate them as a whole, instead of going with the wind on a day to day basis.

"They, They, They."

Again, you are collectivizing "those on this board" as I have addressed here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2223233&postcount=23

But somehow you are different from others "on this board" cause your beliefs have not changed, you "stick with one narrative."

Where is John Stossel, give me a beak.

Tell your theories to the 31,000+ scientist, many whose original data was misrepresented in the UN report, without their permission, and not redacted when they requested.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 02:14 PM
There are things we can and probably need to do like finding alternatives to oil but not necessarily for climate reasons but to reduce our dependence on its imports and also because eventually we won't be able to afford it due to scarcity. Cleaning the air and water is good too- it improves our health. These are much more tangible benefits than trying to keep the average temperature from going up a tenth of a degree in 20 years.

Don't forget, even though you can't really put a dollar amount on it, it would be nice to maintain some of the incredible natural wonders the earth has produced over the past billion years. I would hate to lose the Amazon rain forest, we haven't even discovered a quarter of the species there.

And to you point about the earth getting warmer some places and cooler in others, that is true, for a while. However, if we keep producing CO2 at the current rate, then almost every part of the earth will be significantly warmer within a century or so.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 02:19 PM
"They, They, They."

Again, you are collectivizing "those on this board" as I have addressed here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2223233&postcount=23

But somehow you are different from others "on this board" cause your beliefs have not changed, you "stick with one narrative."

Where is John Stossel, give me a beak.

Tell your theories to the 31,000+ scientist, many whose original data was misrepresented in the UN report, without their permission, and not redacted when they requested.

Sorry about the harsh collectivizing language, but these boards used to not be overrun by gloal warming deniers (don't correct me on my semantics, you know who I'm referring to!). Now, it seems like I'm in an incredibly small minority of people who worry about things like environmental side effects to industry.

brandon
07-22-2009, 02:23 PM
Just as one month of warm temperatures doesn't prove global warming, one month of cool temperatures doesn't disprove it.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 02:27 PM
Tell your theories to the 31,000+ scientist, many whose original data was misrepresented in the UN report, without their permission, and not redacted when they requested.

I would appreciate a link or two about those IPCC folks who felt misrepresented. I met one of the guys in the IPCC, a professor from Rutgers, and that definitely wasn't the case with him. He was pleased with the overall statement that came from the group.

__27__
07-22-2009, 02:28 PM
However, if we keep producing CO2 at the current rate, then almost every part of the earth will be significantly warmer within a century or so.

Based on what? You're berating the OP for pointing out a cold trend in localized weather out one side of your mouth and spouting off barely passable scientific theory as accepted fact?

You do more harm than good to the need for environmental and climate study when you run around spouting junk science as fact.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 02:46 PM
I'm going off memory of a lecture an IPCC climatologist gave to my class. I could try to get a copy of his power point, or find another source.

Catatonic
07-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Record breaking lows don't matter, only record breaking highs. Please take your blasphemy against the Church of Gore elsewhere.

Thanks!

FSP-Rebel
07-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Either way, I'll just adapt or keep moving north. Though in my lifetime, I doubt weather will get too out of control.

coyote_sprit
07-22-2009, 03:36 PM
Let me rephrase it for you then: We all agree that the earth goes through long phases in temperatures. Like ice ages > warmer period > ice age, and so on.

What I'm saying is that the people on these boards always change their mind on what phase they believe we are in right now.

They either say that global warming is happening, but the result of solar cycles etc.

Or they say the globe is not warming at all, but cooling, like the OPin this thread.

Only one or the other can be true, because these phases take centuries to complete.

Whereas, on the other hand, people who believe in man-made global warming, like me, stick with one narrative, because we consider all facts and assimilate them as a whole, instead of going with the wind on a day to day basis.

When it comes to the solar cycles people they said the Earth was warming for like 30 years because of the solar cycle and that the cycles are slowing down and therefore the earth is cooling again.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 03:44 PM
Either way, I'll just adapt or keep moving north. Though in my lifetime, I doubt weather will get too out of control.

Well, the concern isn't just for our generation, of course. I think there are more pressing issues, that if we deal with them, they will positively affect the climate anyway. Getting off coal and oil has many benefits besides reducing emissions, like creating sustainable economies, less destruction of ecosystems for mining, decentralized electricity grids, etc.

Mandrik
07-22-2009, 03:56 PM
I hate hot weather, and it gets pretty hot in York, Pa. This summer has been fantastic. I turn the A/C on when it starts to get warm, but I think I only had it going two times since May. If this is global warming then sign me up.

Catatonic
07-22-2009, 03:56 PM
When it comes to the solar cycles people they said the Earth was warming for like 30 years because of the solar cycle and that the cycles are slowing down and therefore the earth is cooling again.

Back in 2004 I heard an interview with a Russian climatologist and he said using solar models he predicted we would see a cooling trend starting around 2010. I wish I could remember his name.

The funny thing about this is that I remember a time when people understood that we don't really know anything about weather or climate. Even people that devote their lives to it dont understand how weather on this planet works. But the day a bunch of bureaucrats decide we've got a disaster on our hands, all of a sudden everyone's an expert and no one dares question them.

Zippyjuan
07-22-2009, 04:14 PM
Don't forget, even though you can't really put a dollar amount on it, it would be nice to maintain some of the incredible natural wonders the earth has produced over the past billion years. I would hate to lose the Amazon rain forest, we haven't even discovered a quarter of the species there.

And to you point about the earth getting warmer some places and cooler in others, that is true, for a while. However, if we keep producing CO2 at the current rate, then almost every part of the earth will be significantly warmer within a century or so.

That is a projection but cannot be proven. If the US decided to produce zero CO2 would that be enough to offest the levels produced in coutries like China and India? Is that assumption that we produce at the current level or if we continue to increase our production of CO2 at current rates of growth? Don't get me wrong, I consider myself to be "green" and have been since at least the 1970's. I have come to be more accepting of the "solar sunspot cycle" theory of late (yes, it too is just a theory at this point).

The global climate is very complex and so many things are interdependent on each other. Modeling of climate has improved but still their is no real proof that we can change what is going on in the climate- in a positive or negative way- short of destroying it. I favor alternative energy sources and conservation and anti pollution laws. We can observe changes and try to best respond to the new conditions but I have my own questions as to whether we can really do much about the weather.

I have seen the ice core date from Antartica and accompaning info found in seabed sediments which match up and they seem to show that as CO2 levels went up, so too have temperatures tended to go and right now the levels measured are higher than any in the historic record. But what does it mean? Is it really measuring natural changes? Are human effects counteracting natural ones or are they amplifying them? If natural temperatures were going to go up anyways by say five degrees, is human activity causing them to go up by six degrees insead? Or ten? Or four?

Johnnybags
07-22-2009, 04:31 PM
the factories are not firing on all cylinders. Or it could be the sun flares, or it could be the ozone whole is gone.

Catatonic
07-22-2009, 05:10 PM
the factories are not firing on all cylinders. Or it could be the sun flares, or it could be the ozone whole is gone.

The hole in the ozone will never be gone since its naturally occuring.

Another example of finding something unexpected and jumping to the conclusion the cause is mankind.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 05:15 PM
That is a projection but cannot be proven. If the US decided to produce zero CO2 would that be enough to offest the levels produced in coutries like China and India? Is that assumption that we produce at the current level or if we continue to increase our production of CO2 at current rates of growth? Don't get me wrong, I consider myself to be "green" and have been since at least the 1970's. I have come to be more accepting of the "solar sunspot cycle" theory of late (yes, it too is just a theory at this point).

The global climate is very complex and so many things are interdependent on each other. Modeling of climate has improved but still their is no real proof that we can change what is going on in the climate- in a positive or negative way- short of destroying it. I favor alternative energy sources and conservation and anti pollution laws. We can observe changes and try to best respond to the new conditions but I have my own questions as to whether we can really do much about the weather.

I have seen the ice core date from Antartica and accompaning info found in seabed sediments which match up and they seem to show that as CO2 levels went up, so too have temperatures tended to go and right now the levels measured are higher than any in the historic record. But what does it mean? Is it really measuring natural changes? Are human effects counteracting natural ones or are they amplifying them? If natural temperatures were going to go up anyways by say five degrees, is human activity causing them to go up by six degrees insead? Or ten? Or four?

In regards to your first questions, I can't remember exactly what scenario that would happen under, I just got the take home message that we need to reduce emissions. And that we as in humanity, not the US. Of course if China and India keep on truckin', then it will negate anything we do. The lecture from the IPCC guy definitely wasn't a policy discussion, it was just a discussion of the scientific facts.

As for your last questions, I have no clue. Like I said, under all those scenarios, the message is the same: get out of fossil fuels. There are so many reasons to do it, that the degree of global warming is really irrelevant. All we can do is fix our own behavior, and hope China and India see the light before things get too bad. After all, their excuse is, "You did it during your rise to a developed nation, why can't we?"

Danke
07-22-2009, 06:05 PM
I would appreciate a link or two about those IPCC folks who felt misrepresented. I met one of the guys in the IPCC, a professor from Rutgers, and that definitely wasn't the case with him. He was pleased with the overall statement that came from the group.

IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors
Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists
Environment & Climate News > June 2001
W
ritten By: Paul Georgia
Published In: Environment & Climate News > June 2001
Publication date: 06/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), expected to be released sometime in 2001, is already coming under heavy criticism from various directions. But none has been more devastating than the one delivered on March 1 by one of the report's lead authors.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.

What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.


No consensus here

The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, said Lindzen, "is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on."

Indeed, most press accounts covering the January release of the TAR's "Summary for Policymakers" characterized the report as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world's leading climate scientists. IPCC's emphasis, however, isn't on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries, said Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the numbers.

"It is no small matter," said Lindzen, "that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as 'the world's leading climate scientists.' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process."

The IPCC clearly uses the Summary for Policymakers to misrepresent what is in the report, said Lindzen. He gave an example from the chapter he worked on, chapter 7, addressing physical processes.

The 35-page chapter, said Lindzen, pointed out many problems with the way climate computer models treat specific physical processes, such as water vapor, clouds, ocean currents, and so on. Clouds and water vapor in clouds, for example, are badly misrepresented in the models. The physics are all wrong, he said. Those things the models do well are irrelevant to the all-important feedback effects.

"The treatment of water vapor in clouds is crucial to models producing a lot of warming," explained Lindzen. "Without them [positive feedbacks], no model would produce much warming."

The IPCC summarizes the 35-page chapter in one sentence: "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea dynamics and ocean heat transport."

That, said Lindzen, does not summarize the chapter at all. "That is why a lot of us have said that the document itself is informative; the summary is not."

Lindzen briefly discussed a paper he published in the March 2001 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, clarifying the water vapor feedback issue. Using detailed daily measurements, Lindzen and his coauthors from NASA showed that cloud cover in the tropics diminishes as temperatures rise, cooling the planet by allowing more heat to escape.

"The effect observed," said Lindzen, "is sufficient such that if current models are absolutely correct, except for missing this, models that predict between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees warming go down to about .4 to 1.2 degrees warming."


Not the way science is done

The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account.

Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.

The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers' summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science, Lindzen charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years' worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario.

"People wouldn't normally take that very seriously," said Lindzen, "but I think the IPCC understands the media will report the top number. I don't think, any longer, that this is unintentional."

The IPCC also exploits what scientists do agree on to support its agenda, according to Lindzen. For example, Lindzen said, scientists can more-or-less live with the idea conveyed in the IPCC report that everything is connected to everything else, and everything is uncertain.

Lindzen himself doesn't think these ideas are particularly reasonable. But politicians and environmentalists take this minimal area of agreement, and then claim that anything can cause anything and we must act to stop it.

Scientists agree, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased over the last 100 years. They also generally agree the climate has warmed slightly. Uncertainties remain, however, regarding even those basic propositions. Contrary to the impression given by the IPCC, there is no widespread agreement on what these two "facts" mean for mankind. Yet they are deemed by the IPCC sufficient to justify precipitous action.


Fun with numbers

Perhaps Lindzen's most devastating critique is aimed at the IPCC's use of statistics.

The IPCC's infamous hockey stick graph, for example, shows global temperatures have been stable or falling over the last 1,000 years, and that only in the industrial age has there been an unnatural warming of the planet. But if you look at the margin of error in that graph, "You can no longer maintain that statement," said Lindzen.

Lindzen also noted the margin of error used in the IPCC report is much smaller, a 60 percent confidence level, than traditionally used by scientists, who generally report results at the 95 or even 99 percent confidence level. The IPCC is thus publicizing results much less likely to be correct than scientific research is generally expected to be.

To illustrate his point, Lindzen showed estimates of some of the most precise numbers in physics with their error bars. He showed different measurements of the speed of light, for instance, from 1929 to the 1980s. The error bars for the estimated speed of light in 1932 and 1940 do not even include the value we think is the correct speed of light today. "Error bars should not be taken lightly," warned Lindzen. "There is genuine uncertainty in them."


Incentives matter

"Scientists are human beings," Lindzen concluded, "subject to normal instincts and weaknesses." They respond to incentives just like everyone else. "Current government funding creates incentives to behave poorly by maintaining the relevance of the subject," he said, noting that on some issues financial support for science depends on "alarming the world."

Indeed, Lindzen noted, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work on ozone depletion--not for alerting the world, but for "alarming" it. "You don't want scientists to get hooked on this as the key to fame and glory," he warned.

There's little doubt, Lindzen said, that the IPCC process has become politicized to the point of uselessness. He advised U.S. policymakers simply to ignore it.

Danke
07-22-2009, 06:05 PM
Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

Posted By tmartin On June 4, 2009 @ 10:52 pm In Ron Paul in Congress, Ron Paul's Speeches

Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Ron Paul: Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming [1] agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org [2].

The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming [1] hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:

“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change [1] do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

“The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

“It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

“We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap-and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming [1]” and “climate change [1]” advocates — claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people — the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people — including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise — including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change [1].

Danke
07-22-2009, 06:09 PM
Climate case built on thin foundation


John McLean | September 09, 2008
Article from: The Australian

ROSS Garnaut made it clear in his interim report that his climate change review takes as a starting point - not as a belief but on the balance of probabilities - that the claims made in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are correct.

Had he made even a cursory examination of the integrity of those IPCC claims he would have found a very troubling picture.

The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate. It fails to clarify that the claim was made in chapter nine of the working group one contribution and that the contributions of working groups two and three were based on the assumption that the claim was correct. The first eight chapters of the WG1 contribution were mainly concerned with climatic observations and the authors expressed no opinion about the claim made in chapter nine, and chapters 10 and 11 assumed the claim to be correct. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just one chapter.

We are also led to believe that chapter nine was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution.

As is the normal IPCC practice, chapter nine has co-ordinating lead authors, who are responsible for the chapter as a whole; lead authors, who are responsible for sections of the chapter; and contributing authors, who provide their thoughts to the lead authors but take no active part in thewriting.

The IPCC procedures state that the authors at each level should reflect a wide range of views, but this is not true of chapter nine.

The expansion of the full list of authors of each paper cited by this chapter reveals that 37 of 53 chapter authors form a network of people who have previously co-authored scientific papers with each other: or make that 38 if we include a review editor.

The two co-ordinating lead authors are members of this network. So are five of the seven lead authors. Thirty of 44 contributing authors are in the network and two other pairs of contributing authors have likewise co-authored scientific papers.

In other words, the supposedly 53 independent voices are in fact one dominant voice with 37 people behind it, two voices each with two people behind them, and perhaps 12 single voices. A closer check reveals that many of those 12 were academic or work colleagues of members of that larger network. One lead author was from the University of Michigan, as were three contributing authors, two of whom were not members of the network. Another lead author was associated with Britain's Hadley Centre, along with eight contributing authors, one of whom was not included in that network of co-authors.

All up, the 53 authors of this chapter came from just 31 establishments and there are worrying indications that certain lead authors were the superiors of contributing authors from the same organisation. The very few viewpoints in this chapter might be alleviated if it drew on a wide range of references, but among the co-authors of 40 per cent of the cited material are at least one chapter author.

Scientists associated with the development and use of climate models dominate the clique of chapter nine authors and by extension the views expressed in that chapter.

Perhaps the increase in the processing power of their computers has increased their confidence in the software they have been nurturing for years. Imagine, though, the consequences were they to imply that the accuracy of the models had not improved despite the extra funding.

These models are said to require a human component to reasonably match historical temperatures and the modellers claim that this proves a human influence on climate, but the human factor is an input so a corresponding output is no surprise. A more plausible reason for the mismatch without this influence is that the models are incomplete and contain errors, but of course chapter nine could never admit this.

Garnaut didn't need to evaluate the science behind the IPCC's claim to find that its integrity is questionable and that the report's key findings are the product of scientific cronyism.

The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers.

We should now ask what else the IPCC has misled us about and why Garnaut, a skilled academic, so blithely accepted its claims.

John McLean is a climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

Danke
07-22-2009, 06:13 PM
The IPCC paper is fraudulent misrepresentation

We are meant to believe that thousands of scientists collaborated on the famous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paper that warned of global warming and then came to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is causing Global warming.

But University of Guelph Professor ROSS McKITRICK recently blogged in the Detroit free press, and I quote:

“I know that the IPCC supposedly has thousands of experts who all say that global warming is a crisis. I was one of the people who worked on that report [emphasis mine, Ed]. The reality is they never asked us if we agreed with the conclusions, and only a handful of authors had a say in the final summary. In any case, I don’t care how many professors agree or disagree on something, what matters is whether I agree with the data.”

To me that’s asking for inputs, then ignoring them in the final report, but quoting the names of the people who were ignored!! I call that fraudulent misrepresentation.

Expanding on the current situation, Ross points out that IPCC projected that the main effect of CO2 over the past century should have been a strong warming in the mid-troposphere over the tropics of one-quarter to one-half degree Celsius per decade and that should now be observable.

Ross explains [summarized - Ed]: “But data from the University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems in California show a 30-year trend over the tropics of (a statistically insignificant) six-hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade. In other words, the data do not show the warming trend that the models say should be under way, if greenhouse gases have such a big effect on the climate.

“There are other clues that the effect of greenhouse gases may have been overstated. The stratosphere is supposed to be cooling, but the satellite instruments show that since 1995 there has been no such trend.

“Our best current data sets do not support the idea that CO2 is causing a global warming problem.”

Ross has collected his writings on this subject here: ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/

Danke
07-22-2009, 06:17 PM
Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2007-07-09 13:53

With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

As published [1] in Canada’s National Post Saturday, conveniently coincident with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts (emphasis added throughout):

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Most leading geologists know this? But, how can that be true? After all, Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio – despite having absolutely no expertise concerning this matter – say otherwise. As such, why should we care what someone that actually specializes in this field thinks?

Regardless, the article demonstrated how the IPCC has basically created computer models to predict an end result it wanted while totally ignoring current and past scientific observations regarding CO2’s expected life in the atmosphere:

[W]ith the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.

The article then explained what has been observed, and why what the IPCC is predicting is so ridiculous:

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

So, how does the IPCC resolve this conundrum? Better remove all fluids from proximity:

Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

Marvelous, wouldn’t you agree? But, not as good as the Professor’s conclusion:

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction."

Sadly, this fiction is making a lot of people a lot of money, and threatens to have a huge negative impact on the economies of the developed world especially that of the United States.

BenIsForRon
07-22-2009, 07:26 PM
Ok Danke, I'll go article by article with you

1) The first one is published by the Heartland Institute, who definitely has an agenda. Look at their funding. They've recieved quite a bit from exxon, as well as The Sarah Scaife Foundation. Let's take a deeper look at that foundation (bold for my emphasis)...

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the American Scaife Foundations. It is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The foundation does not award grants to individuals. It concentrates its efforts towards causes focused on public policy at a national and international level. From 1985 to 2003 the organization awarded over $235 million USD to other organizations.

The organizations it has supported include the George C. Marshall Institute and Project for the New American Century.

2) A statement from a house republican. He mostly talks about jobs, not the science, need something more concrete.

3) Doesn't mention any IPCC scientists having a problem. So not every single one could sign off on every single chapter, is that suprising?

4) That's an article from an economist. Go to his website. Most of the articles are not science articles, but public-policy and economics articles.

5) Ok, this one has some merit. But you have to keep in mind, this is one guy. All the other articles you have given me are suspect at best, if not total propaganda.

I'll try to find the powerpoint the Rutgers climatologist showed my air pollution class. He was on the most recent IPCC, and he put forth a very thoughtful and convincing argument.

bkreigh
07-22-2009, 07:41 PM
Its hot as hell down here in Florida. However, i just moved down here from Maine so my opinion will be different than those that have been acclimated to the heat. We have had only 6 days in the 90s this month though.

I talked with some of my buddies up in Maine and they said it hasnt been close to hitting 80 up there this month. Lucky bastards. I remember sitting in the top floor of my apartment with no a/c having 4 fans running and sweating my ass off.

PlzPeopleWakeUp
07-22-2009, 09:55 PM
I love Big Brother.

jmdrake
07-22-2009, 10:30 PM
Jesus, this thread is full of shit.

You guys never know what the fuck you believe.

One day its: The earth is warming, it's just not man's fault!

The next day its: The earth is cooling, suck it environmentalists!!!

*sigh* The alternative theory to the "greenhouse" theory is that the sun drives global warming due to variations in sunspot activity and fluctuations in orbits. Right now sunspot activity is down. Guess what? Temperatures have leveled off just like the theory predicted. And that's not just coming from "this thread". It's coming from scientists and being reported in the mainstream media.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/3341068/Global-warming-may-stop-scientists-predict.html

When Earth's atmosphere was heating up so were the atmospheres on Jupiter and Mars.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Oh, and were you aware that back in the 1970s these same alarmists were blaming fossil fuels for global cooling?

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

You have a lot to learn. But don't feel bad. I was once taken in by the global warming scam too. In fact the founder of the weather channel has called the whole "greenhouse effect" theory the greatest scam in human history.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Bman
07-22-2009, 10:47 PM
This topic is so gay.

You know what. Go buy yourself some sun screen. Plant a tree in your back yard. Start riding a bike to work. Turn off the TV and read a book.


POOF!!!!

Earth Saved.

jmdrake
07-22-2009, 10:50 PM
Ok Danke, I'll go article by article with you

1) The first one is published by the Heartland Institute, who definitely has an agenda. Look at their funding. They've recieved quite a bit from exxon, as well as The Sarah Scaife Foundation. Let's take a deeper look at that foundation (bold for my emphasis)...

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the American Scaife Foundations. It is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The foundation does not award grants to individuals. It concentrates its efforts towards causes focused on public policy at a national and international level. From 1985 to 2003 the organization awarded over $235 million USD to other organizations.

The organizations it has supported include the George C. Marshall Institute and Project for the New American Century.

2) A statement from a house republican. He mostly talks about jobs, not the science, need something more concrete.

3) Doesn't mention any IPCC scientists having a problem. So not every single one could sign off on every single chapter, is that suprising?

4) That's an article from an economist. Go to his website. Most of the articles are not science articles, but public-policy and economics articles.

5) Ok, this one has some merit. But you have to keep in mind, this is one guy. All the other articles you have given me are suspect at best, if not total propaganda.

I'll try to find the powerpoint the Rutgers climatologist showed my air pollution class. He was on the most recent IPCC, and he put forth a very thoughtful and convincing argument.

And did you bother finding out who funded the Rutgers climatologist? :rolleyes: And did he explain to you why the ice caps on Mars were melting? That solar powered Mars rover must have caused it I suppose. :rolleyes:

James Madison
07-22-2009, 10:51 PM
It's been unseasonably cool in southern Indiana. Last saturday I was out having dinner with my parents, and it was so cold they had to go get their jackets out of the car. Interesting how the sunspot activity stops and it magically gets cooler, just like we predicted it would. No, it's this evil carbon dioxide.

Dreamofunity
07-23-2009, 01:18 AM
Florida here, I hope it's global cooling instead of global warming. I don't think I could take more heat.

Ninja Homer
07-23-2009, 01:34 AM
All us Minnesotans have been trying to deplete the ozone layer for years, and it hasn't done a damn bit of good... still too damn cold. ;)

devil21
07-23-2009, 04:42 AM
Reminds me of the commercial in the movie Robocop. Anybody remember that commercial?

Shouldn't we all have skin cancer by now and need special sunscreen just to survive, with that huge hole in the ozone layer? Sadly Ill be alive to see what the fight against global cooling will look like. *sigh*

literatim
07-23-2009, 04:44 AM
YouTube - Chicken Little "The Globe Is Warming!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWnMlUPqnas)

BenIsForRon
07-23-2009, 07:26 AM
You have a lot to learn. But don't feel bad. I was once taken in by the global warming scam too. In fact the founder of the weather channel has called the whole "greenhouse effect" theory the greatest scam in human history.


Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.


And did you bother finding out who funded the Rutgers climatologist? :rolleyes: And did he explain to you why the ice caps on Mars were melting? That solar powered Mars rover must have caused it I suppose. :rolleyes:

I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours are. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

jmdrake
07-23-2009, 07:53 AM
Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.


No. Just dumb enough to mistake correlation for causation. Just dumb enough to totally ignore the mini ice age we went through in the 1970s. Just dumb enough to ignore the fact that these same alarmists were blaming the drop in temperatures in the 1970s on "greenhouse gases".



I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours are. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

At one point Mars was warming 4 times faster than earth.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1148/global-warming-rapidly-heating-mars

The ice sheets on earth are expanding now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.C44A..03C

But your side blames that on global warming. :rolleyes:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

paulitics
07-23-2009, 07:56 AM
I doubt the ice caps on mars are melting at the rate ours is. Have you seen the arctic ice shelf lately? I'll try to find his funding, he was good people though.

Most of them are nice, normal, intelligent people. It doesn't change the fact that perhaps he has a bias, because job security or $$ come into play.

You can't dismiss studies outside the UN and federal govt funded IPCC for the reason of political bias, and then at the same time give these guys a free pass.

There are plenty of scientists who do not get paid for their opinion, and are brilliant in their own way. You may want to give these people more credit.

StayTrue
07-23-2009, 08:27 AM
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

Article from Drudge this morning

The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:



Ř The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.



Ř Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.



Ř Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.

Ř Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.



Ř The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.



Ř By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Ř Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.



Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”



Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.



“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

StayTrue
07-23-2009, 08:32 AM
And there is an article on Drudge with John Kerry talking about how Global Warming will be a national security threat and our military will need to be involved.

Not posting it on here but just wanted to bring that up so the other side of the arguement doesn't scream foul

mczerone
07-23-2009, 09:07 AM
Well, the concern isn't just for our generation, of course. I think there are more pressing issues, that if we deal with them, they will positively affect the climate anyway. Getting off coal and oil has many benefits besides reducing emissions, like creating sustainable economies, less destruction of ecosystems for mining, decentralized electricity grids, etc.

I believe in sustainability, in leaving a better world than I found, and in preserving the wonders of nature, but you lost me at the part I bolded.

Who is WE? Am I going to be forced to support a sub-par governmental plan that nominally is to protect the environment but is really selling mineral rights to politically favored companies below costs? And how is this "we" supposed to deal with any pressing issues? through that magical process of mob rule of democracy, the welfare-socialism of Congressional action or through the totalitarian-fascism of the executive branch?

How about I try my best to find a solution, and you do the same. Through the division of labor, the pressures of competition, and the human desire to satisfy his subjective values we will find solutions to the practical problems of life.

Government can't replicate this method, just as it can't be trusted to definitively answer in all of it's citizen's minds whether climate change is even a real threat.

BenIsForRon
07-23-2009, 10:21 AM
No. Just dumb enough to mistake correlation for causation. Just dumb enough to totally ignore the mini ice age we went through in the 1970s. Just dumb enough to ignore the fact that these same alarmists were blaming the drop in temperatures in the 1970s on "greenhouse gases".



At one point Mars was warming 4 times faster than earth.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1148/global-warming-rapidly-heating-mars

The ice sheets on earth are expanding now.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.C44A..03C

But your side blames that on global warming. :rolleyes:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml

You didn't even read the first article, it blames dust storms on mars for the heating. Nothing to do with changes in the sun or earth.

The second article is about pleistocene era, not today, kind of like way before humans even knew how to grow food.

Third article is on some random website in 2002, I don't think that qualifies it as a majority opinion.

BenIsForRon
07-23-2009, 10:29 AM
@staytrue: I was mainly talking about the PNAC side of funding. I know a lot of global warming research is funded by shady sources, but there is also some very honest non-profits that have been working on this thing since the 80's. I'm looking at the big picture, and making an educated guess on which side is right. Not who Drudge tells me is right.

@mczerone: I'm talking about we as in the human race. I have no idea how we're going to solve it, if we do. I hope it is mostly educated consumers in a free market driving the change, but I'm not against things like taxing carbon (DIFFERENT from cap and trade).

mczerone
07-23-2009, 10:42 AM
@mczerone: I'm talking about we as in the human race. I have no idea how we're going to solve it, if we do. I hope it is mostly educated consumers in a free market driving the change, but I'm not against things like taxing carbon (DIFFERENT from cap and trade).

"We," the human race, are nothing but 6 billion individuals. Only individuals can act or hold opinions. If something is done to alter the environment on purpose by some individuals, you cannot say that "we did it" - pastoral farmers the world over had nothing to do with the massive burning of fossil fuels and thus cannot be a part of the "we" that caused any climate change to begin with.

By collectivizing, you are absolving the guilt of those individuals who actual do destroy environments without taking responsibility.

Further, who is going to be doing the taxing in your plan?

The free market solution is for you to boycott fossil fuels and ostracize those who use them, if you believe that is the problem - and if you then wish to say "pay me $100 for each ton of carbon you've polluted before I'll deal with you", you may - and that is the furthest extent of a "carbon tax" that could ever really exist.

Danke
07-23-2009, 11:06 AM
The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.

At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios.
In other words, it was the result of political interference.

Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.

Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.

Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!

The late Roger Revelle, Professor Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “father” of the modern greenhouse theory
Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, first Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service
Chauncey Starr, Professor Emeritus, University of California, key figure in modern risk analysis

for…. What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (1991) at http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/cosmos.html


Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT

for…. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html


Brian Tucker, former Chief of Atmospheric Research for CSIRO (Australian Government)

for.... A Rational Consideration of Global Warming (1996) at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm


The late William Nierenberg, former Director of Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

for.... Science and Engineering Policy and Who Cares? (1997) at
http://people.delphi.com/saemet/mesc297.htm


Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS

for.... Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (1997-2000) at
http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html


Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willy Soon and Zachary W. Robinson

for..... Environmental Effects of Increased Environmental Carbon Dioxide (1998)
at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


George Taylor, then President of the American Association of State Climatologists

for.... Comments on "New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising" (2000) at
http://www.ocs.orst.edu/reports/nascomm.html


Paul Reiter, Chief Entomologist at the United States Dengue Research Laboratory

for.... Biting Back (2000) at
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225716


William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

for.... Get off Warming Bandwagon (2000) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/newsid_1023000/1023334.stm

Krugerrand
07-23-2009, 11:34 AM
The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

Danke, drink your Kool Aid! :)

BenIsForRon
07-23-2009, 01:08 PM
Hey Danke, do you have anything after 2002? That was before the most recent IPCC.


"We," the human race, are nothing but 6 billion individuals. Only individuals can act or hold opinions. If something is done to alter the environment on purpose by some individuals, you cannot say that "we did it" - pastoral farmers the world over had nothing to do with the massive burning of fossil fuels and thus cannot be a part of the "we" that caused any climate change to begin with.

By collectivizing, you are absolving the guilt of those individuals who actual do destroy environments without taking responsibility.

Further, who is going to be doing the taxing in your plan?

The free market solution is for you to boycott fossil fuels and ostracize those who use them, if you believe that is the problem - and if you then wish to say "pay me $100 for each ton of carbon you've polluted before I'll deal with you", you may - and that is the furthest extent of a "carbon tax" that could ever really exist.

We're all in this together, in that our actions have lasting effects on other people's lives. You can't put all the guilt on coal companies, when is in fact the American consumer that has been buying their product. That's why we need to take collective action, especially at the community level, to ease our movement away from the heavy use of electricity. I'm not saying a bureaucrat in DC should be pointing a gun at our heads commanding our every move.

As far as taxing, I don't know how it would be implemented, but I really like the idea of killing the income tax and using a carbon tax to fund current government operations (which decreases consumption and the size of government at the same time!).

Catatonic
07-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Don't worry I don't feel bad, because I'm not dumb enough to ignore the obvious correlation between the rise of industry worldwide, the rise of CO2, and the rise of temperature.

Considering that carbon is something like 2% of the atmosphere, and humans contribute less than 1% of the total carbon in the atmosphere, did you ever consider that perhaps rising carbon levels are an effect of rising temperatures rather than vice versa? Considering the largest contributer to carbon is ocean evaporation, at something like 98-99% of total atmospheric carbon?

Correlation =/= causation and if you think we are ignoring the correlations here, you're the dumb one.

BenIsForRon
07-23-2009, 06:07 PM
Yeah, I know correlation is not causation, but I was referring to the major coincidence that the earth really started warming after most of the world started burning the shit out of coal and oil. Of course, that's not the only thing I'm basing my belief on.

SouthGeorgia61
07-23-2009, 07:14 PM
we haven't hit 80 degrees once this july if im not mistaken, and that is our average high

smithtg
07-23-2009, 08:41 PM
It's pretty hot here, IMO.

Although, there have been record cold temperatures all around the world this year.

natalie arent you in houston?

I seem to remember that, but maybe im wrong - anyway, I am too and its been freaking hot here this summer. The rain lately has been all the better

Lets just keep the hurricanes away this year

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-23-2009, 08:50 PM
even so emissions are bad for our environment, creates holes in the ozone etc, i don't like cancer

Brian Defferding
07-23-2009, 09:33 PM
It's okay to be a capitalist and say there is global warming. In fact, I would say that the best way to curb global warming and promote a clean environment is through capitalism, not brunt government regulation.

Conservative Christian
07-24-2009, 10:16 PM
U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


.

Conservative Christian
07-24-2009, 10:33 PM
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/55741367.html

"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.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said."


.

BenIsForRon
07-24-2009, 10:35 PM
U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9


.

Because there's nobody you can trust more than senate republicans. There are many more than 700 scientists that believe in human caused global warming.

Dr.3D
07-24-2009, 10:38 PM
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/55741367.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/55741367.html)

"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.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said."


.


Exactly, and when the oceans warm, they release CO2. It's just like a bottle of soda when it is warm and you take off the cap. Of course the soda foams up and starts to come out of the bottle.

As the oceans begin to cool again, the CO2 will again start to dissolve into the ocean water and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced.

I love how they have been misusing the term "green house gases". Green house operators have purposely injected CO2 into the atmosphere of green houses to stimulate the plants to grow faster. The introduction of CO2 into the green house does not make the temperature in the green house go up but rather it feeds the plants and makes them grow faster.

Conservative Christian
07-24-2009, 10:46 PM
Because there's nobody you can trust more than senate republicans. There are many more than 700 scientists that believe in human caused global warming.

^Typical global warming propagandist.

The Senate Republicans only REPORTED the findings of well over 700 INTERNATIONAL scientists from around the world, NONE of whom were Senate Republicans!

Your post = MONUMENTAL FAIL! :D


.

Conservative Christian
07-24-2009, 10:52 PM
The following petition was signed by over 31 THOUSAND U.S. scientists, including over 9 THOUSAND PhD's:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


.

James Madison
07-24-2009, 11:01 PM
Exactly, and when the oceans warm, they release CO2. It's just like a bottle of soda when it is warm and you take off the cap. Of course the soda foams up and starts to come out of the bottle.

As the oceans begin to cool again, the CO2 will again start to dissolve into the ocean water and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced.

I love how they have been misusing the term "green house gases". Green house operators have purposely injected CO2 into the atmosphere of green houses to stimulate the plants to grow faster. The introduction of CO2 into the green house does not make the temperature in the green house go up but rather it feeds the plants and makes them grow faster.

This is actually a really good point.

Alawn
07-24-2009, 11:48 PM
Considering that carbon is something like 2% of the atmosphere

Earth's atmosphere is only 0.038% carbon dioxide. CO2 is very insignificant. Climate changes are due to the sun.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 08:12 AM
Exactly, and when the oceans warm, they release CO2. It's just like a bottle of soda when it is warm and you take off the cap. Of course the soda foams up and starts to come out of the bottle.

As the oceans begin to cool again, the CO2 will again start to dissolve into the ocean water and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be reduced.

I love how they have been misusing the term "green house gases". Green house operators have purposely injected CO2 into the atmosphere of green houses to stimulate the plants to grow faster. The introduction of CO2 into the green house does not make the temperature in the green house go up but rather it feeds the plants and makes them grow faster.

If the earth is warming the oceans are not going to take more of the co2. Also, these people increasing co2 in their greenhouses also have to increase nitrogen, otherwise the plants will grow at the same rate. Does not apply to the surface of the earth.


^Typical global warming propagandist.

The Senate Republicans only REPORTED the findings of well over 700 INTERNATIONAL scientists from around the world, NONE of whom were Senate Republicans!

Your post = MONUMENTAL FAIL! :D


.

No, not fail. I'm saying senators have a long history of releasing less than credible information.


The following petition was signed by over 31 THOUSAND U.S. scientists, including over 9 THOUSAND PhD's:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


.

That petition is fraudulent, there's no way to know how many of those people are real scientists, and even further, which scientists are climate scientists. Scientists on the IPCC all have relevant PhD's. Here's a video debunking the petition.

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Great Petition Fraud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I)

Earth's atmosphere is only 0.038% carbon dioxide. CO2 is very insignificant. Climate changes are due to the sun.

Water vapor stays relatively constant over time, even small changes in co2 concentration has a large effect.

pcosmar
07-25-2009, 08:27 AM
Water vapor stays relatively constant over time, even small changes in co2 concentration has a large effect.

Monumental FAIL
Despite scientific facts,
Despite physical evidence to the contrary.
Despite the written opinion of a great many in the scientific community.

This poster and the Globalists are pushing this agenda.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 08:37 AM
This poster and the Globalists are pushing this agenda.


You got me, my globalist agenda can't slip past you.

pcosmar
07-25-2009, 08:51 AM
You got me, my globalist agenda can't slip past you.

I don't know if YOU are a Globalist or not.
You have stated that you are in school and have been parroting the Agenda 21 bullshit, here and elsewhere.

I suspect that you are just a kid who's head is being filled with garbage, and it is spilling out here.
You are repeating the talking points, despite evidence to the contrary.
That is not critical thinking.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 09:38 AM
And you're not parroting the denier's talking points? I've been looking at this stuff inside and outside of school for a long time, I know what I believe, and why I believe it.

As far as Agenda 21 goes, I think I thoroughly debunked the idea that the UN created the discipline of sustainable development, yet you'd like to continue to believe the idea has no merit. Is that because you don't think humans are significantly damaging the environment? Or is it because you're so afraid of government regulations that you will deny obvious facts? Do you not believe that these problems can be fixed without the heavy hand of government?

Dr.3D
07-25-2009, 09:42 AM
If the earth is warming the oceans are not going to take more of the co2. Also, these people increasing co2 in their greenhouses also have to increase nitrogen, otherwise the plants will grow at the same rate. Does not apply to the surface of the earth.


Seems the key word in your statement is if. There is evidence showing we are in a cooling period at this time.

As for those people increasing CO2 in their greenhouses, I have been in the HVAC business for nearly 30 years and never have I seen anybody supplement the nitrogen in a greenhouse. I would like to know where you are getting your information on that subject.

Here is some information from a government web site on the subject.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#suppl

Notice how in that article, they are using the direct injection of carbon dioxide from cylinders or alternatively using the flue gas from combustion source? The article never says anything about the supplementation of nitrogen being needed.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 09:50 AM
Ok, I guess its after a certain point, nitrogen is needed for additional plant growth.

I toured an experimental forest, set up to determine CO2's effects on trees, at Duke University. In the areas where they had CO2 being added, they had increased plant growth... up to a certain concentration. Then they had to fertilize with N to have further plant growth, seed production, etc.

Here's the website for the project:
http://face.env.duke.edu/main.cfm

StayTrue
07-25-2009, 09:57 AM
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman (founder of Weather Channel, no longer the owner)



You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son Ralph, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and voila, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From Y2K to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.D's. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position from Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughout the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.


My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global

Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet,

Earth.

Dr.3D
07-25-2009, 09:58 AM
Ok, I guess its after a certain point, nitrogen is needed for additional plant growth.

I toured an experimental forest, set up to determine CO2's effects on trees, at Duke University. In the areas where they had CO2 being added, they had increased plant growth... up to a certain concentration. Then they had to fertilize with N to have further plant growth, seed production, etc.

Here's the website for the project:
[/URL][url]http://face.env.duke.edu/main.cfm (http://face.env.duke.edu/main.cfm)

Oh.... that is nitrogen applied as fertilizer. That is a far cry from adding nitrogen to the atmosphere of the greenhouse. You really had me going there for a bit. ;-)

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 01:07 PM
1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed.

Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts”"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm


.

James Madison
07-25-2009, 01:13 PM
Oh.... that is nitrogen applied as fertilizer. That is a far cry from adding nitrogen to the atmosphere of the greenhouse. You really had me going there for a bit. ;-)

That's what I was thinking. N2 typically comes from nitrogen fixing bacteria found in the root system of legumes or decaying organic matter.

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 01:14 PM
UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

"Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future.

They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 01:24 PM
I think Conservative christian and Staytrue need to have a debate. Are we cooling or warming?

StayTrue
07-25-2009, 01:33 PM
I think Conservative christian and Staytrue need to have a debate. Are we cooling or warming?

In my own city, this July has been record-setting cold. How can there be a debate on that?

Also, the main point is that despite whether it's warming or cooling, man doesn't cause either.

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 01:43 PM
Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

"UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918!

Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained."

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/august/13/letter4/&c=1

.

StayTrue
07-25-2009, 01:49 PM
Question for Ben:

Why does Al Gore always insist there is an absolute climate consensus on his school of thought regarding Global Warming, when clearly, as this thread shows, there is not?

Why won't he hear any debate from the other side without talking about "people also didn't believe we landed on the moon".

It is this side of the arguement that needs to debate.

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 01:50 PM
Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

"But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded."

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=32

.

pcosmar
07-25-2009, 01:52 PM
I think Conservative christian and Staytrue need to have a debate. Are we cooling or warming?

Presently cooling.
We had a couple years of slight warming, but have been cooling for the last couple. That is why the global warming crowd changed the rhetoric to "Climate Change".

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 01:54 PM
"Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007.

He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because "they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.""

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

.

BenIsForRon
07-25-2009, 02:05 PM
Presently cooling.
We had a couple years of slight warming, but have been cooling for the last couple. That is why the global warming crowd changed the rhetoric to "Climate Change".

No, it was changed to climate change because its more complicated than global warming. The poles are getting much hotter, whereas a few spots are getting cooler, mostly warming overall though.


"Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007.

He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because "they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.""

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

.

IPCC is just going on trends, and they gave a range of temperature increase. They can't account for everything, but that's hardly a reason to say "there's nothing to worry about".

And did you just admit that Ozone restoration could have an effect? You know the ozone is rebuilding itself because the US government outlawed CFC's right?

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 02:11 PM
Presently cooling.
We had a couple years of slight warming, but have been cooling for the last couple. That is why the global warming crowd changed the rhetoric to "Climate Change".

Actually, it has been cooling for at least the last decade, even though mankind continues to emit a substantial amount of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

The "science" of the global warming alarmists is tragically flawed, and based primarily on unreliable computer model "guesstimates".

.

pcosmar
07-25-2009, 02:20 PM
And did you just admit that Ozone restoration could have an effect? You know the ozone is rebuilding itself because the US government outlawed CFC's right?

More bullshit. Are you learning this crap in school? (of course you are)

The Ozone layer was fluctuating before, and still is.
CFC's were never outlawed. They still exist. and in every cooling system.
I work in the Automotive industry. It was over old patents running out and the new pattents being enforced by law. (government interference in the market.)
The old freon is still widely used. the "new" freon is only a minor change of formulation.

It is more hype and bullshit.

Conservative Christian
07-25-2009, 02:23 PM
"2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said.

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75% of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added."

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38%20

.

BenIsForRon
07-27-2009, 09:44 PM
New article, I hope it's wrong, but you guys have been posting lots of news articles, so I figure I'll post one. It would probably be better to keep it to peer-reviewed stuff. Anyway, it says we've been on the downside of a solar cycle, so things should get even hotter... shit.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Conservative Christian
07-27-2009, 11:41 PM
"3) New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

.

BenIsForRon
07-28-2009, 12:42 AM
The scientist in the article refers CO2 as a green house gas. I thought you didn't agree with that.

Conservative Christian
07-28-2009, 12:55 AM
"4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.

Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA."

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

.

BenIsForRon
07-28-2009, 01:19 PM
"At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.

.

Hmmmm. Wonder what makes up that other 20%. CO2 couldn't be part of that greenhouse cocktail... could it?

Keep posting articles CC. You're helping my basic argument.

Wildlander
07-28-2009, 03:28 PM
You know, only a very short-sighted person would conclude no global warming based on the weather in his one little part of the world.

You should read this post... posted on these forums. Texas is cooking and they are water rationing because of the drought.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201514


Go out to the arbor day website. These are the folks who make the maps on the garden seed packets... the growing zones. They have retained their maps from the past. In Washington state (as is the case for the entire west coast states), we have increased two zones in some areas. The entire state has increased at least one zone. Twenty degrees in the last 15 years. The info is right there in front of us and some still turn a blind eye to it. ARe you going to say that the Arbor Day Foundation planned for Obama 15 years agoand some wacko conspiracy theory? Give me a break. I am 51 years old and remember the days in college at WSU when we would go ice fishing in 20 below weather. Year after year. We have not seen 20 below in over 10 years. It never even drops to zero anymore. We rarely get the chance to go ice fishing anymore. Prior to the 1940, the Spokane, Ellensburg, Pullman, Omak, Okanogan region dropped to 30 below zero regularly. Look up the NOAA airport data or Arbor Day maps for yourself before you reply to me with uneducated opinions.

Wildlander

Wildlander
07-28-2009, 03:30 PM
One of the one percent of quakes and you are right there to take it as fact and consensus?


"3) New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

.

Dr.3D
07-28-2009, 03:35 PM
One of the one percent of quakes and you are right there ready to suck up his dribble. What an idiot.

You won't last long on these forums if you continue to insult people.

Wildlander
07-28-2009, 03:40 PM
One other thing, warming in the past occured over tens of thousands of years. What we have today is warming over ten or twenty years. We have more warming in 20 years than ANY natural warming event in the past. All of you are refusing to acknowledge that. And there is only one cause for that quickening. Humans - their technology and their burning of fossile fuels, logging of massive forests to replaced with grass or tiny saplings far below what is considered replacement or sustainable.

I am all for Ron Paul on most of his issues. But I guarantee you, when he has the time to look deeply into the matter, he will find that global warming is for real and that there is clear evidence it is human caused.

Wildlander

BenIsForRon
07-28-2009, 08:36 PM
I am all for Ron Paul on most of his issues. But I guarantee you, when he has the time to look deeply into the matter, he will find that global warming is for real and that there is clear evidence it is human caused.

Wildlander

Agreed, his answers related to environmental issues, and global warming in particular, are usually pretty vague.

Danke
07-28-2009, 10:23 PM
One other thing, warming in the past occured over tens of thousands of years. What we have today is warming over ten or twenty years. We have more warming in 20 years than ANY natural warming event in the past. All of you are refusing to acknowledge that. And there is only one cause for that quickening. Humans - their technology and their burning of fossile fuels, logging of massive forests to replaced with grass or tiny saplings far below what is considered replacement or sustainable.

I am all for Ron Paul on most of his issues. But I guarantee you, when he has the time to look deeply into the matter, he will find that global warming is for real and that there is clear evidence it is human caused.

Wildlander

Not true, we have been cooling in the past 10 years. My ancestors cultivated the cold lands of Greenland in the not too distant past, but cold over took the climate quickly and they had to abandon their farms. Greenland was much warmer than now, back then.

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:11 AM
Not true, we have been cooling in the past 10 years. My ancestors cultivated the cold lands of Greenland in the not too distant past, but cold over took the climate quickly and they had to abandon their farms. Greenland was much warmer than now, back then.

"16) A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record.

Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt –"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

.

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:19 AM
"I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion."

Dr. Ivar Giaever
Nobel Prize Winner, Physics


..

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:26 AM
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I canspeak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system."

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist
The first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."


..

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:31 AM
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds…I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists."

Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, Geologist
Punjab University
Board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

..

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:36 AM
"Anyone who claims that the [global warming] debate is over and the conclusions are firm, has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time."

Dr. Pal Brekke, Solar Physicist
Senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

..

Objectivist
07-29-2009, 01:39 AM
That headline is inaccurate.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:42 AM
"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."

Dr. Stanley B. Goldenberg, Atmospheric Scientist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Hurricane Research Division

..

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 01:52 AM
"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Will Happer, Physicist
National Academy of Sciences--Member
Princeton University--Physics Professor

Has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society and The American Association for the Advancement of Science

..

literatim
07-29-2009, 02:03 AM
Great quotes.

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 02:31 AM
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another....Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot."

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko
Chubu University---Vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research

..

Conservative Christian
07-29-2009, 02:37 AM
"Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC....The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium...which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’"

Dr. Richard Keen, Climatologist
University of Colorado--Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

..

paulitics
07-29-2009, 06:13 AM
Conservative Christian: Are these statements that you are quoting peer reviewed? Only peer reviewed statements form peer reviewed scientists, who are writing in peer reviewed journals matter. All other opinions have an agenda. IDIOTS! WAKE UP! Stop being intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, just like the vast majority of historians believe the holocaust happened. You wil never have 100% agreement on anything. WAKE UP! /end sarcasm

StayTrue
07-29-2009, 07:06 AM
One other thing, warming in the past occured over tens of thousands of years. What we have today is warming over ten or twenty years. We have more warming in 20 years than ANY natural warming event in the past. All of you are refusing to acknowledge that. And there is only one cause for that quickening. Humans - their technology and their burning of fossile fuels, logging of massive forests to replaced with grass or tiny saplings far below what is considered replacement or sustainable.

I am all for Ron Paul on most of his issues. But I guarantee you, when he has the time to look deeply into the matter, he will find that global warming is for real and that there is clear evidence it is human caused.

Wildlander

Paul is not a scientist. He bases his political life on the Constitution and his 30+ year study of Austrian economics.

When Paul talked about Global Warming during the Cap and Trade Bill debate, he brought up the 32,000 (according to you only 20%, Im waiting for your list of 160,000 for it) scientists who signed off against it. Why should he insist, like Al Gore, that the debate is over, and Global warming is definitly man-made, when 32,000 scientists, have signed off against it.

The Al Gore side said the debate is over, when clearly it is not. Absurd statements like that, which are only backed up by "people also thought we didn't man on the moon" when questioned, usually don't win over any rational thinkers, especially when there is a ton of evidence to the contrary.

Paul also hates taxes, and the Man-made Global Warming crowds great solution is to tax C02 consumption. Buying your carbon credits from a company Al Gore has significant involvement in and will profit from (environmental industrial complex anyone)

So we have: "The debate is over (clearly isn't), so we must tax you"

Definitley sounds like something up Ron Paul's alley :D.

TonySutton
07-29-2009, 07:37 AM
2009 has silently moved into 10th place for most days without sunspots in the last 100 years. We now have the last 3 years in the top 10 list and 2009 still has nearly half a year to go.

There are still many things we do not know about our sun and how it influences the weather on earth.

acptulsa
07-29-2009, 08:03 AM
There are still many things we do not know about our sun and how it influences the weather on earth.

Correct. But the Democrats certainly seem to have figured out how to tax us to death for our ignorance.

ChickenHawk
07-29-2009, 09:40 AM
I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been pointed out already. What does the weather in New York have to do with Global Warming? I could easily point to the fact the Seattle has had one of, if not the the driest, warmest springs and summers on record and say that it proves global warming. In fact today has been forecasted to be the hottest day on record in Seattle. It is the first time ever that a triple digit temperature has been forecasted and last night was the first night on record that it didn't drop below 70 degrees. Every year I can remember that we have had a warm dry summer the NE has had a cool wet one. I don't think any of this proves, or is evidence, of whether or not global warming is real.

BenIsForRon
07-29-2009, 01:14 PM
Paul is not a scientist. He bases his political life on the Constitution and his 30+ year study of Austrian economics.

When Paul talked about Global Warming during the Cap and Trade Bill debate, he brought up the 32,000 (according to you only 20%, Im waiting for your list of 160,000 for it) scientists who signed off against it. Why should he insist, like Al Gore, that the debate is over, and Global warming is definitly man-made, when 32,000 scientists, have signed off against it.

The Al Gore side said the debate is over, when clearly it is not. Absurd statements like that, which are only backed up by "people also thought we didn't man on the moon" when questioned, usually don't win over any rational thinkers, especially when there is a ton of evidence to the contrary.

Paul also hates taxes, and the Man-made Global Warming crowds great solution is to tax C02 consumption. Buying your carbon credits from a company Al Gore has significant involvement in and will profit from (environmental industrial complex anyone)

So we have: "The debate is over (clearly isn't), so we must tax you"

Definitley sounds like something up Ron Paul's alley :D.

That petition was bullshit. Many of the Phd's were vets. Others were people with BS's and BA's in all kinds of sciences. I'm saying look at what Climatologists are saying. They actually do have a significant consensus in support of global warming.

I'll post some related shit when I have time. I really wish Conservative Christian would stop spamming this thread though. He's just posting every article he finds, I could do the same thing.

Krugerrand
07-29-2009, 01:50 PM
That petition was bullshit. Many of the Phd's were vets. Others were people with BS's and BA's in all kinds of sciences. I'm saying look at what Climatologists are saying. They actually do have a significant consensus in support of global warming.

I'll post some related shit when I have time. I really wish Conservative Christian would stop spamming this thread though. He's just posting every article he finds, I could do the same thing.

Climatology is becoming a business to support the political desires of the Al Gores for the world. Even their "peer review" is suspect.

I compare it to Psychology. It's a filed that unstable people pursue to try and find out what's wrong with themselves. I don't trust the conclusions of unstable peer review (psychology). I don't trust the conclusions of our-job-depends-on-these-conclusions peers. (climatologists)

BenIsForRon
07-29-2009, 02:01 PM
Climatologists were around long before the theory of global warming. Many of the climatologists on the IPCC were serious scientists long before warming came into the mainstream.

Danke
07-29-2009, 02:09 PM
Qualifications of Signers:

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

BenIsForRon
07-29-2009, 02:31 PM
Try copying and pasting some of those names into google. I got an orthopedic surgeon and a radiologist.

Danke
07-29-2009, 02:36 PM
William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
17 02 2009

This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our local IPCC wonks at Chico State University, Jeff Price, is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. – Anthony

by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/13/Rajendra_Pachauri_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg

Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer

This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.

First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.

BenIsForRon
07-29-2009, 02:40 PM
dude, you posted the picture for the story, but not a link? Cough it up.

Dr.3D
07-29-2009, 03:12 PM
dude, you posted the picture for the story, but not a link? Cough it up.

These two have the same picture and story:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/)

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/02/only-20-percent-of-ipcc-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate.html (http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/02/only-20-percent-of-ipcc-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate.html)

Here are some others:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/ (http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/)

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/12/john-christy-debates-william-schlesinger/ (http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/12/john-christy-debates-william-schlesinger/)

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/only-20-of-ipcc-scientists-deal-with-climate/ (http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/only-20-of-ipcc-scientists-deal-with-climate/)

Here is the search I used to get that list: http://www.google.com/search?q=William+Schlesinger+on+IPCC%3A+%E2%80%9Cs omething+on+the+order+of+20+percent+have+had+some+ dealing+with+climate.%E2%80%9D+17+02+2009&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US (http://www.google.com/search?q=William+Schlesinger+on+IPCC%3A+%E2%80%9Cs omething+on+the+order+of+20+percent+have+had+some+ dealing+with+climate.%E2%80%9D+17+02+2009&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a):official&client=firefox-a

Conservative Christian
07-31-2009, 01:53 AM
"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation
between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science."

Dr. Philip Lloyd
South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer
UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

..