Calling out Global-Warming Deniers [Archive]

Yonivore

01-18-2007, 10:56 AM

Extreme, but I can't blame them for wanting to silence the global warming denying pundits.
You're right, of course. If you can't debate them...silence them.

Al Gore won't debate (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_14-2007_01_20.shtml#1169131766).

The Wall $treet Journal has an interesting subscribers-only op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909379096479919.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries) by Jyllands-Posten culture editor Fleming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg on Al Gore's unwillingness to debate or take tough interview questions on his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth. As Rose and Lomborg tell it, Jyllands-Posten, the Denmark's largest newspaper, had an interview scheduled with Gore to conicide with his visit to the country. The paper also planned to include Lomborg as a counterpoint in the interview, but it was not to be.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.
The article goes on to note that many of Gore specific claims are either based on extremely unlikely scenarios, or misrepresentations of the available evidence. For example, Gore shows seal-level rise scenarios far in excess of UN projections, makes claims about malaria that are contradicted by the historical record, and only discusses the health harms of higher temperatures without considering the benefits.

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

Then you have Kucinich trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine." Democrats! Champions of Free Speech!

scott

01-18-2007, 09:15 PM

Not even ExxonMobil can find a reason to doubt Global Warming... I'd like to hear the sides of the people who can (with less resources).

MannyIsGod

01-18-2007, 09:24 PM

:lol @ the AMS seal of approval. Yeah, that means pretty much dick. You don't even need a degree to get that thing. I'd never go into broadcast meteorology either way.

However, I've never denied global warming in the least. I've been skeptical about the cause being entirely human related and I've been very upset with the way it is presented as a doomsday scenario. That is false. I've maintained all along that there are benefits to go along with the bad aspects of global warming, and thats what people don't ever talk about.

Oh, and I also take issue everytime Dan tries to blame recent weather on global warming. And Dan, correct me if I'm wrong but I've shown you to be completely off everytime, right? You should just tatoo "Property Of Manny" on your ass dude.

MannyIsGod

01-18-2007, 09:38 PM

Qualifications of the highly prestigious AMS Seal Of Approval:

1. Register and attend an AMS Broadcast Conference.
2. Enroll and pass a three-hour accredited college-level meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, geology, physics, chemistry, or dynamics course.
3. Register and attend an AMS-sponsored workshop pertaining to the atmospheric sciences.
4. Completion of a COMET module or other National Weather Service training exercise.
5. Actively participate in the local AMS chapter.

Niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I guess #6 will be to say exactly what they want you to say, or else.

MannyIsGod

01-18-2007, 09:43 PM

Whats even more funny is that we're talking about broadcast meteorologists here. These are people with no scientific expertise in climate studies by any means. While a few may have a climate study background, the vast majority are under qualified to make any judgments on what causes or doesn't cause global warming.

This is weak arm twisting and arm twisting of unimportant people at that. Does it really matter what the hell Albert Flores says in regards to global warming or does it matter more what the head climate scientists of each country say? GMAFB.

The AMS isn't an important body, and this is an action that means nothing but is funny none the less because some actually think it matters.

Clandestino

01-18-2007, 09:56 PM

well, fuck, do any broadcasters ever get shit right??? they never fucking do and they all seem to have jobs... in no other profession can you be wrong 95% of the time and still have a job... shit, i should've been a meteorologist!

AFE7FATMAN

01-19-2007, 12:30 AM

A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.

The call was made by Heidi Cullen, host of a weekly global warming programme on the cable network called The Climate Code, and coincides with a stretch of severely off-kilter weather across the US this winter and moves by Democrats to draft strict new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the "seal of approval" that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures.
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather," she wrote in her internet blog. "It's not a political statement... it's just an incorrect statement." :toast

What is soooooooooo hard for people to understand about this :bang

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2165452.ece

timvp

01-19-2007, 12:38 AM

Damn, MannyIsGod laid some hardcore ownage in this thread.

Aggie Hoopsfan

01-19-2007, 12:54 AM

:corn:

*watching Manny laying down the law in this thread*

Damn Dan, that's going to leave a mark.

Nbadan

01-19-2007, 01:04 AM

Nbadan

01-19-2007, 01:27 AM

About face....

This is such bullshit. Weather forcasters get shit for being wrong 80% of the time, but thats a total crock. Its a forcast, not a precise prediction. Its not meant to be right or wrong, its meant to give you a general guidline as to what the conditions are for that day.

That being said, meteorologists do a hell of a job with their accuracy.

- 'Manny' Chomsky, 'What Say You Weather Manny' thread in The Club

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 01:32 AM

Look at Manny get his panties all in a wade. :lol

Whatever Manny, whose weather prediction record in the club is really, really abismal (wasn't he predicting snow?!? :lol ), thinks of the AMS and broadcast meterology is between himself and God, but it's hard to argue with Heidi Cullen's credentials

Heidi Cullen

Ucar.edu (http://www.ucar.edu/student_recruiting/scientists/heidi.cfm)

I would say she's much more qualified than Manny on just about any topic, except maybe online gambling.I predicted winter precipitation a week before the event and when the NWS was saying that there would be no precipitation. (link (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57594)) (link (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1372402&postcount=12)) (link (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1373843&postcount=14)) But yes I was wrong about the snow I guess. I suck.

But thats all besides the point. You can deflect all you want to my (admitted) lack of meteorgolical expertise but the fact remains that the AMS Seal of Approval is flat out worthless. The debate in this thread isn't about climate change and whether or not its occuring, its about the AMS Seal of Approval and what it means if they start revoking it.

I gave you the requirements for that thing and they are very unspectacular. A single 3 hour college course? Give me a fucking break! To top it off, the reason for the revocation is ridiculous. What if a TV weatherman says that climate change was a factor in Katrina (wrong), the main factor in our warm winter (wrong) or a factor in any number of unusual weather events occuring where it doesn't apply? Are they going to withdrawl the seal then? Or at what level does the mistake become one where revocation is nessecary? If the weathercaster does not provide proper weather information and gives out factualy incorrect scientific information is that grounds for revocation, and if so why hasn't that been specified before?

I'll tell you why, because this is a poltical move. If not, they would have said that any statements by people with the AMS Seal that are not supported by proper science are grounds for having your (meaningless) AMS Seal revoked. But they didn't, did they? No, they came out on a single subject which a TV/Radio weatherman has very little to discuss on to begin with! Steve Browne's nightly weathercasts need not even have climate change mentioned because global cliamte change isn't about your day to day weather but about large scale climate change that happens over large periods of time and not during a 7 day forecast.

So go ahead Dan. Put her credentials up for display and tell everyone around here how I said it was going to snow (along with several of those who are certified by the AMS! Imagine that!) and it didn't snow, but that doesn't change how obvious of a political move this is and how unimportant of one it is as well.

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 01:35 AM

About face....

- 'Manny' Chomsky, 'What Say You Weather Manny' thread in The ClubAn about face? What the hell are you talking about? Do you not undestand that weather forcasters are not TV weather personalities? TV weather personalties are the ones that are given the AMS seal of approval. Weather forcasters are by far either 1) privately employeed or 2) employed by the NWS or military. It is fair to say that a decent amount of forcasting knowledge is also present in academia, but the AMS grants the Seal of Approval for people on the TV and Radio who for the most part just use the information provided to them by forcasters.

And forcasters do an amazingly good job.

Nbadan

01-19-2007, 02:01 AM

But thats all besides the point. You can deflect all you want to my (admitted) lack of meteorgolical expertise but the fact remains that the AMS Seal of Approval is flat out worthless. The debate in this thread isn't about climate change and whether or not its occuring, its about the AMS Seal of Approval and what it means if they start revoking it.

I could give a shit about the AMS Seal of Approval Manny. I think the greater debate here is that a qualified Climitologist like Heidi Cullen, is calling out Global Warming deniers to make a solid case for alternative causes to Global warming or just STFU.

The original source of this article is highly dubious. Marc Morano, who posted this article on the Senate.gov site, has Nixoian connections to wing-nut Washington power-circles and was even rumored to be involved in the Swift boat campaign against Kerry. So as you have said, this whole thing may turn out to be nothing but politics after all, but for reasons not yet made clear.

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 02:03 AM

I could give a shit about the AMS Seal of Approval Manny. I think the greater debate here is that a qualified Climitologist, Heidi Cullen, is calling out Global Warming deniers to make a solid case for alternative causes to Global warming or STFU.

Of course, the original source of this article is highly dubious. Marc Morano, who posted this article on the Senate.gov site, has Nixoian connections to wing-nut Washington power-circles and was even rumored to be involved in the Swift boat campaign against Kerry. So as you have said, this whole thing may turn out to be nothing but politics after all.

Game Over

Nbadan

01-19-2007, 02:05 AM

Game Over

For now.

Nbadan

01-19-2007, 04:00 AM

Not even ExxonMobil can find a reason to doubt Global Warming... I'd like to hear the sides of the people who can (with less resources).

Your right Scott...ExxonMobil has stopped funding groups that are skeptical of G.W. claims...

MSNBC and Reuters; Updated: 1:42 p.m. ET Jan 12, 2007)

Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

...

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.

...

Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups.

Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.

Scoring oil

In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch Shell got 90 and 79, respectively.

“Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/print/1/displaymode/1098)

It's time for those wacky, wing-nut Global warming deniers to hang it up.

Yonivore

01-19-2007, 11:53 AM

I could give a shit about the AMS Seal of Approval Manny. I think the greater debate here is that a qualified Climitologist like Heidi Cullen, is calling out Global Warming deniers to make a solid case for alternative causes to Global warming or just STFU.

The original source of this article is highly dubious. Marc Morano, who posted this article on the Senate.gov site, has Nixoian connections to wing-nut Washington power-circles and was even rumored to be involved in the Swift boat campaign against Kerry. So as you have said, this whole thing may turn out to be nothing but politics after all, but for reasons not yet made clear.
You must have not gotten Ms. Cullen's memo, it's now called "global climate change." They were having trouble explaining frozen Malibu in the context of "global warming."

CubanMustGo

01-19-2007, 11:55 AM

Typical neocon denial tactics ... use an isolated incident and ignore the overwelming overall warming trend.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/northern_temp.jpg

Global warming doesn't mean that everything is always going to be hotter.

Yonivore

01-19-2007, 12:42 PM

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 05:13 PM

You must have not gotten Ms. Cullen's memo, it's now called "global climate change." They were having trouble explaining frozen Malibu in the context of "global warming."O RLY?

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 05:14 PM

How does she explain this?

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html)

You know, the debate isn't over whether or not the globe is warming...it's over why and whether or not it's a bad thing.I'm not sure she's an expert on Mars atmospheric conditions. Either way, the conditions on Mars and the conditions on Earth are hardly compareable.

Yonivore

01-19-2007, 06:48 PM

I'm not sure she's an expert on Mars atmospheric conditions. Either way, the conditions on Mars and the conditions on Earth are hardly compareable.
Except that they share the single-most responsible reason for warming...the sun.

You've -- indeed, the entire global warming Henny Pennys -- limited yourself to thinking globally.

scott

01-19-2007, 09:20 PM

Your right Scott...ExxonMobil has stopped funding groups that are skeptical of G.W. claims...

MSNBC and Reuters; Updated: 1:42 p.m. ET Jan 12, 2007)

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/print/1/displaymode/1098)

It's time for those wacky, wing-nut Global warming deniers to hang it up.

There's a whole thread about this already, Dan, albeit one that got sidetracked by XRay and smeagol arguing about subsidies for fruits or some shit.

Guru of Nothing

01-19-2007, 11:00 PM

WHAT IF we had insufficient data from which to draw conclusions? How might the arguments differ?

MannyIsGod

01-19-2007, 11:26 PM

Except that they share the single-most responsible reason for warming...the sun.

You've -- indeed, the entire global warming Henny Pennys -- limited yourself to thinking globally.:lol

You're a complete idiot. What happens on Mars is completely irrelevant to global warming theory on Earth. Completely! The fact that they share the same source of energy is true, but the amount of different variables makes it a pretty unimportant factor. Some of those variables:

1) Atmospheric composition
2) Atmospheric density
3) Distance from the Sun
4) Rotational differences
5) Differences in axis tilt
6) Different surface composition
7) Differing orbital times

God damn Yonivore, I could go on and on and on. So even with an increase in solar output the 2 planets would have no where near the same reaction and trying to draw a conclusion on what may be happening in the atmosphere of one by observing the other is completely baseless.

Props for manging to use yet another irrelevent piece of information into the dicussion.

Yonivore

01-19-2007, 11:37 PM

:lol

You're a complete idiot. What happens on Mars is completely irrelevant to global warming theory on Earth. Completely! The fact that they share the same source of energy is true, but the amount of different variables makes it a pretty unimportant factor. Some of those variables:

1) Atmospheric composition
2) Atmospheric density
3) Distance from the Sun
4) Rotational differences
5) Differences in axis tilt
6) Different surface composition
7) Differing orbital times

God damn Yonivore, I could go on and on and on. So even with an increase in solar output the 2 planets would have no where near the same reaction and trying to draw a conclusion on what may be happening in the atmosphere of one by observing the other is completely baseless.

Props for manging to use yet another irrelevent piece of information into the dicussion.
:::YAWN:::

The Weather Channel Mess (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf)

January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 01:43 AM

There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming.
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml)

Let me know if you need any help with the big words Manny.

MannyIsGod

01-20-2007, 03:20 AM

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 09:21 AM

xrayzebra

01-20-2007, 10:14 AM

Its funny, I get shit from everyone on this issue. From Dan because I call his political bullshit and exagerations for what it is. From Yonivore because I call his introduction of Mars climate information irrelevant.

:lol

You're both idiots on the subject.

1. When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

2. I think that solar forcing may be a large mechanism behind climate change, but because of the above that doesn't mean CO2 emissions are correct.

From Gtown posting that ridiculous video, to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming, to Yonivore and his ridiculous posts about Mars its impossible to have a good discussion on the subject in this forum because everyone is too busy trying to prove their view on the subject they're too damn close minded to take a step back and review the information available instead of taking someone else's word for it. There are so many god damn agendas.

Well Manny I have found one thing I agree with you on. The earth indeed
may be warming, but it has in the past, remember one time most of
North America was covered in ice. So I guess a little global warming in
the past was good but not in the future. I have also read that at one
time the arctic was tropical and fossilized plants have been found to show
this.

And now we are told that man is all the fault. Well, like you I don't buy
into that theory. And like you I have also read some reports that say
warming could be a boom to parts of the world, while maybe hurting
some other parts.

But the debate is agenda driven in most cases, MONEY being one big
culprit, bring on those studies funded by tax dollars. Politics being the
other big factor. We must give money to some of the third world
countries, who I might add help pump the stuff into the air they are
opposed to.

England is now going to impose a tax based on this junk. And this
is only the beginning.

Anyhow, Mother Earth has taken care of itself for many years, before
man, during our early years and will continue to do so. I have a lot
more faith in Earth than I do some of these so called experts. Like
you know Al Gore, who wont debate with any detractors of his
theories.

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 02:58 PM

it's pretty stupid to say that mars's climate and earth's climate are completely irrelevant, manny
It's not in his script.

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 03:08 PM

java?
No thanks, I'm full up.

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 03:12 PM

Zing!
The offer was java, were you being disingenious? I guess I should have known all you'd really have to offer was shit.

Yonivore

01-20-2007, 03:26 PM

oh i meant that manny is an internet bot controlled by javascript
Really? I honestly thought you were offering me coffee! :rolleyes

Yonivore

01-21-2007, 12:16 AM

and shit makes flowers grow
You must look like a Chia Pet.

Guru of Nothing

01-21-2007, 01:34 AM

You must look like a Chia Pet.

You must look like a mushroom.

MannyIsGod

01-21-2007, 02:42 AM

it's pretty stupid to say that mars's climate and earth's climate are completely irrelevant, mannyNo, its not actually. Why in the hell would Mar's climate have any relevance in a dicussion regarding the Earth's?

MannyIsGod

01-21-2007, 02:44 AM

It's not in his script.:lmao

Yes, because I'm not the one who has trouble composing original thoughts here.

Copy and paste is not only your friend, Yoni, its your brain.

Yonivore

01-21-2007, 09:19 AM

:lmao

Yes, because I'm not the one who has trouble composing original thoughts here.

Copy and paste is not only your friend, Yoni, its your brain.
Way to change the subject, Manny...again. Unless you're a climate expert, you're being informed on this issue by someone else as well.

xrayzebra

01-21-2007, 12:17 PM

Here is a nice little article that you may find very interesting, about global warming
and Al Gore.

Will Al Gore Melt?
By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG
The Wall Street Journal
January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century.Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

Some very pointed questions along with some facts, which strangely, we never
hear from the doomsayers on this forum. How come?

scott

01-21-2007, 12:18 PM

It's a lot warmer than it was 5 days ago. That's some global warming, homes.

Yonivore

01-21-2007, 04:04 PM

It's a lot warmer than it was 5 days ago. That's some global warming, homes.
I guess Miami will be an aquarium by next Tuesday?

MannyIsGod

01-21-2007, 08:52 PM

Way to change the subject, Manny...again. Unless you're a climate expert, you're being informed on this issue by someone else as well.:lol

YOU brought up me working off a script. Being informed by someone else is one thing, reading the information in other places and making up your own mind is quite another. You've shown very little cromprehensive ability and lots of copy and paste ability. Your critical thinkiing is done by others, Yonivore. You just act like its YOUR opinion when its only so by proxy.

Yonivore

01-21-2007, 09:50 PM

:lol

YOU brought up me working off a script. Being informed by someone else is one thing, reading the information in other places and making up your own mind is quite another. You've shown very little cromprehensive ability and lots of copy and paste ability. Your critical thinkiing is done by others, Yonivore. You just act like its YOUR opinion when its only so by proxy.
Okay, so care to respond to the original subject of the thread now that you've got that out of your system?

MannyIsGod

01-21-2007, 10:50 PM

I did that several times on page one Mr. Mars. The original subject of the thread was discussed and the discussion was concluded long before you brought your 2 (irrelevant) 2 cents into it. Now, if you'd like to add something of relevance to the discussion on the AMS seal of approval the importance of its threatened revocation then feel free. However, I'm not sure how the weather on Mars qualifies as staying on subject when the subject was that of a political nature here on Earth.

Dumb ass.

Yonivore

01-21-2007, 11:29 PM

However, I'm not sure how the weather on Mars qualifies as staying on subject when the subject was that of a political nature here on Earth.
Well, as I stated, Mars and Earth share a sun that is the biggest factor in determining our climate and, if Mars is warming, Earth may be warming for the same reasons -- increased solar activity.

By the way, it's not my theory -- I posted a link.

Dumb ass.
Whatever makes you feel better but, you're the one that is having trouble understanding how climate influences on Mars could have anything to do with climate influences on Earth, not me.

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 03:06 AM

When I want to argue against CO2 emissions I don't fall back on global warming because as far as I'm concerned there is doubt that is what is causing climate change, but theres NO doubt thats increased CO2 levels are what is killing the oceans.

What doubt? There's little credible doubt, and absolutely none that you've presented in your argument for other causes of global warming in this thread, but there is plenty of relevant data that satisfies this hypothesis. That is what this thread is really about. Saying to all you global warming deniers, like Yoni, and it's underlying causes, like Manny, put up some facts or shut the fuck up!

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 03:20 AM

to NBADan and his incorrect linking of Katrina to global warming,

:lmao

Manny was so wrong about Katrina, it's ridiculous him calling me out on this, but I guess most people have short memories. I posted 10 months before Katrina hit that New Orleans was vulnerable to a violent Hurricane and deadly flooding, and then just for kicks, I added that the Houston-Galveston area would get hit too, in the same year.

10 Predictions for 2005 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491)

Let's see Manny back up his claims.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:26 AM

Well, as I stated, Mars and Earth share a sun that is the biggest factor in determining our climate and, if Mars is warming, Earth may be warming for the same reasons -- increased solar activity.

By the way, it's not my theory -- I posted a link.

Whatever makes you feel better but, you're the one that is having trouble understanding how climate influences on Mars could have anything to do with climate influences on Earth, not me.LOL!!!!

Thats because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other! Let me explain it to you in a fourth grade manner.

I have 2 balls filled with different gases, at different densities, at different distances and with different compisitoins both around a central heat source. One may have a tempature increase for a very different reason than the other because they have incredibly different variables. Therefor, to understand the increase in one, it doesn't matter what the increase is in the other one bit.

If you increase the thermal output from the central heat source, they may experience entirely different rates of heat because of the different variables. Therefor, one may heat at a significantly different rate than the other because of that.

You can not draw conclusions for one of the balls based on observed conditions on the other.

If you're going to try to say that the Sun is the primary reason for global warming then your proof need start and end with the Sun and its effects on Earth. Anything that happens on Mars will not further any conclusion of what will or what won't happen on Earth and that deems it irrelevant.

Do you understand that, dumb ass?

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:31 AM

:lmao

Manny was so wrong about Katrina, it's ridiculous him calling me out on this, but I guess most people have short memories. I posted 10 months before Katrina hit that New Orleans was vulnerable to a violent Hurricane and deadly flooding, and then just for kicks, I added that the Houston-Galveston area would get hit too, in the same year.

10 Predictions for 2005 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491)

Let's see Manny back up his claims.

First of all, what does me calling you out on the linking of global warming have to do with predictions of NO's vunerabilities before Katrina?

Secondly, do you think that you somehow managed to uncover the vulnerabilities of NO 10 months before Katrina? Thats laughable.

Thirdly, your "predictions" are really guesses. Unless you have some information or data to base your that NO and Galveston would be hit (and Galveston recived nothing more than a glancing blow, but way to toot your horn for a miss sir) then you did nothing me than pick spots on the Gulf coast and guess that a hurricane would hit there.

None of that has anything to do with Global Warming or your (incorrect) linking of Katrina to it, so why you even choose to bring it up is beyond me.

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 04:39 AM

Thirdly, your "predictions" are really guesses. Unless you have some information or data to base your that NO and Galveston would be hit (and Galveston recived nothing more than a glancing blow, but way to toot your horn for a miss sir) then you did nothing me than pick spots on the Gulf coast and guess that a hurricane would hit there.

None of that has anything to do with Global Warming or your (incorrect) linking of Katrina to it, so why you even choose to bring it up is beyond me.

It all has to do with credibility Manny (you have none here), and my 'guesses' are based on my own mathamatical computations, and game theory, that you couldn't even begin to understand without at least a undergraduate math degree.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:54 AM

It all has to do with credibility Manny (you have none here), and my 'guesses' are based on my own mathamatical computations, and game theory, that you couldn't even begin to understand without at least a undergraduate math degree.LOL

I have no cred and you have it all Dan. MY bad. You should conduct a straw poll to find out exactly how true that is.

I'd love to hear more about your advanced modeling that allows for predictions as precise as where hurricanes will hit. Please, fill us in.

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 11:12 AM

xrayzebra

01-22-2007, 11:49 AM

Here is an article I found extremely interesting and may explain why we are having
this discussion. I find many of the remarks in this article revealing. Like about
the computer models used and ice melt raising ocean levels and about how much
the DONT know about the ice sheet in general. Anyhow enjoy.

Jan. 22, 2007, 9:45AM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Subscribe NOW

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.

Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.

Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

xrayzebra

01-22-2007, 11:51 AM

LOL

I have no cred and you have it all Dan. MY bad. You should conduct a straw poll to find out exactly how true that is.

I'd love to hear more about your advanced modeling that allows for predictions as precise as where hurricanes will hit. Please, fill us in.

You could dan the cut and paste man. And most of what he does cut
and paste is a waste of time anyhow. His cred with me and many others
I'm sure is exactly zero.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 01:39 PM

Let me put it even simpler. You put two balls next to a blast furnace and then, turn up the heat, both balls are going to get hotter -- regardless of what's going on inside.That one might have an faster/shorter rate of increase depending on its compisition/density/distance never occured to you? :lol

I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit yet again. Congrats!

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 01:44 PM

That one might have an faster/shorter rate of increase depending on its compisition/density/distance never occured to you? :lol
But, increase, none-the-less.

I made the mistake of giving you far too much credit yet again. Congrats!
Mistakes seem to be common to you.

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 03:31 PM

Mistakes seem to be common to you

Ouch!

:hat

Phenomanul

01-22-2007, 03:37 PM

LOL!!!!

Thats because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other! Let me explain it to you in a fourth grade manner.

I have 2 balls filled with different gases, at different densities, at different distances and with different compisitoins both around a central heat source. One may have a tempature increase for a very different reason than the other because they have incredibly different variables. Therefor, to understand the increase in one, it doesn't matter what the increase is in the other one bit.

If you increase the thermal output from the central heat source, they may experience entirely different rates of heat because of the different variables. Therefor, one may heat at a significantly different rate than the other because of that.

You can not draw conclusions for one of the balls based on observed conditions on the other.

If you're going to try to say that the Sun is the primary reason for global warming then your proof need start and end with the Sun and its effects on Earth. Anything that happens on Mars will not further any conclusion of what will or what won't happen on Earth and that deems it irrelevant.

Do you understand that, dumb ass?

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 03:48 PM

All this could be true if we were in a unusal period of solar flare activity, but by most historical calculations, we are on the down-side of a solar cycle.

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 04:06 PM

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...
God forbid!

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.
Isn't that exactly what I said; except with about eleventy-million fewer words?

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:46 PM

Not that I'm going to side with Yoni on this one (as I've not made up my mind on the Global warming matter)...

Anyways, if an energy envelope were drawn around Mars you would find that an observed increase in average planetary temperature is in fact a reflection of an increase in solar flux. The planet's core is no where near as active as Earth's, so unless temperature is emanating from within, 99.99+% of the energy that enters Mars comes by way of our sun. The remaining cosmic energy flux is so small by comparison that it is almost negligible - and with respect to earth similar in magnitude; although earth's atmosphere does a better job of shielding the planet's surface from cosmic radiation (by either absorbing or reflecting alpha, gamma, and x-ray radiation back to space depending on the particulars of the interaction with our atmosphere).

Anyways, by drawing the imaginary energy boundary around the planet attributes such as the planet's atmospheric composition, atmospheric reaction set, green-house effect, atmospheric density, diffractive radiation, are taken out of the picture. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively constant atmospheric composition, density etc... the temperature in Mars has managed to increase. Since we know that this increase can be attributed to solar flux with almost 100% certainty. It should follow that earth has also been subjected to this mean increase in solar flux. Not to mention the fact that solar flux is inversely proportional to the square of the average distance from the sun. And with Earth being 48 million miles closer to the sun than Mars, any observed increase in flux would impact the Earth by a factor of 2.3 times greater.

The only difference between the planets with respect to an energy balance is the difference in satelite orientation. Earth's moon is bigger and can shield a larger amount of solar flux when positioned in front Earth, but it can also radiate a large amount of solar flux back to Earth's night side. Since Mars' moons are smaller, and further away they don't impact the planet's energy flux as much as Earth's moon does.

You are correct in asserting that Earth's different atmospheric properties would react/behave differently to an increase in solar flux. At least with respect to Mars

But the fact remains, an increase in solar flux can in fact be concluded if a temperature increase has in fact been observed for our brother planet. That is all that can conclusively be stated with the given data set.(I'm rewriting my post after rereading your post)

I never in any way implied that there was not an increase in solar activity which was leading to a warming of Mars. I'm not sure you can conclude that based on a single study or a single set of data, but thats not the point.

I just want it to be made very clear, that data that shows Mars is warming is irrelevant to climate change theory here on Earth. Mars warming due to increased solar activity does not in anyway show that an increased level of CO2 in our atmosphere is not causing additional warming here. Climate Change modeling does not argue that the sun is not providing more energy, it is saying that the CO2 in our atmosphere is causing additional warming that is growing at a exponential rate.

No conclusions can be drawn on whether or not that is true based on any data from Mars, and that renders the Mars data completely irrelevent.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:54 PM

Isn't that exactly what I said; except with about eleventy-million fewer words?
No, what he said is much closer to what I've been saying but I don't expect you to possess the reading comprehension to understand why.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 04:59 PM

Ouch!

:hatYou ready to provide information on your models that are far more accurate than anything the any weather agency is using at the moment? I'd would geniuenly love to see what you have to offer.

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 05:08 PM

No, what he said is much closer to what I've been saying but I don't expect you to possess the reading comprehension to understand why.
Okay, if you say so. Explain to me how the Earth, which is closer to the Sun than Mars, couldn't be warming for the same reason that Mars is warming?

It appears, according to what I read that the Mars polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than are Earth's. And, if that's the case, maybe the -- what did you call it -- oh yeah, maybe the different gasses, different densities, and different compositions (I left out the distance thing because, well, that would tend to intensify not mitigate the affects of the Sun, no?) are actually lessening or mitigating the severity of the affects this "solar flux," or whatever it's called.

So, I guess the argument could be made that all this crap in the atmosphere -- whether we put it there or not -- is actually keeping us cooler than if we were like Mars. After all, we're closer to the Sun than is Mars and, yet, we seem to be less affected by the increased solar activity.

Yeah Global Warming!

You're full of shit Manny.

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 05:09 PM

MannyIsGod

01-22-2007, 05:16 PM

Okay, if you say so. Explain to me how the Earth, which is closer to the Sun than Mars, couldn't be warming for the same reason that Mars is warming?

It appears, according to what I read that the Mars polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than are Earth's. And, if that's the case, maybe the -- what did you call it -- oh yeah, maybe the different gasses, different densities, and different compositions (I left out the distance thing because, well, that would tend to intensify not mitigate the affects of the Sun, no?) are actually lessening or mitigating the severity of the affects this "solar flux," or whatever it's called.

So, I guess the argument could be made that all this crap in the atmosphere -- whether we put it there or not -- is actually keeping us cooler than if we were like Mars. After all, we're closer to the Sun than is Mars and, yet, we seem to be less affected by the increased solar activity.

Yeah Global Warming!

You're full of shit Manny.No Yonivore, it is just too much for you to understand apparently. I'll discuss the issue with Hector. You're free to follow along if you wish, but you've apparently missed the whole point I've been trying to make this entire time which is not whether or not the temparture change on Earth is due to to primarily solar forcing, but that the data from Mars was irrelevant to a discussion on human caused climate change.

Hector stated that the data on Mars could be used to draw a conclusion that there is an increase of Solar Activity, but thats it. He does not say that said increase in Solar Activity effects the Earth's temparture or that observed warming on Mars in any way can be used to prove that there is not warming being caused by increased CO2 levels on Earth.

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 05:39 PM

No Yonivore, it is just too much for you to understand apparently. I'll discuss the issue with Hector. You're free to follow along if you wish, but you've apparently missed the whole point I've been trying to make this entire time which is not whether or not the temparture change on Earth is due to to primarily solar forcing, but that the data from Mars was irrelevant to a discussion on human caused climate change.
How can you say it is irrelevant when, in fact, it may be that human caused climate change is a farce in the face of something cosmically bigger than humanity -- The freakin' Sun.

Hector stated that the data on Mars could be used to draw a conclusion that there is an increase of Solar Activity, but thats it.
No, that's not it. The data on Mars indicates this increased solar activity is causing warming.

And, while it's true that Earth's atmosphere is different than Mars', if we are closer to the sun than is Mars and if Mars is warming faster than the Earth, it is logical to conclude that whatever atmospheric differences we do have are mitigating the Sun's effects -- not exacerbating them.

He does not say that said increase in Solar Activity effects the Earth's temparture or that observed warming on Mars in any way can be used to prove that there is not warming being caused by increased CO2 levels on Earth.
Actually, he did...You just weren't paying attention.

Mars' core is cooler than Earth's and Like Earth -- the core of Mars is only getting cooler not warmer. Therefore, it is logical to assume that any warming on Mars is caused by solar activity (what other source is there?).

Our atmosphere is -- as you accurately pointed out -- different than the one on Mars. However, it is different in that it is more dense than is the atmosphere on Mars and, since we appear to be warming at a slower rate than is Mars it can be logically concluded that this is because of our atmosphere -- regardless of why our atmosphere is dense. This is where the relevance of the affects of solar activity on Mars comes in.

So, all that to say, man-made global warming is a farce and man-made global climate change is yet to be demonstrably good or bad...if if you prove it to be true. In fact, it appears it could be a good thing...protecting us from the intensified warming affecting Mars while still ameliorating our weather so that we have longer growing seasons and fewer droughts.

Nbadan

01-22-2007, 05:39 PM

You ready to provide information on your models that are far more accurate than anything the any weather agency is using at the moment? I'd would geniuenly love to see what you have to offer.

Please, I don't claim to be better than atmospheric models year in and year out, I'm no farmers almanac, I simply don't care about the weather that much, but at any given point I can apply known models and my own axioms and give you a reasonable expectations that could be more accurate than computer-generated models. Any mathematician could do it.

Yonivore

01-22-2007, 05:44 PM

Phenomanul

01-22-2007, 07:33 PM

BTW Hector, one point you made in your 2nd paragraph is severely flawed. You mentioned that the Earth would see an effect directly proportional to Mars effect based on the distance from the Sun. This is incorrect.

There are too many variables that would cause the effect to be greater or less here on earth such as:

1) Magnetic field differences
2) Atmosphere composition and density differences

If your statement were correct, then we could expect an even greater increase of Venus' temperature because it is even closer to the Sun. But the density and composition of Venus' atmosphere provides it a much more stable temperature and the much thinner atmosphere of Mars would actually render it much more susceptible to solar changes.

Venus re-radiates (reflects) solar flux with a luminous intensity 5.5 times greater than Earth. But that obscures a finer point; Venus' average temperature is harder to determine because 99.999% of the surface is cloud covered 100% of the time. Infrared measurements don't penetrate the CO2 laden atmosphere enough to accurately determine said temperature average. SO2 is also present in the Venusian atmosphere at a concentration 10,000 times greater than that of Earth... It is this SO2 content that is responsible for most of Venus' reflective brilliance, but it also unfortunately is the component that adds noise to the the infrared measurements that attempt to determine surface temperature. We do know however, from less accurate gamma back-scatter measurements, that the surface temperature can soar as high as 950 degrees Fahrenheit. Not withstanding, it wasn't until one of the Venera missions 'landed' on Venus that these temperatures were confirmed - on instances even recording higher temperatures than what the orbital satelites were recording above.

Anyways, the 5.5 factor above is significant in that Venus and Earth share a similar net solar flux magnitude depite the fact that Venus is closer to the sun. The effect of Earth's distance, is canceled out by the effect of Venus' luminous and highly irradiant atmosphere. This is magnified by the fact that any reference point on Venus' surface would see the sun for an average of 116 days before seeing the first night.

So in this light, what you stated earlier does hold some merit: atmospheric properties do affect the overall incorporation of solar energy. What's harder to assess is whether or not Venus has in fact experienced an increase in average surface temperature as a result of the aforementioned increase in solar flux that caused the temperature rise on Mars. Without the sacrifice of more lander probes I don't know how we would be able to conclusively claim that the temperature has or hasn't increased... On an aside consider this: the most robust probe to date survived for 127? minutes in the harsh Venusian climate.

It is possible to have an increase of solar output that would increase the temperature on Mars and have no effect on Earth's temperature further proving my point the the observations on Mars bear no relevance to climate change theory.

All things being equal (and that is the operative factor):

Earth's atmospheric composition hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric density hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric pressure hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

The magnitude of Earth's electro-magnetic field hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

etc...

Therefore with an increase in solar flux Earth would tend to absorb more of the energy rather than reflect it. That ratio is not constant. Absorbption is based on wavelength properties inherent to the composition of the atmosphere whereas reflection (irradiance) is governed by incipient angles, mostly independent of the atmosphere's composition, and ones which wouldn't change with changes to solar flux (i.e. the radiative vectors remain the same even if the radiation magnitude changes). Furthermore, the shielding effect provided by the magnetosphere is relatively constant (depending on Earth's dynamo). If the flux increases beyond what the electromagnetic shield can deflect then the net flux will usually end up being positive not negative.

But that's just it.... What attribute changes above can be considered as 'not being significant'... as 'not having dramatically changed over the past 5 years'???? Gauging those is much more fuzzy than what we believe it to be.

LaMarcus Bryant

01-22-2007, 11:44 PM

http://cns.utexas.edu/communications/File/AnnRev_CCimpacts2006.pdf

oops

dr parmesan has a nice butt

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 08:38 AM

Please, I don't claim to be better than atmospheric models year in and year out, I'm no farmers almanac, I simply don't care about the weather that much, but at any given point I can apply known models and my own axioms and give you a reasonable expectations that could be more accurate than computer-generated models. Any mathematician could do it.So at any given point you can use a model to out predict models?

Please layout the process in detail that led you to your New Orleans "prediction". Seriously Dan, I'm very intrigued to know what sort of advanced mathmatics provides you with enough information to predict the landfall locations of hurricanes. I'm sure the rest of the world would love for you to share this as well.

Surely if you are a mathmatician you know the value of showing the process in order to repeat it and prove its accuracy. Surely you could provide us with that information.

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 08:52 AM

How can you say it is irrelevant when, in fact, it may be that human caused climate change is a farce in the face of something cosmically bigger than humanity -- The freakin' Sun.

No, that's not it. The data on Mars indicates this increased solar activity is causing warming.

For starters, I'd love to see a study that says as much in the definitive terms you've used. The article you linked (which is just an article, not a study) clearly states that more data is needed to draw any conclusions.

And, while it's true that Earth's atmosphere is different than Mars', if we are closer to the sun than is Mars and if Mars is warming faster than the Earth, it is logical to conclude that whatever atmospheric differences we do have are mitigating the Sun's effects -- not exacerbating them.
It is logical to assume that the denser atmosphere that contains a large amount of cloud cover reflects a much larger amount of heat than any Martian atmosphere does. In other words, if both Mars and Earth were in the same orbit and experiencing the same solar conditions, Mars would absorb more heat because of the way Earth's atmosphere is.

Now, you start to increase the CO2 content in the atmosphere, and while the Earth is reflecting a good deal of energy, it is radiating far less because the CO2 is now trapping energy. So even with a raised input of solar energy into the system, CO2 could stil be causing man made climate change.

Actually, he did...You just weren't paying attention.

Mars' core is cooler than Earth's and Like Earth -- the core of Mars is only getting cooler not warmer. Therefore, it is logical to assume that any warming on Mars is caused by solar activity (what other source is there?).

Our atmosphere is -- as you accurately pointed out -- different than the one on Mars. However, it is different in that it is more dense than is the atmosphere on Mars and, since we appear to be warming at a slower rate than is Mars it can be logically concluded that this is because of our atmosphere -- regardless of why our atmosphere is dense. This is where the relevance of the affects of solar activity on Mars comes in.
Huh? You're drawing some very weird conclusions based on very poor science. You think the atmosphere is so simple that you can draw simplistic conclusions based on singular data sets on another planet? You're assumptions are unreal.

So, all that to say, man-made global warming is a farce and man-made global climate change is yet to be demonstrably good or bad...if if you prove it to be true. In fact, it appears it could be a good thing...protecting us from the intensified warming affecting Mars while still ameliorating our weather so that we have longer growing seasons and fewer droughts.So, let me get this straight, from an article that says that Mars is warming, you drew the following conclusions:

1) The increase in Mars' temperature is due to an increase of solar activity
2) The increase in solar activity is affecting Earth in a lesser manner because of our atmosphere
3) Because the increase of solar activity is effecting the Earth less, man made climate change is a farce.

Wow.

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 08:57 AM

Venus re-radiates (reflects) solar flux with a luminous intensity 5.5 times greater than Earth. But that obscures a finer point; Venus' average temperature is harder to determine because 99.999% of the surface is cloud covered 100% of the time. Infrared measurements don't penetrate the CO2 laden atmosphere enough to accurately determine said temperature average. SO2 is also present in the Venusian atmosphere at a concentration 10,000 times greater than that of Earth... It is this SO2 content that is responsible for most of Venus' reflective brilliance, but it also unfortunately is the component that adds noise to the the infrared measurements that attempt to determine surface temperature. We do know however, from less accurate gamma back-scatter measurements, that the surface temperature can soar as high as 950 degrees Fahrenheit. Not withstanding, it wasn't until one of the Venera missions 'landed' on Venus that these temperatures were confirmed - on instances even recording higher temperatures than what the orbital satelites were recording above.

Anyways, the 5.5 factor above is significant in that Venus and Earth share a similar net solar flux magnitude depite the fact that Venus is closer to the sun. The effect of Earth's distance, is canceled out by the effect of Venus' luminous and highly irradiant atmosphere. This is magnified by the fact that any reference point on Venus' surface would see the sun for an average of 116 days before seeing the first night.

So in this light, what you stated earlier does hold some merit: atmospheric properties do affect the overall incorporation of solar energy. What's harder to assess is whether or not Venus has in fact experienced an increase in average surface temperature as a result of the aforementioned increase in solar flux that caused the temperature rise on Mars. Without the sacrifice of more lander probes I don't know how we would be able to conclusively claim that the temperature has or hasn't increased... On an aside consider this: the most robust probe to date survived for 127? minutes in the harsh Venusian climate.

[quote]

The Martain observations are not being done with probes on the ground Hector. In fact, there is no direct data as far as what the extent of the warming might be. The data gathered is only that of melting and refreezing CO2 on the surface of Mars being observed by an orbiting spacecraft.

I'm sure you will agree that not a single climate scientist is going to incorporate any data from observations of the surface of Mars into any study on global climate change. Therefor, why would the data have any relevence in the discussion?

[quote]
All things being equal (and that is the operative factor):

Earth's atmospheric composition hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric density hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

Earth's atmospheric pressure hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

The magnitude of Earth's electro-magnetic field hasn't dramatically changed over the past 5 years.

etc...

Therefore with an increase in solar flux Earth would tend to absorb more of the energy rather than reflect it. That ratio is not constant. Absorbption is based on wavelength properties inherent to the composition of the atmosphere whereas reflection (irradiance) is governed by incipient angles, mostly independent of the atmosphere's composition, and ones which wouldn't change with changes to solar flux (i.e. the radiative vectors remain the same even if the radiation magnitude changes). Furthermore, the shielding effect provided by the magnetosphere is relatively constant (depending on Earth's dynamo). If the flux increases beyond what the electromagnetic shield can deflect then the net flux will usually end up being positive not negative.

But that's just it.... What attribute changes above can be considered as 'not being significant'... as 'not having dramatically changed over the past 5 years'???? Gauging those is much more fuzzy than what we believe it to be.Exactly. What is interesting to note is that an otherwise normal increase in solar activity might be causing the warming on both and Mars, but thats not so say that this warming is not being exacerbated by any man made causes.

Phenomanul

01-23-2007, 09:09 AM

I believe that what Yoni is trying to say is that increased solar activity is in fact contributing to our most current global warming trend. Particularly because the sun is such an enormous driving force.

For him to claim however that man-made factors don't enter into the fray is a bit extreme.

BTW Manny... the temperatures on Mars can be detected with infrared methods from orbiting probes... the Martian atmosphere is not as prohibitive as Venus'. In any case, observations of melting dry ice (CO2) and receding polar ice caps on Mars were used as confirmation of the conclusion, but not as the basis.

Sportcamper

01-23-2007, 10:27 AM

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/08/00/20070122165209990001

PHOENIX (Jan. 22) - Another snowstorm that surprised Arizona with more than a foot of snow in parts left the state Monday, giving children as far south as Tucson a chance to play in the snow...

Yonivore

01-23-2007, 02:35 PM

I believe that what Yoni is trying to say is that increased solar activity is in fact contributing to our most current global warming trend. Particularly because the sun is such an enormous driving force.
Exactly what I'm trying to say...and, congratulations, in 50 words or less. ;)

For him to claim however that man-made factors don't enter into the fray is a bit extreme.
I'm not claiming that. I'm merely pointing out that the hysteria over anthropocentric global warming (now global climate change) tends to overlook the elephant in the living room...The Sun.

It also overlooks a few slightly smaller beasts in the room like uncontrollable biogenic and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses such as breathing and decomposition.

Yonivore

01-23-2007, 03:08 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

uh oh Corso
I question the timing.

Oh, Gee!!

01-23-2007, 03:37 PM

I question the timing.

2-2-07?

CubanMustGo

01-23-2007, 06:39 PM

I question the timing.

You'd question the timing even if it was 140 degrees outside.

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 08:19 PM

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 08:22 PM

Exactly what I'm trying to say...and, congratulations, in 50 words or less. ;)

I'm not claiming that. I'm merely pointing out that the hysteria over anthropocentric global warming (now global climate change) tends to overlook the elephant in the living room...The Sun.

It also overlooks a few slightly smaller beasts in the room like uncontrollable biogenic and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses such as breathing and decomposition.It does NOT ignore the Sun. My god where do you get this information from? There is a great deal of discussion on the solar forcing and how it is used in the global climate models that are now being used. This is ridiculous.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#more-351

Pay special importance to the comments.

Yonivore

01-23-2007, 09:21 PM

MannyIsGod

01-23-2007, 09:36 PM

Because we can't control the Sun and there's no money in it.:lol But we can control Mars and there's money in that? OHHHK. It was a rhetorical question either way, people do study the Sun.

Yonivore

01-23-2007, 09:53 PM

:lol But we can control Mars and there's money in that? OHHHK. It was a rhetorical question either way, people do study the Sun.
Well, you missed my point and, admittedly, it's probably because I missed yours and wasn't clear in my response.

What I was attempting to infer is that the Sun's contribution to global climate change is downplayed in favor of the hysterics of anthropogenic causes because, well, you can guilt mankind into dumping trillions into strategies that will -- possibly (according to some of the latest studies -- lower global temperatures by less than .03 degrees celsius over the next 40 years.

You can't guilt the Sun into changing it's behavior and mankind would tell you to go suck a rock if you proposed that you could influence the Sun's impact on global climate change.

Better?

(Sorry, I shot that earlier response out their while trying to watch the SOTUA)

Yonivore

01-24-2007, 12:59 AM

ok so the solution is to just say fuck it and keep polluting. sounds reasonable. i just won't have kids.
Well, it certainly isn't bankrupting society imposing onerous restrictions that won't do much. But, if you're an either/or kind of guy, yeah, the solution is to just say "fuck it" and keep polluting.

Bankrupting us with environmental fascism will ruin our quality of life before our industry will.

Nbadan

01-24-2007, 01:42 AM

Bankrupting us with environmental fascism will ruin our quality of life before our industry will.

Just like it's ruined California's economy, right?

MannyIsGod

01-24-2007, 03:43 AM

Just like it's ruined California's economy, right?Hey dude,

Are you ever going to share the information behind your prediction algorithims/models? ?

Nbadan

01-24-2007, 04:51 AM

Hey dude,

Are you ever going to share the information behind your prediction algorithims/models? ?

No, it almost killed me the first time. that's why I had to stop at 7 predictions when I intended 10.

MannyIsGod

01-24-2007, 05:53 AM

:lmao

Right.

Sportcamper

01-24-2007, 12:17 PM

http://images.usatoday.com/weather/_photos/2007/01/18/apcoldsnapsnow-large.jpg

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Another snow storm pelted Malibu Beach in Southern California ...Snarling traffic but delighting many who raced to the beach to build snowmen & throw snowballs at frozen jelly fish and other sea creatures that washed up on the shore...

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/media/B/buying-and-selling/medium/beach_snow_md.jpg

CubanMustGo

01-24-2007, 12:20 PM

Yep, another "hey, we had ONE cold incident, that's enough to overrule thousands of hot incident" post. What a surprise.

Don't forget to post something about the entire European continent being so warm it's hardly snowed at all this winter, OK?

Yonivore

01-24-2007, 12:21 PM

Nuremberg for global warming skeptics? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53902)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/wwilliams2.gifhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/williams456.jpg

Posted: January 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Walter Williams © 2007

Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The Weather Channel has taken up that task with its series "It Could Happen Tomorrow."

The Weather Channel started its "It Could Happen Tomorrow" series in January 2006. The program includes episodes where a tornado destroys Dallas, a tsunami destroys the Pacific Northwest, Mount Rainier erupts and destroys nearby towns, and San Diego is devastated by wildfires.

They omitted a program showing a meteor striking my house, for it, too, could happen tomorrow. Of course, any one of these events could happen tomorrow, but I'm reminded of a passage in Shakespeare's "Macbeth," where after Macbeth listens to the predictions of the witches, Banquo warns him that "Oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence." That is, gain our confidence with trifle truths to set us up for the big lie.

The big lie, conceived by the Weather Channel in cahoots with environmental extremists, is to get us in a tizzy over global warming, and they're vicious about it. Heidi Cullen, Ph.D., the Weather Channel's climatologist, hosts a weekly program called "The Climate Code." Dr. Cullen advocates that the American Meteorological Society strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming, according to a report by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Dr. Cullen has had a lot of help in demonizing skeptics of catastrophic manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers," and former Vice President Al Gore calls skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse. Mr. Morano reports that on one of Dr. Cullen's shows, she featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg." (See the Morano report (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568).) He didn't say whether the death penalty should be administered to those found guilty of global warming denial.

The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of control must come up with a new name, and that new name is environmentalism.

Last year, 60 prominent scientists signed a letter saying, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. ... Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

They added, "It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas." These scientists have probably won The Weather Channel's ire and might be headed toward a Nuremberg-type trial.
I believe the science will ultimately conclude that humans have very little impact on global climate; but, that the planet's own natural mechanisms, the solar systems engine (The Sun), and, indeed, the universe itself, are the principal determinants for that.

But, that's just me...or, maybe, it's not just me.

Sportcamper

01-24-2007, 12:51 PM

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2922328257
We must stop the Global Warming!

A young Highland cow covered in snow at Carronbridge, Scotland, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007, after heavy snow fell overnight. Ferocious storms continue to to hit Britain, Thursday with heavy rain, snow and high winds causing rail companies to operate reduced services. English Channel ferry companies reported also reported delayed sea crossings. Police in southeast England warned people they could face disruption from high winds which may blow down trees, causing traffic delays and possible power cuts. The storms will be followed next week by plunging temperatures, snow and widespread frosts, forecasters said...
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070118/capt.lon80501181337.britain_weather_lon805.jpg

Extra Stout

01-24-2007, 12:59 PM

1) All the political BS is just a smokescreen to obscure the rather obvious link between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the percentage of solar energy which is retained. Solar forcing had something to do with global warming up to the solar maximum we had a few years back. We are past the solar maximum.

2) There is absolutely no way we are going back to the days of pre-industry. Nor would it be really all that necessary except in the minds of the absolute extremists. The point is to find a rate of CO2 emissions that is sustainable, so that we don't triiger a shift to a new climate equilibrium that does really bad things to human civilization, and which we really woukdn't have a chance of stopping once it starts.

3) The effects of global warming are things we are experiencing right now. The weather is different. It is generally warmer. Precipitation patterns are unusual. Ask yourself if you think the general pattern has been "catastrophic." (No, Katrina does not count. Human engineering and corruption, not global warming, caused most of what happened to New Orleans.)

4) The things that will suck the most as it gets warmer are that island nations on coral atolls will go bye-bye, and highland peasants whose way of life depends upon consistent glacier-fed water sources will be displaced. The latter is worse because it will have a huge impact on China and India and probably trigger a war in Asia.

5) The changes needed to create a sustainable CO2 level which would avert things like sea level going up 20 feet and inundating most coastal cities are relatively minor.

Phenomanul

01-24-2007, 01:57 PM

If Yoni is going to maintain that warming on Mars is a sign that a significan't portion of Earth's warming is due to the Sun, Im' still going to call it irrelevent, Hector. Why wouldn't anyone just study the Sun itself, instead?

I agree; one can't just can't draw the conclusion that man has nothing to do with Earth's recent (post-industrial-era) climate change simply from noting that Mars is experiencing a 'global-warming' phenomenon of its own. But the sun does drive both climatological models, and that factor can't be ignored either. The extent of our impact then is what separates the two models... only this effect is much harder to gauge. The Mars comparison, therefore, is not irrelevant as you've stated repeatedly; it is a very significant find.

Drawing a 1:1 comparative conclusion from said observation, however, would be irrelevant... considering there is much more than meets the eye...

MannyIsGod

01-24-2007, 02:50 PM

Phenomanul

01-24-2007, 02:52 PM

The worst danger of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the killing off of the oceans. Forget the dude sitting on his atoll, because the fish in his ocean will all be dead within 50 years. And thats a conservative estimate. Yet no one ever mentions that. No one.

I do... I'm a big fan of coral reefs - It would be a big shame to see entire reef systems and a large chunk of the diversity of sea life disappear within my lifetime.

DarkReign

01-24-2007, 03:44 PM

Its January 23rd. It finally got cold in Michigan. 2 months late.

Thats all I am saying.

Yonivore

01-24-2007, 03:46 PM

I agree; one can't just can't draw the conclusion that man has nothing to do with Earth's recent (post-industrial-era) climate change simply from noting that Mars is experiencing a 'global-warming' phenomenon of its own. But the sun does drive both climatological models, and that factor can't be ignored either. The extent of our impact then is what separates the two models... only this effect is much harder to gauge. The Mars comparison, therefore, is not irrelevant as you've stated repeatedly; it is a very significant find.

Drawing a 1:1 comparative conclusion from said observation, however, would be irrelevant... considering there is much more than meets the eye...
I don't believe I was drawing a 1:1 comparison. I was trying to point out the single most determinant factor of global climate is, in fact, the sun.

Another, lesser point -- and, it was speculative -- was that given the known differences in atmospheric conditions on the two planets and their relative proximities to the Sun, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that if Mars is warming at a higher rate than is Earth that it is because of the atmospheric differences and not the proximity to the Sun (we're closer).

All other things being equal, it seems to me there's an argument to be made that any anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric conditions have tended to mute the warming affect of solar flux -- not intensified it. Otherwise, Mars wouldn't be getting hotter faster than Earth.

I do recognize that natural atmospheric conditions -- on their own -- might have muted the Sun's affects even more if it weren't for anthropogenic influences, however, I don't see anyone advancing that theory and, besides, do we really want to get colder?

It's like the guy said in the article, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. ... Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Just as scientific advance took us away from the dire predictions of global cooling in the 70's, it will do the same with global warming. Folks, we're along for the ride, it's only our egocentric arrogance that tells us we're having any appreciable affect on global climate.

The resistance to changing this belief is the same as it was in the 70's. Money. There are trillions to be made in "global climate change" commercialism. Just look at the industry built around reducing auto emissions.

In Texas, we require a Mom & Pop Vehicle Inspection Station to purchase a $40,000 piece of testing equipment so that they can perform vehicle inspections on a fleet where less than 10% fail the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. And, the costs of just auto emissions regulation is increasing almost in reverse proportionality to the emissions benefits gained.

Cars are rolling off the assembly line over 95% cleaner than they were just 15 years ago, yet, the EPA would have us spend 30 times as much as we have in the past fifteen years just to make modest gains on that last 5%.

Also, did you know we don't do emissions testing on diesel vehicles in Texas? Know why? Because it's not cost effective to the environmental commercial enterprises to develop a separate test for such a small fleet...even though it's generally regarded that diesels pollute more than gas-powered vehicles (although that's debatable). The Rhetorical tenor of the enviro-whackoes has quite reached the shrillness required to prompt a whole new wing of the auto emissions testing industry...but, it's coming.

I'm attending a conference in May that I attend every year. Diesel testing has become more and more prevalent on the agenda each successive year. The industry is starting to respond to the cries -- the money will follow.

I think science will bear that out; we just don't affect things that much...on a global scale.

Yonivore

01-24-2007, 03:52 PM

The worst danger of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the killing off of the oceans. Forget the dude sitting on his atoll, because the fish in his ocean will all be dead within 50 years. And thats a conservative estimate. Yet no one ever mentions that. No one.
I know you won't be disabused of this belief but, I hope we're still around in 50 years so I can tell you you were full of shit...just like the guys who had this same conversation 40 years ago when the enviro-whackos first started the "the oceans are dying" canard.

They're already supposed to have died a couple of times in the past few decades.

Sportcamper

01-24-2007, 06:14 PM

PARIS (AFP) - Snowstorms swept across western (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070124/ts_afp/europeweather_070124184605) and central Europe for a second day, killing four people, stranding thousands of air travelers and leaving hundreds of drivers trapped on freezing, log jammed roads...

A 72-year-old woman died in the southern Spanish city of Seville when a tree branch fell on her head in high winds, while three people died in German road accidents, including a bus driver, who had a head-on collision with a lorry....

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070124/capt.sge.lla85.240107202949.photo00.photo.default-512x340.jpg

xrayzebra

02-06-2007, 10:15 AM

So much for Manny's meterological future...

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Senat.gov (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528)

Extreme, but I can't blame them for wanting to silence the global warming denying pundits.

Well Dan, here is another person who says all scientist
do not agree with the politicians and left wingers. Ahhh,
where is RNR when you need him.

Al Gore, poor baby, is so full of himself and his Oscar
nomination, of course he doesn't know jack about anything
except maybe defeat in Florida.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]

miracle 2

101A

02-06-2007, 10:32 AM

101A

02-06-2007, 10:38 AM

And then there's this:

By: J.R. Dunn
American Thinker

A Necessary Apocalypse (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/a_necessary_apocalypse.html)

The apocalyptic vision of global warming serves a deep need of the environmentalist credo, the dominant pseudo-religious tendency of our age in the prosperous West.

For good or ill, human beings are constructed to believe, and faith has its demands.. Along with the concrete elements that demand belief (that fire burns and that it's not wise to walk off cliffs, for example) there exists an apparent necessity for a belief in "the rock higher than I" - a belief in a superior entity that can inspire awe and gratitude, that can be turned to in hard times, that can act as witness to injustice and dispenser of mercy.

Despite the claims of our current crop of militant atheists such as Dawkins and Harris, this is not simply brain-dead foolishness. Religious belief is hard-wired into human beings, by what means and for what purposes we don't yet understand. (A much wiser atheist, the biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote in On Human Nature that he intended to demonstrate that religious belief played an evolutionary role and could thus be explained by Darwinism. That was thirty years ago - if he ever succeeded, I haven't heard about it.)

When religious belief is subverted, it does not, as Chesterton implied, simply vanish. It is almost immediately replaced by another set of beliefs on a similar level of abstraction and serving the same purpose. Sometimes it's an import, such as Buddhism or TM. Sometimes it's a creed deliberately created to serve a political agenda, as we see in Nazism and Communism. Sometimes it's the goofy SoCal syncretism currently expressed in Wicca and Neopaganism. ("If people seriously want to be pagans," the late Joe Myers, a Christian brother of my acquaintance once said. "They'd become Roman Catholics.") And sometimes they're a combination, a weird melange of ideas picked up from various sources that (and usually not coincidentally) also serve a political purpose. Which brings us to environmentalism.

That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying. Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate belief. It has a deity, in this case the goddess Gaia, the personification of the living Earth, (first envisioned by James Lovelock, whom we can slot in as high priest). It has its holy books, most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible with many convinced Christians, utterly unread. It has its saints, its prophets, its commandments, religious rituals (be sure to recycle that bottle), a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils. (Let me pause here to sharpen a horn.)

Another item that a pseudo-religion must have is an apocalypse - and that's what global warming is all about.

In fact, the apocalyptic is the major fulcrum of environmentalism, the axis around which everything else turns. It's environmentalism's major element of concern, its chief attraction, and the center of discussion and speculation, in much the same way that some Protestant variants of Christianity are obsessed above all with sin. So crucial is the apocalypse to environmentalism that there has been a whole string of them, one after the other, covering every last aspect of the natural world. If one don't git ya, the next one will.

Green emphasis on the apocalyptic appeared early, accompanying the introduction of mass environmental awareness itself. Silent Spring, published in 1962, represents the first environmentalist scripture -- nothing other than a modern book of Revelations. Rachel Carson, a popular nature writer, was dying of cancer while writing the book, and Silent Spring became an outlet for her rage and grief. Carson predicted the imminent coming of a stricken world, a world poisoned by the synthetic products of the chemical industry, in which no birds sang and human children would not be immune. The early 60s were marked by fears of the consequences of atmospheric nuclear tests, and the suggestion that chemicals were just as deadly found a willing audience.

Pollution - a word that itself bears many religious connotations -- became a byword of the era. That fact that the phenomenon encompassed virtually every aspect of technical civilization including car exhausts, household plastics, and power generation, guaranteed it a good long run. Truly grotesque stories, ranging from dioxins eating sneakers from children's feet to hushed-up epidemics of cancer, made the rounds. None were anything more than grist for Snopes.com, and the promised chemical doomsday never arrived. But Carson's work set the pattern for all the environmental apocalypses to come.

The next example was overpopulation, its prophet the notorious Paul Ehrlich. His set of tablets was titled The Population Bomb and if anything, it was even more popular than Silent Spring. Ehrlich's thesis was that relentlessly burgeoning population would overstress the earth's "carrying capacity", use up all available resources, and lead to the collapse of civilization before the 20th century was out. The argument seemed irrefutable to those not familiar with the uncertainties surrounding demography (Thomas Malthus had made similar series of predictions early in the 19th century).

Countless offshoots of Ehrlich's book appeared, and overpopulation became one of the standard ideas of the late 60s, embraced by the counterculture, policymakers, academics, and the media. Even today, an era in which deflating national populations are the problem, it's by no means unusual to come across people still living in Ehrlich's nightmare world, much the same as the Amish or Mennonites have preserved their far more pleasant way of life into modern times. Ehrlich became quite wealthy, and the master of his own foundation devoted to the study of the "overpopulation threat". To this day, he contends that his thesis is correct. The whole episode is begging for a detailed historical study.

A variant combining aspects of both theories had a brief run in the early to mid 70s: the doctrine of universal famine. Pollution would poison croplands and stunt agricultural production, and overpopulation would do the rest. The problem here was the fact that proponents insisted that doom was imminent, with famine appearing as early as 1975 or 1980 at the latest. The experience taught the Greens to be a little more vague with dates.

The early 1980s saw a reprise of earlier fears of nuclear destruction (a workable definition of an "advanced civilization" could well read "one in which there is sufficient leisure time for large numbers of people to worry about doomsday"). The nuclear freeze campaign, largely engineered by the KGB, took up much of the public attention devoted to environmental crises. But even this effort was given an environmental gloss when scientific impresario Carl Sagan put together a road show of "mainstream scientists" to promote the concept of a "nuclear winter".

The firestorms generated by a nuclear strike would generate smoke so thick as to block out the sun across much of the northern hemisphere, causing a collapse of the terrestrial ecology. Nuclear winter never quite caught on outside of certain elite circles, in part due to flaws in the theory. Sagan's specialty was exobiology, the study of possible extraterrestrial life-forms, and it developed that the climate model he'd used was based on the atmosphere of Mars, a planet locked in an ice age for the past billion years. Nuclear winter faded with the nuclear freeze movement. All the same, just before his death Sagan made it known that he'd willingly accept a Nobel for his role in preventing World War III.

Ozone depletion, the next environmentalist flurry, was a little too esoteric to generate the uncritical devotion accorded to pollution and overpopulation. It involved arcane chemical reactions, took place in the stratosphere, and seemed to be confined to Antarctica. (Although the northern hemisphere was home to the bulk of the offending chlorofluorocarbons, the Arctic didn't seem to have the same problem.) But ozone depletion did serve a useful Green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere, and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about. (I would guess that something like two-thirds of the people in this country believe that ozone depletion and global warming are part of the same phenomenon.)

But in fact, global warming has actually adapted elements of all previous environmental crazes. It holds that carbon dioxide (a naturally-occurring compound that comprises a large portion of the atmosphere) is a form of pollution, the same as Carson's detested synthetic chemicals. Like that involving overpopulation, the threatened catastrophe is universal, and implicated in everyday practices and institutions. As with the universal famine, the effects are concrete and horrifying, though the dates have been left vague - ‘in the coming century', rather than in a year or two. As with the nuclear freeze, the human villains are easily identified, their actions, which place all human life in jeopardy, beyond redemption. As with ozone depletion, mainstream scientists have a remedy - even if it's unproven and unnecessary.

The lessons of previous environmental panics have been carefully applied to global warming No other environmentalist program has been prepared with such detail, purpose, and conviction. A skilled cadre of scientists, activists, and publicists exist who have devoted entire careers to nothing else. A vast literature has appeared analyzing not climate as a whole, not the interactions of the entire system, but solely and uniquely global warming. In many ways, warming has become both more and less than an ideology: it has become an industry, one that with such financial elements as carbon offsets can easily support itself.

The global warming program has been in play for a quarter of a century. It has been quite successful, convincing a small majority of the population that such warming is in fact occurring and is caused by manmade emissions. It is not a fad of the decade like overpopulation or nuclear winter. Nothing, not scientific evidence, not common sense, not the fact that much of the United States is basking in subfreezing temperatures as I write this, will be allowed to overturn it. The environmentalist movement has staked everything on this program. Not for the sake of science; most of the science is wrong or fabricated. (This week's IPCC report marks no change in this regard.) Not for humanity; they have never cared for humanity. Not to alter the climate itself; no such program has been suggested, and in any case the earth's climate, an unstable planet-wide chaotic system, will go its own way no matter what we do. But for one reason: to make environmentalism a basic element of millennial society.

And that's where the danger arises. The problem with this type of pseudo-religion is that they're essentially heresies, and like most heresies far more bloodyminded than the parent religions that they otherwise mirror. This is obvious when we examine Nazism and communism. The same strain in environmentalism may be hidden, but it's there. This creed has killed massive numbers and forthrightly contemplated death on an even larger scale.

The banning of DDT in 1971 resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people in the developing world, most of them children, from insect-borne diseases such as malaria. (This despite the fact that the use of DDT to fumigate homes could have no serious effect on the environment.) Yet no environmental group has ever made note of the fact, and all oppose the reintroduction of DDT for any purpose. The DDT ban places Rachel Carson in an exclusive circle shared only by Karl Marx as a writer whose work alone caused vast amounts of human misery. (Adolf Hitler was, of course, more man of action than writer. It's doubtful that Mein Kampf in and of itself could have triggered the same upheavals as Hitler's actions.)

Death on a scale beyond even Mao was something openly contemplated in respectable circles of the cult. One byproduct of the universal famine panic was a concept called "triage". Adapted from the emergency medical technique in which the dying are put to one side while the less injured receive priority treatment, triage advocates suggested that certain "failed" nations be completely isolated from the rest of the world to bring about a "die-off" of their "excess" population, a process that would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. This was not a crackpot notion; it was presented as a serious policy issue and discussed as such in outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The particular "failed" nation always suggested by these people was India, one of our epoch's economic powerhouses.

For a third example of bloodymindedness we need only mention the environmentalist and animal rights "direct-action" groups that have utilized terrorism, sabotage, arson, assault, everything short of murder in their campaigns against offending companies and even innocent third parties.

Increasingly strident rhetoric of the kind being heard from public figures such as Heidi Cullen and even Prince Charles may well result in a vicious circle in which public frustration leads to violent action leading to more frustration and on to the inevitable climax. Up to this point, environmentalist violence has been held in check by force of law - and only by force of law. How long this will remain the case depends on how much power the Greens are allowed to accrue.

True believers, a millennial creed, and easy targets - these have always and forever made for an unholy mix. Nothing about environmentalism suggests that it won't follow the same ugly path.

J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

Extra Stout

02-06-2007, 12:12 PM

And then there's this:

By: J.R. Dunn
American Thinker
His article does not change the fact that temperatures are in fact going up.

And his dismissal of it as neo-pagan apocalyptic foo-foo doesn't change the fact that if people stopped ignoring it, it could be kept in check with existing technology without a great deal of economic disruption.

Probably we're going to do nothing and just let things happen. Earth will survive. It is very old. Life adapts to changing conditions. It has been warm, with high dissolved carbonate in the oceans, before. It puts a dent in ecosystems for a very short time, geologically speaking.

Of course civilization itself is a very short time, geologically speaking. We will probably spend orders of magnitude more money gradually moving cities further inland, and adjusting means of finding and retaining water, and changing agricultural practices, and adjusting to the further reduction of aqautic life, and dealing with large migration, and fighting wars for resources, than we would have in just applying technology to keep emissions in check. But that is how humans do things. Procrastinate, procrastinate, deny, deny, deny, then when it's too late, point fingers, blame others, then scurry and waste tons of time and treasure to deal with the crisis.

Nbadan

02-06-2007, 02:35 PM

The things that will suck the most as it gets warmer are that island nations on coral atolls will go bye-bye, and highland peasants whose way of life depends upon consistent glacier-fed water sources will be displaced. The latter is worse because it will have a huge impact on China and India and probably trigger a war in Asia.

No, the thing that will suck the most is changing weather patterns, especially changing raining patterns. Major cities everywhere survive because of water, cut the water to some cities and you get a bad, bad thing, even if some other city, in some other country, on some other continent is getting more rain than usual.

This is the thing wars are made of.

MannyIsGod

02-06-2007, 03:39 PM

No, the thing that will suck the most is changing weather patterns, especially changing raining patterns. Major cities everywhere survive because of water, cut the water to some cities and you get a bad, bad thing, even if some other city, in some other country, on some other continent is getting more rain than usual.

This is the thing wars are made of.Most industrialized nations can survive droughts. Water sources arne't going to dry up in a short amount of time and most industrialized nations will adapt.

Food is an entirely different issue.

Extra Stout

02-06-2007, 05:00 PM

No, the thing that will suck the most is changing weather patterns, especially changing raining patterns. Major cities everywhere survive because of water, cut the water to some cities and you get a bad, bad thing, even if some other city, in some other country, on some other continent is getting more rain than usual.

This is the thing wars are made of.
You're right; too bad wealthy nations haven't figured out to hold or "reserve" water back in one place, or transport it over long distances in a water conduit, or if you will, an "aqua-duct." There seems to be a interesting group of people on the Italian Peninsula called "Romans" who are developing some promising technology; hopefully it will spread before it is too late.

xrayzebra

02-07-2007, 04:12 PM

Well, well. You don't agree with me and my policies, then get
out of my sight. Well maybe no in those words but.......

read on...

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007

By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

KGW photo

Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

Should the state climatologist lose his title?

No

Yes

View Results

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)

Sportcamper

02-15-2007, 10:40 AM

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled when & if the weather heats up...

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2922328257
We must stop the global warming....

Yonivore

02-15-2007, 10:56 AM

Thomas Sowell, an articulate but, yet to be declared clean by Joe Biden, black economist and pundit, is running a series of articles on this topic over at HughHewitt.com

He's up to part III, go here (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell) to read them all...if, of course, you're interested in an opposing point of view.

A recent and revealing example of the ruthless attempts to silence anyone who dares question the global warming crusade began with a "news" story in the British newspaper "The Guardian." It quickly found an echo among American Senators on the left -- Bernard Sanders, an avowed socialist, and John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are unavowed.

The headline of the "news" story said it all: "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study." According to "The Guardian," scientists and economists "have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report."

It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular, that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uninformed or dishonest. Here they dispose of scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hysteria by depicting them as being bribed by lobbyists for the oil companies.

While such charges may be enough for crusading zealots to wrap themselves ever more tightly in the mantle of virtue, some of us are still old-fashioned enough to want to know the actual facts.

In this case, the fact is that the American Enterprise Institute -- a think tank, not a lobbyist -- did what all kinds of think tanks do, all across the political spectrum, all across the country, and all around the world.

AEI has planned a roundtable discussion of global warming, attended by people with differing views on the subject. That was their fundamental sin, in the eyes of the global warming crowd. They treated this as an issue, rather than a dogma.

Like liberal, conservative, and other think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute pays people who do the work of preparing scholarly papers for presentation at its roundtables. Ten thousand dollars is not an unusual amount and many have received more from other think tanks for similar work.

...

Among those invited to attend the AEI roundtable [ed: and presumably offered the same $10,000 fee] are some of the same scientists who produced the recent report that politicians, environmentalists, and the media tout as the last word on global warming.
Good series, I recommend it for those who aren't locked in their "Manmade Global Climate Change" dogma.

xrayzebra

02-15-2007, 03:23 PM

The worst danger of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is the killing off of the oceans. Forget the dude sitting on his atoll, because the fish in his ocean will all be dead within 50 years. And thats a conservative estimate. Yet no one ever mentions that. No one.

Manny according to some so called experts, they were
suppose to be already dead. Something seems to be
wrong with all these "experts".

And I would love to know by whose "conservative estimate" is making all these estimates. The same 90 percential of experts who say man is causing global warming. By a whole, what is it less than 1 degree. Yeah baby!

Sportcamper

02-16-2007, 06:14 PM

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2922328257
We must stop the global warming....

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070215/capt.pamr10502152304.winter_weather_pamr105.jpg

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - The last of hundreds of stranded motorists were freed but Pennsylvania highways remained shut Friday as crews struggled to clear ice and snow following a monster storm that has been blamed for at least 24 deaths in the Northeast and Midwest....

Gov. Ed Rendell publicly apologized for Pennsylvania's "totally unacceptable" handling of the storm and a tie-up on a 50-mile stretch of Interstate 78, which stranded hundreds of motorists for as long as 24 hours. He blamed an "almost total breakdown in communication" on Global Warming...

Sportcamper

03-30-2007, 11:16 AM

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2922328257

We must stop the global warming....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%2 7+for+the+environment/article.do

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming... (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%2 7+for+the+environment/article.do)
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/travoltapilotREX_468x502.jpg

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming.

But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/travoltapilotDM2903_228x574.jpg

101A

03-30-2007, 12:11 PM

1) All the political BS is just a smokescreen to obscure the rather obvious link between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the percentage of solar energy which is retained....

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

Seems this guy directly disputes Stout's "rather obvious link".

Does someone have a study that actually shows that CO2 acts as the blanket we all believe it does? Is it true that none have been done, or is the guy blowing smoke? I find it hard to believe such a study doesn't exist.

Sportcamper

04-02-2007, 11:22 AM

"How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102060.html)

101A

04-02-2007, 01:37 PM

xrayzebra

04-02-2007, 01:46 PM

"How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102060.html)

Same reason they never want to acknowledge that the
oceans covered a whole bunch of the earth in the past. Like
you know evidence that shows up in the Himalayans, you
know fossils. But that doesn't count.

Sportcamper

04-05-2007, 12:51 PM

Spring snow dumps on upper Northeast... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_re_us/spring_storm)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070405/capt.1ca6514cd704488b8c4a4a6feddeb691.spring_storm _mepw104.jpg

A line of bikes are covered with snow at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, Thursday, April 5, 2007. A spring storm caused numerous power outages at businesses and homes statewide...

Extra Stout

04-05-2007, 01:01 PM

Seems this guy directly disputes Stout's "rather obvious link".

Does someone have a study that actually shows that CO2 acts as the blanket we all believe it does? Is it true that none have been done, or is the guy blowing smoke? I find it hard to believe such a study doesn't exist.
The greenhouse effect provided by CO2 follows directly from quantum mechanics. Solar radiation excites the electrons in the polar CO2 molecule, causing the energy to be retained in the atmosphere rather than reflected or dissipated.

Questioning whether in fact the greenhouse effect exists in general is an intellectually dishonest diversion attempt akin to questioning whether in fact the earth is heated by the sun.

Extra Stout

04-05-2007, 01:02 PM

"How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102060.html)
When global average temperatures start decreasing over a long period of time, you will no longer be full of crap.

MannyIsGod

04-05-2007, 01:08 PM

"How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102060.html)How come you have such a shitty understanding of the weather? If it snowed in dowtown San Antonio today, that wouldn't mean shit in the global warming argument.

Extra Stout

04-05-2007, 01:18 PM

By the way, many of the same measures that help slow the rise in CO2 emissions also will help keep money out of the hands of people in the world who are trying to murder us.

xrayzebra

04-05-2007, 02:10 PM

And then you have this. In face of the over 1 degree in temp
rise in how many years???????????? Another phoney issue the
liberals bring up to level the playing field.

Monthly Weather Summaries

MARCH
Near-record cold in Alaska and abundant snow in the southeast
Strong and widespread cold described March this year all across Alaska. Temperatures throughout the mainland were more than 8°F below average and the most extreme temperature departures of more than 16°F below average were observed in the central Interior. Areas along the Arctic coast and the southeast panhandle had relative warmth with temperature departures less than 8°F below average. The portions of the state that had extreme cold also received little in the way of precipitation as clear and sunny skies dominated. A location that received more than its fair share of snowfall was Juneau, breaking daily, monthly, and seasonal snowfall records. The vernal equinox, or time of year when daylight and darkness are approximately equal across the earth, occurred on March 20th. This a time of year in Alaska with rapid changes in daylight from day to day and large diurnal temperature ranges.

Click on a location for graphics and text.

More Summaries

Archived 6-city summaries
Latest statewide summary
Fairbanks 2006 year in review

Season-to-date summaries (temperature, precipitation, snowfall, snow depth, HDD)
Anchorage
Barrow
Fairbanks
Juneau
King Salmon
Nome

Last update: Apr 03, 2007

webmaster @ climate.gi.alaska.edu
Climate Center Home

Extra Stout

04-05-2007, 03:44 PM

And then you have this. In face of the over 1 degree in temp
rise in how many years???????????? Another phoney issue the
liberals bring up to level the playing field.
Is Alaska the entire planet? Is one month a long-term trend?

I guess the next time the Spurs lose one game, we should conclude that they are a lottery team.

MannyIsGod

04-05-2007, 05:27 PM

:lol @ one month being any type of trend.

xrayzebra

04-06-2007, 03:28 PM

When global average temperatures start decreasing over a long period of time, you will no longer be full of crap.

Goes to show you. Global Average Temperatures are a
myth. No such thing.

xrayzebra

04-06-2007, 03:29 PM

:lol @ one month being any type of trend.

Manny keep the above quote in mind later on this summer
when somewhere a new "high" is reported. Thank you!

MannyIsGod

04-06-2007, 09:03 PM

Goes to show you. Global Average Temperatures are a
myth. No such thing.:lmao

mookie2001

04-06-2007, 09:06 PM

but its cold right now!, explain that

mookie2001

04-06-2007, 10:11 PM

but its cold right now!, explain thatROFLROFL

this is amazing, exactly one hour later

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1556233&postcount=8

Extra Stout

04-06-2007, 10:17 PM

Goes to show you. Global Average Temperatures are a
myth. No such thing.
Mathematics is a myth?

Do you have Alzheimer's?

efrem1

04-07-2007, 12:33 AM

Nbadan

04-07-2007, 01:05 AM

With the Supreme Court decision mandating the EPA to include CO2 as a pollutant, I believe that one day, they will regulate how many children we will all have because we produce too much CO2. Welcome to the world of China and India being the new powers to be because we regulated our nation to death.

It' gonna be cold as hell this Easter, record-breaking, and I can already hear it from the Anti-Global Climate Change crowd

:hat

Modern societies are on the decline, but it's not because of the Government or even because of global temp. change, it's because of Urbanization. When women work, they have less babies, less babies means that that society starts to decline over time. In fact, I've seen studies that show that as urbanization spreads into countries like Africa, China and India, and other 'third-world-countries areas, the population of this Earth will decline, but by then it will be a different Earth.

Nbadan

04-07-2007, 01:49 AM

Speaking of Colorado...

The driest periods of the last century — the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the droughts of the 1950s — may become the norm in the Southwest United States within decades because of global warming, according to a study released Thursday.

The research suggests that the transformation may already be underway. Much of the region has been in a severe drought since 2000, which the study's analysis of computer climate models shows as the beginning of a long dry period.

The study, published online in the journal Science, predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest — one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation.

The data tell "a story which is pretty darn scary and very strong," said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.

Richard Seager, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and the lead author of the study, said the changes would force an adjustment to the social and economic order from Colorado to California.

...

The researchers tested a "middle of the road" scenario of future carbon dioxide emissions to predict rainfall and evaporation. They assumed that emissions would rise until 2050 and then decline. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be 720 parts per million in 2100, compared with about 380 parts per million today.

The computer models, on average, found about a 15% decline in surface moisture — which is calculated by subtracting evaporation from precipitation — from 2021 to 2040, as compared with the average from 1950 to 2000.

A 15% drop led to the conditions that caused the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains and the northern Rockies during the 1930s.

Even without the circulation changes, global warming intensifies existing patterns of vapor transport, causing dry areas to get drier and wet areas to get wetter. When it rains, it is likely to rain harder, but scientists said that was unlikely to make up for losses from a shifting climate.

Kelly Redmond, deputy director of the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, who was not involved in the study, said he thought the region would still have periodic wet years that were part of the natural climate variation.

But, he added, "In the future we may see fewer such very wet years."

Although the computer models show the drying has already started, they are not accurate enough to know whether the drought is the result of global warming or a natural variation.

"It's really hard to tell," said Connie Woodhouse, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. "It may well be one of the first events we can attribute to global warming."

The U.S. and southern Europe will be better prepared to deal with frequent drought than most African nations.

For the U.S., the biggest problem would be water shortages. The seven Colorado River Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California — would battle each other for diminished river flows.

Mexico, which has a share of the Colorado River under a 1944 treaty and has complained of U.S. diversions in the past, would join the struggle.

Inevitably, water would be reallocated from agriculture, which uses most of the West's supply, to urban users, drying up farms. California would come under pressure to build desalination plants on the coast, despite environmental concerns.

"This is a situation that is going to cause water wars," said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"If there's not enough water to meet everybody's allocation, how do you divide it up?"

Officials from seven states recently forged an agreement on the current drought, which has left the Colorado River's big reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — about half-empty. Without some very wet years, federal water managers say, Lake Mead may never refill.

In the next couple of years, water deliveries may have to be reduced to Arizona and Nevada, whose water rights are second to California.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-swdrought6apr06,0,122112.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Invest in water rights.

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 09:30 AM

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, we are going to die...read on

My Way

.

Panel: Global Warming a Threat to Earth

Apr 6, 7:16 AM (ET)

By ARTHUR MAX

(AP) Director of WWF's Global Climate Change Programme Hans Verolme talks to the media during a press...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Global Warming - Hoax or cause for concern? What does it mean for mankind?
www.RealTruth.org/GlobalWarm

Global Warming - An overview of the current Global Warming issues.
www.HealthPolitics.org

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - An international global warming conference approved a report Friday warning of dire threats to the Earth and to mankind - from increased hunger to the extinction of species - unless the world adapts to climate change and halts its progress.

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

It said up to 30 percent of the Earth's species face an increased risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the average in the 1980s and '90s.

Areas that now suffer a shortage of rain will become even more dry, adding to the risks of hunger and disease, it said. The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.

"This is a glimpse into an apocalyptic future," the Greenpeace environmental group said of the final report.

Negotiators pored over the 21-page draft meant to be a policy guide for governments. The summary pares down the full 1,500-page scientific assessment of the evidence of climate change so far, and the impact it will have on the Earth's most vulnerable people and ecosystems.

More than 120 nations attended the meeting. Each word was approved by consensus, and any change had to be approved by the scientists who drew up that section of the report.

Though weakened by the deletion of some elements, the final report "will send a very, very clear signal" to governments, said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

The summary will be presented to the G8 summit of the world's richest nations in June, when the European Union is expected to renew appeals to President Bush to join in international efforts to control emissions of fossil fuels.

This year's series of reports by the IPCC were the first in six years from the prestigious body of some 2,500 scientists, formed in 1988. Public awareness of climate change gave the IPCC's work unaccustomed importance and fueled the intensity of the closed-door negotiations during the five-day meeting.

"The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

"Doing nothing is not an option," he said.

During the final session, the conference snagged over a sentence that said the impact of climate change already were being observed on every continent and in most oceans.

"There is very high confidence that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases," said the statement on the first page of text.

But China insisted on striking the word "very," injecting a measure of doubt into what the scientists argued were indisputable observations. The report's three authors refused to go along with the change, resulting in an hours-long deadlock that was broken by a U.S. compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.

It is the second of four reports from the IPCC this year; the first report in February laid out the scientific case for how global warming is happening. This second report is the "so what" report, explaining what the effects of global warming will be.

European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said the report will spur the EU's determination to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"The world needs to act fast if we are to succeed in stabilizing climate change and thereby prevent its worst impacts," Dimas said in a statement.

For the first time, the scientists broke down their predictions into regions, and forecast that climate change will affect billions of people.

North America will experience more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. It can expect more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires, it said. Coasts will be swamped by rising sea levels. In the short term, crop yields may increase by 5 to 20 percent from a longer growing season, but will plummet if temperatures rise by 7.2 F.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said.

Parts of Asia are threatened with massive flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Europe also will see its Alpine glaciers disappear. Australia's Great Barrier Reef will lose much of its coral to bleaching from even moderate increases in sea temperatures, the report said.

---

AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report

=========================================

Oh, shucks, maybe not......read on.....

Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming

Apr 7, 2:55 AM (ET)

By CAIN BURDEAU

(AP) Dr. William Gray, a top hurricane researcher, answers questions during an interview in New Orleans,...
Full Image

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 09:49 AM

Mathematics is a myth?

Do you have Alzheimer's?

Nope and I can read. I just don't read the same crap as
you. The following article pretty much describes you and
a bunch just like you.

Global warming argument has serious flaws
By: S. Lee Whitesell
Posted: 4/4/07
In this piece, I will commit a number of heresies. The Inquisitors of the Church of Ecology know where to find me. Let them come: I remain armed with the First Amendment and a proud tradition of liberty.

In order to more effectively commit heresy, I will explicitly enumerate the doctrines of New Environmentalism, which is the religion of the Church of Ecology. Please note - I do not suggest that these are the views of everyone who believes global warming is a concern. They are, however, common among activists, socialist politicians and the news media. I explicitly reject all but the first.

The first is that global warming is occurring. This is the organizing principle of the Church. They do not even bother arguing the point. I know this from experience. You might think you had questioned the existence of Canada.

Innocent skeptics - the sort who are unfamiliar with the debate and so do not know their own heresy - are treated with a sort of patronizing charity. They are gently, but firmly, informed that there is no such possibility and that the Oracle of Science has spoken. The Church is willing to tolerate this class of persons so long as they stay out of policy discussions.

Informed skeptics have a different approach: They maintain that the 0.6 (yes, that's zero point six) degree increase in average temperature over the past century is no cause for assuming it will continue. In fact, we conservative types tend to remember history a little better - and we remember the 1970s global cooling scare.[.B]

Seriously, search the archives of The New York Times, Newsweek or the Christian Science Monitor.

Finally, the scientific skeptics are relegated to the extremes and no one may hear their heresies. For example, how many of you know [B]that some scientists actually question the validity of the very concept of a "global temperature"? These are real scientists at major universities (in Europe, no less) and they seriously contend that an average global temperature is like "calculating the average number in the phone book."

The second doctrine is that this warming is unnatural and we are to blame. The Church is forced to participate in this discussion, though it likely seeks to categorize it with the first as an unarguable and foregone assumption. There are a few major problems with this claim.

First, there is no good way to tell if the warming is unnatural, as climate change is a major part of any planetary ecology. In the words of one eminent biogeologist, "The system requires no external driver to fluctuate by a fraction of a degree."

This warming period may be natural. It may also be temporary. In the next decade, we may see global cooling. Or perhaps temperatures will remain relatively stable. This isn't just Hume's problem of induction writ large. The Church's acolytes are making seriously problematic inferential assumptions - which is to say, there is no good reason to believe temperatures will continue to rise.

An Internet news journal reported the following about the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has maintained the world's longest continuous worldwide record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels: In 2002 and 2003 there were "recorded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 2.43 and 2.30 ppm (parts per million) respectively … Did human industrial output somehow increase 55 percent during those two years, and then decline by that amount in 2004? Of course not. For the record, (the scientists) concluded that the fluctuation was caused by the natural processes that contribute and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

The third and final doctrine is that this warming will cause catastrophe. Therefore, we are both technologically capable and morally required to act. This is perhaps the most absurd.

First of all, even if you suspend disbelief and accept the other doctrines of the Church, it seems a little silly to respond with more human intervention in the environment - and these are just such the actions proposed. Like in 1975, when "scientists" suggested covering the ice caps with soot to curb their growth.

The claims are designed to elicit compassion. For example, the claim that the world's poor will suffer the worst. Millions of impoverished Africans will be plunged into the depths of famine. Barely self-sustaining regions of the world will see their stability totter with the rapid decrease in crop viability and fresh water supplies. Disease, they tell us, will overtake poor areas of the world, and currently "sanitized" regions will see the re-introduction of old diseases.

These claims are nothing more than rampant speculation. What about the regions of the world currently in drought or famine? Why don't we suppose that these regions will benefit? What about very cold regions of the world, where agriculture is currently impossible? Will these regions become fertile?

Even if warming is happening, even if it is the fault of humans, it is dangerously unclear what the effects of this warming will be.

The actions that environmentalists want us to take are draconian, to say the least. Implementing these policies is particularly bad for the poor and amounts to the same sort of backwards socialist class warfare as Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or, for that matter, European Socialism.

The Church of Ecology has planted its flag in science. This so-called science is really a dogmatic political stance that is probably wrong and extremely dangerous in its implications.

The "political necessity" of dealing with impending doom means that objectors to this must be controlled or silenced, their views marginalized. Anti-action politicians must be thrown out of office and dissident scientists must be discredited or disenfranchised - or worse, jailed. Sane people may not disagree.

The Church's inquisitions have already begun.

Information from - The Patriot Post, Science Daily, United Press International © Copyright 2007 Signal

Shelly

04-07-2007, 09:56 AM

Apologies if this was already posted...

Preeminent Hurricane Researcher Calls Al Gore "a gross alarmist"
Last Update: Apr 7, 2007 8:27 AM

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f476474a-d88e-4202-8003-fc96951e30dc&rss=68

By CAIN BURDEAU, The Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 10:02 AM

Gray is probably right that the uptick in hurricanes is more related to the normal variation in hurricane frequency over a 30-year period, than it is to global warming.

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 10:13 AM

Now it is my turn. Can you do Math. Read on and get a little
more education on global temperatures.

Source: University of Copenhagen
Date: March 18, 2007

It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.

Average without meaning

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Many averages

A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Claims of disaster?

These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.

Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Copenhagen.

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 10:17 AM

Finally, the scientific skeptics are relegated to the extremes and no one may hear their heresies. For example, how many of you know [B]that some scientists actually question the validity of the very concept of a "global temperature"? These are real scientists at major universities (in Europe, no less) and they seriously contend that an average global temperature is like "calculating the average number in the phone book."

Probably what this joker is referring to, is the uncertainty about how exactly to measure global temperatures in order to calculate a mean. Where is it measured? Should it be it at the surface, or at some point "x" meters above the ground?

How often should readings be taken? Every 8 hours? 4 hours? 15 minutes? 1 second?

The lack of standardization means that absolute surface air temperatures from one station to another are difficult to compare. All that can really be compared are anomalies.

And whaddya know, anomalies are the very thing we are trying to measure in this case.

But please feel free to find another antediluvian reactionary website to quote.

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 10:21 AM

You mean like the University of Copenhagen. What a
reactionary place that is!

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 10:22 AM

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)
But in either example, anomalies in the observed temperatures are going to show up as anomalies in the averages, no matter how they are calculated. So anomalies can be observed and they are statistically relevant, even if the absolute temperatures are not.

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 10:23 AM

You mean like the University of Copenhagen. What a
reactionary place that is!
You didn't actually read my post, did you?

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 10:30 AM

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

You didn't actually read what the good Professor said,
did you? Average global temps are absolutely meanless.

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 11:02 AM

You didn't actually read what the good Professor said,
did you? Average global temps are absolutely meanless.
Let's try to explain it to you this way. In the USA, there is a calculation for average GDP per capita. But this calculation is absolutely meaningless to me as a measure of how well I am doing, because I do not live in the average of the United States of America. I live in Houston, TX, which has its own local wage scale. And not only that, but the cost of living is different here from, say, in Los Angeles, or rural West Virginia.

So there are different ways the averages are calculated. Some just take per capita GDP. Some take "Purchasing power parity" based upon local incomes versus local costs of goods. But since not everybody buys the same things from region to region, those measurements are inexact.

And we also know that at times, the economy in one part of the U.S. can be doing great, while another part stinks. Right now Texas is doing OK, while Michigan is in free-fall collapse. In the 1980's, most of the country was booming, while Texas was in the oil bust.

So, because the system is so complex, there is no mathematically rigorous means for determining how the economy is doing in the United States.

So does that mean if the government reports the economy is growing 5%, that the report is meaningless? If unemployment goes up or down, that is irrelevant? Of course not. The changes in these factors, which provide an estimate of how the economy is doing, paint us a picture.

Nowhere in Dr. Andersen's article did he say that the global warming debate is "political" rather than "scientific." That was inserted by the journalist. What Dr. Andersen said was that a better method was needed to calculate changes in global temperature, based upon a more rigrous model taking into account non-equilibrium thermodynamics (which happens to be his specialty).

I don't have a problem with that assertion. The only thing I would dispute is the notion that depending on what averages one uses, one could calculate that the earth is cooling. While that might be true in the hypothetical, there is no such example provided, and it implies that there is in fact a scientifically valid such means of doing so, which he may not have meant.

xrayzebra

04-07-2007, 11:55 AM

Let's try to explain it to you this way. In the USA, there is a calculation for average GDP per capita. But this calculation is absolutely meaningless to me as a measure of how well I am doing, because I do not live in the average of the United States of America. I live in Houston, TX, which has its own local wage scale. And not only that, but the cost of living is different here from, say, in Los Angeles, or rural West Virginia.

So there are different ways the averages are calculated. Some just take per capita GDP. Some take "Purchasing power parity" based upon local incomes versus local costs of goods. But since not everybody buys the same things from region to region, those measurements are inexact.

And we also know that at times, the economy in one part of the U.S. can be doing great, while another part stinks. Right now Texas is doing OK, while Michigan is in free-fall collapse. In the 1980's, most of the country was booming, while Texas was in the oil bust.

So, because the system is so complex, there is no mathematically rigorous means for determining how the economy is doing in the United States.

So does that mean if the government reports the economy is growing 5%, that the report is meaningless? If unemployment goes up or down, that is irrelevant? Of course not. The changes in these factors, which provide an estimate of how the economy is doing, paint us a picture.

Nowhere in Dr. Andersen's article did he say that the global warming debate is "political" rather than "scientific." That was inserted by the journalist. What Dr. Andersen said was that a better method was needed to calculate changes in global temperature, based upon a more rigrous model taking into account non-equilibrium thermodynamics (which happens to be his specialty).

I don't have a problem with that assertion. The only thing I would dispute is the notion that depending on what averages one uses, one could calculate that the earth is cooling. While that might be true in the hypothetical, there is no such example provided, and it implies that there is in fact a scientifically valid such means of doing so, which he may not have meant.

Well I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
GDP is based on one country and one country only. And
no one is telling you that the "consensus" opinion is the
only opinion and anyone who disputes it is going to hell
in a hand basket. Employment rate is the same thing.
No one tries to base it on the world.

Obviously, and thank goodness it did, the earth has
warmed in the past. Otherwise we would all be living in
the same old ice age. Obviously, if the scientist are
correct, the polar regions were at one time were warm.
They claim to have found fossilized warm weather plants.

And when you have an absolute idiot such as Al Gore
running all over the world in his jet, and leaving all those
carbon footprints, and claims he isn't because he sells
himself offsets, you just got to wonder. By the way,
how much oil stock does he own NOW. Ever notice how
these folks base everything on years from now, when
most of us wont be around. But they say it is a crisis
now. Come on ES, you have to use a little thing called
common sense just once in awhile. Oh, and how bout
how they demean respectable, learned people who
disagree with them. Now that shows they really are
looking at the facts, right?

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 12:37 PM

Well I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
GDP is based on one country and one country only. And
no one is telling you that the "consensus" opinion is the
only opinion and anyone who disputes it is going to hell
in a hand basket. Employment rate is the same thing.
No one tries to base it on the world.

Obviously, and thank goodness it did, the earth has
warmed in the past. Otherwise we would all be living in
the same old ice age. Obviously, if the scientist are
correct, the polar regions were at one time were warm.
They claim to have found fossilized warm weather plants.

And when you have an absolute idiot such as Al Gore
running all over the world in his jet, and leaving all those
carbon footprints, and claims he isn't because he sells
himself offsets, you just got to wonder. By the way,
how much oil stock does he own NOW. Ever notice how
these folks base everything on years from now, when
most of us wont be around. But they say it is a crisis
now. Come on ES, you have to use a little thing called
common sense just once in awhile. Oh, and how bout
how they demean respectable, learned people who
disagree with them. Now that shows they really are
looking at the facts, right?
Yes, once upon a time the earth was much warmer. And it has been much cooler. The oxygen content of the atmosphere has been lower, and it has been higher.

The Earth is going to survive. It has survived asteroids smacking into it, generating such heat that all the oceans disappeard, even rock vaporized into the atmosphere, completely wiping out life on the surface of the earth, so that only some underground species like bacteria survived. It has survived the entire surface freezing over. Long-term, the Earth will be fine.

It's the short term that is the bitch. When the Earth was warmer and the ice caps melted, the ancient equivalent of the Gulf of Mexico extended up into Saskatchewan. That is why the soil is so fertile on the Great Plains. You can go into West Texas and find fossilized coral reefs on top of mountains (not saying the water was that high.

You've lived in South Texas for a long time, so I am certain you know about all the marine fossils one finds in the soil there.

The evidence seems to show that at some point methane from the northern tundras gets released into the atmosphere, causing highly accelerated warming, at which point the earth reaches a new equilibrium corresponding to very warm periods millions of years ago.

The concern is that the changes that happen naturally over a long period of time are accelerated to the point where it becomes impossible to adapt, and the lives of our descendants are enormously disrupted.

And while there are extremists who are happy to use global warming as a political weapon either to constrain the Western powers so that the developing world can catch up, or who are opposed to the modern industrialized way of life altogether, the general consensus I have read is that our contribution to the problem can be constrained through the application of technology without substantial disruption to our way of life.

Extra Stout

04-07-2007, 05:02 PM

we have to ask ourselves can the sun get hotter, stronger, brighter, bigger or smaller. that is where you will find the answer to global warming, mars warming and venus inhabiting.
Sun forcing alone doesn't add up. There is a hypothesis out there about cosmic rays causing cloud formation, and solar wind during solar maxima blocking the cosmic rays, which would increase the apparent effect of solar output.

That hypothesis is in its nascent phase, so stay tuned.

xrayzebra

04-09-2007, 09:43 AM

Here is a nice little article. I know it wont change any minds, but
it says a lot for a fellow I would consider to know what he is talking
about. And please note he receives his funding from the
Government (make all you libs happy) and not from the mean old
oil companies.

MSN Tracking Image
MSNBC.com
Newsweek.com
No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
© 2007 MSNBC.com

So stick by my guns. The global warming whaco's want only one
thing to control as many people lives as possible and implement
their little "progressive" theories.

Sportcamper

04-09-2007, 10:02 AM

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2922328257
We must stop the global warming....

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070409/capt.1f2e05f847554a17962182f9b6bdd4fd.correction_a ptopix_mariners_indians_baseball_ohtd108.jpg

Seattle Mariners designated hitter Jose Vidro, front, from left, Jose Lopez, Adrian Beltre, and Richie Sexson lie in the snow at Jacobs Field, Sunday, April 8, 2007, in Cleveland. Mariners' Carlos Garcia is at upper left. For the second day in a row, global warming has forced a doubleheader between the Mariners and Indians to be postponed...

xrayzebra

04-10-2007, 10:02 AM

Well not to worry the Law Makers have everything under control.

Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
Bill ties climate to national security
Seeks assessments by CIA, Pentagon

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 9, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue.

The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever "national intelligence estimate" on global warming.

The effort would include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources.

The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including "direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes."

The growing attention to global warming as a national security issue could open new avenues of support for tougher efforts to limit greenhouse gases, according to specialists.

"If you get the intelligence community to apply some of its analytic capabilities to this issue, it could be compelling to whoever is sitting in the White House," said Anne Harrington , director of the committee on international security at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. "If the White House does not absorb the independent scientific expertise, then maybe something from the intelligence community might have more weight."

The measure, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel , a Nebraska Republican, and Senator Richard J. Durbin , an Illinois Democrat, comes as other international bodies are taking steps to designate global warming as a high international priority.

The United Nations Security Council has put climate change on its agenda for the first time, warning that global warming could be a catalyst for new conflicts around the world. The council said it would hold a high-level meeting on the issue later this month.

"The traditional triggers of conflict which exist out there are likely to be exacerbated by the effect of climate change," said Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's UN ambassador.

The push in the United States to treat global warming as a national security threat follows the same path as previous efforts to treat the spread of AIDS as a security threat. The disease was long seen as exclusively a health issue until intelligence officials warned that it could ravage military forces across Africa and draw the United States into conflict.

Growing concerns about the implications of global warming have also led some Republicans and Democrats to give the issue far more prominence in policy circles.

"For years, many of us have examined global warming as an environmental or economic issue," Durbin said in little-noticed remarks last month. "We also need to consider it as a security concern."

The intelligence assessment, or NIE -- to be drafted by US spy agencies -- would rely on the latest scientific data. It would identify places where nations or ethnic groups are most likely to fight over resources; where large migrations of victims will occur; how global warming would affect global food supplies; and the increased risks to humans from infectious disease.

Ross Feinstein , a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, said that intelligence analysts have studied global warming in the past but in a limited way. Greater priority, he said, has been given to what are considered more pressing threats to security, such as nuclear proliferation, global terrorism, and the war in Iraq.

However, in 2003, two Pentagon analysts wrote a provocative report on the possible national security implications of an abrupt change in the climate, citing, among other outcomes, the prospect of nuclear powers struggling to feed their people and being forced to fight over shared rivers.

"With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation," the analysts wrote. "The Danube touches 12 nations, the Nile runs through nine, and the Amazon runs through seven."

The proposal would go further than any previous investigation, requiring the Pentagon to assess in great detail how global warming could damage America's military preparedness, such as the effect of melting Arctic ice sheets on the Navy.

David G. Hawkins , director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said some emerging research suggests that dramatic changes in ocean temperatures could hamper the ability of warships to operate in some regions of the world.

"[Submarines] take advantage of the ocean having certain characteristics," Hawkins said. "You could wind up with weapons that are no longer optimal because they were designed for the climate that existed thirty years before."

Sponsors of the Senate measure say it is likely to be approved, given the wide support for charting the impact of climate change and the traditional reluctance of lawmakers to stand in the way of research into national security.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat and chairman of the newly created House Select Committee on Energy Dependence and Global Warming, said he plans to offer a companion bill in the House.

"The Pentagon has plans for every conceivable -- and often inconceivable -- contingency," Markey said in an interview, adding that the possibility of disasters related to climate change must be taken into account.

In addition, some leading military thinkers, including retired Air Force General Charles Wald, have voiced support for bringing the national security bureaucracy into the debate over global warming. Wald is former deputy commander of the US European Command and a specialist on security issues in Africa.

John J. Hamre , who served as deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said global warming couched in security terms would make if far more difficult for politicians to ignore.

"What makes this interesting is the clear effort to make the politics of global warming broader," said Hamre, who is now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There are legitimate security issues associated with this question."

Bryan Bender can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Phenomanul

04-11-2007, 08:45 AM

Why So Gloomy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

GUEST OPINION
By Richard S. Lindzen
Special to Newsweek

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

xrayzebra

04-11-2007, 09:36 AM

Well all I can say is global warming is back in San Antonio today.
The sun is shining bright, it is nice and warm out at 9:30 in the
morning (61 degs) and predicted to go to 83 degs. Ahhhh, I love
global warming.

Sportcamper

04-12-2007, 11:33 AM

A city plow drive past some tulips during a spring snowstorm Wednesday, April 11, 2007, in Milwaukee. Another spring snowstorm spread across the upper Midwest on Wednesday, closing schools and grounding more airplanes...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070411/capt.f9d0025fcbd14f57b89ce264bd8fc540.midwest_snow storm_wimg101.jpg

George W. Bush

04-12-2007, 11:29 PM

George W. Bush

04-12-2007, 11:30 PM

Come on, if Global Warming were real it wouldn't be so cold today, in TEXAS for crying out loud!, my family has land north of Dallas and its snowing!Thats what I tell my people...

E20

04-12-2007, 11:54 PM

Global Warming is the stupidest thing to argue about. There is no way 'Global Warming' will affect us RIGHT NOW, besides a .5 rise in temperature. Maybe in 3000 years or I don't know maybe more, but not right now and by then I'm sure there will be alternative sources of fuel or not. Who knows? But, arguing about Global Warming or giving it as much attention as it's getting right now is a waste of time.

Nbadan

04-13-2007, 12:41 AM

You simply don't understand the complexities of our environment. A 2 to 3 degree change in average temps can have dramatic effect on the climate because of an natural exponential effect that occurs in the temp cycles. Not only will it lead to melting polar icecaps, it will lead to record droughts, already forcast for the growing southwest region of the U.S. which could see rain taper off to levels not seen since the dust-bowl days. Except this time, it will be perminent.

mullet

04-13-2007, 12:54 AM

ill tell you what... a lil heat in the winter and some ocean front property in a few years doesnt sound too bad

Nbadan

04-13-2007, 01:05 AM

ill tell you what... a lil heat in the winter and some ocean front property in a few years doesnt sound too bad

How does a few 5-megaton Hurricanes sound?

MannyIsGod

04-13-2007, 07:13 AM

How does a few 5-megaton Hurricanes sound?Like you still have no idea what you're talking about even after many attempts to explain it to you.

MannyIsGod

04-13-2007, 07:15 AM

MannyIsGod

04-13-2007, 07:22 AM

I'm so sick of idiots like NBADan when it comes to this subject. They cloud it so much with their unsubstantiated claims when there are real pertinent and pressing issues. Five megaton hurricanes? WTF? One look at the energy released by hurricanes would show you why such a statement is moronic. Here's a hint, 5 megatons would be an insane reduction in force. Permanent changes to the Earth's environment? WTF? When did it become a closed system?

No wonder there are people who still deny it when you consider idiotic claims made.

Sec24Row7

04-13-2007, 09:28 AM

Phenomanul

04-13-2007, 10:47 AM

E20

04-13-2007, 11:29 AM

MannyIsGod

04-13-2007, 11:38 AM

Phenomanul

04-13-2007, 11:49 AM

Hector, much of what you posted there is what I've been posting for awhile now - especially in regards to the overlooked positive aspects of a warmer Earth. You don't think that the people in Siberia would like a much warmer climate? Imagine the agricultural boom that would be possible. Global Climate Change saves the human race from hunger!

All that being said, CO2 emissions are dangerous for reasons outside of climate. The oceans dying is my number one concern.

As is the case with my concerns.... I just don't buy into catastrophic models that serve to scare people more than they do to drive a change in their energy habits.

MannyIsGod

04-13-2007, 12:37 PM

Sensationalism is good media. Good science isn't.

Nbadan

04-13-2007, 01:54 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that from the movie The Day After Tommorow, and that movie, from what I've heard, was horribly inaccurate and a bad movie all together.

Data shows that historical spikes in global temp, pre-empted by global rises in CO2, are followed by mini-ice-ages. Go figure. Except it's over the course of centuries. Remember that the Earth is a living breathing thing, just like you, it is very giving and forgiving, but if push comes to shove, the Earth will do what it takes for it to survive, even if that means getting rid of us.

Sec24Row7

04-13-2007, 01:58 PM

ROFL... Gaia Hypothesis?

Nbadan

04-13-2007, 01:59 PM

Hector, much of what you posted there is what I've been posting for awhile now - especially in regards to the overlooked positive aspects of a warmer Earth. You don't think that the people in Siberia would like a much warmer climate? Imagine the agricultural boom that would be possible. Global Climate Change saves the human race from hunger!

All that being said, CO2 emissions are dangerous for reasons outside of climate. The oceans dying is my number one concern.

Manny, 50% of the U.S. population lives close to a beach, your talking about massive population relocation, and food supplies could be affected as America's bread-basket moves further North in Canada along with rain patterns. Forget the good-parts about global warming, with the water and oil wars that will result we will take care of the overpopulation problems through war.

Nbadan

04-13-2007, 02:02 PM

ROFL... Gaia Hypothesis?

Learn some science...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

and you wonder why they want to keep you stupid.

Sec24Row7

04-13-2007, 03:42 PM

umm... so that graph tells me that there is less ice when it's warmer...

rofl...

Thank you Dan, I'm so much smarter now..

You're a dipshit... you have no idea what Gaia hypothesis is, and yet you just preached it to all of us.

You have any thoughts on that Dihydrogen Monoxide problem i mentioned in the earlier post?

Extra Stout

04-13-2007, 04:19 PM

Dan, no one is talking about Dihydrogen Monoxide, and I havent seen you mention it either. It contributes more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 and Methane COMBINED.

Do you feel that politicians should add it to be monitored in the clean air act?
Dihydrogen monoxide frequently reaches its saturation limit in the atmosphere. Beyond a certain concentration, this compound will precipitate out as a liquid or solid, depending upon ambient conditions. This phenomenon is colloquially known as "rain" or "snow."

However, as the atmosphere warms, the saturation limit for dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere increases, as does the vapor pressure. This means as a little warming takes place due to another compound, such as CO2, if there were for some reason large liquid pools of dihydrogen monoxide on the surface of the earth, they would tend to evaporate a little more and augment the warming effect further until a new equilibrium was reached.

I understand the Earth does in fact have such large liquid pools of dihydrogen monoxide on its surface; in fact they cover the majority of the surface; I believe they are called "oceans."

leemajors

04-13-2007, 04:30 PM

rofl.

Sec24Row7

04-13-2007, 04:56 PM

Thank you for telling him what it was so he didnt have to google it.

xrayzebra

04-14-2007, 03:41 PM

Some more of that blasted global warming, if you don't mind.

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AUSTIN/SAN ANTONIO TX
324 PM CDT SAT APR 14 2007
LLANO-BURNET-WILLIAMSON-VAL VERDE-EDWARDS-REAL-KERR-BANDERA-
GILLESPIE-KENDALL-BLANCO-HAYS-TRAVIS-BASTROP-LEE-KINNEY-UVALDE-
MEDINA-BEXAR-COMAL-GUADALUPE-CALDWELL-FAYETTE-MAVERICK-ZAVALA-
FRIO-ATASCOSA-WILSON-KARNES-GONZALES-DE WITT-LAVACA-DIMMIT-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...LLANO...BURNET...GEORGETOWN...DEL RIO...
ROCKSPRINGS...LEAKEY...KERRVILLE...BANDERA...FREDE RICKSBURG...
BOERNE...BLANCO...SAN MARCOS...AUSTIN...BASTROP...GIDDINGS...
BRACKETTVILLE...UVALDE...HONDO...SAN ANTONIO...NEW BRAUNFELS...
SEGUIN...LOCKHART...LA GRANGE...EAGLE PASS...CRYSTAL CITY...
PEARSALL...PLEASANTON...FLORESVILLE...KARNES CITY...GONZALES...
CUERO...HALLETTSVILLE...CARRIZO SPRINGS
324 PM CDT SAT APR 14 2007

...ANOTHER COLD NIGHT IN THE 30S EXPECTED ACROSS MUCH OF SOUTH
CENTRAL TEXAS...

A COLD DENSE AIRMASS WILL CONTINUE TO SPILL SOUTH ACROSS THE
SOUTHERN PLAINS STATES TONIGHT...RESULTING IN ANOTHER THREAT TO
TENDER VEGETATION IN SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS. CLEAR SKIES AND LIGHT
WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP BY MIDNIGHT WITH THE DRY LOW LEVEL
AIR MAKING FOR EFFICIENT OVERNIGHT COOLING.

MORNING LOWS ARE EXPECTED TO DROP INTO THE 33 TO 36 DEGREE RANGE
IN VALLEYS ALONG AND NORTH OF THE BALCONES ESCARPMENT...WITH UPPER
30S EXPECTED ACROSS MANY ADJACENT AREAS OF SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS.
RAIN MOISTENED SOILS SHOULD ALSO CREATE A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT
FOR THE FORMATION OF FROST. TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO REBOUND
QUICKLY AFTER SUNRISE SUNDAY.

CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PROTECT TENDER VEGETATION AND YOUNG
ANIMALS FROM THE COLD AND FROSTY CONDITIONS. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
WILL BE ISSUED AS CONDITIONS WARRANT.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Extra Stout

04-14-2007, 03:44 PM

Texas right now is getting colder weather than Central Europe. Weird.

It's going to be like 77 in Zurich tomorrow.

xrayzebra

04-16-2007, 08:32 AM

Oh My, tell me one more time about all this global warming.

http://news.rgj.com//apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/NEWS18/70414010/1002/NEWS
Cold, rain cuts short global warming rally
MARTIN GRIFFITH ([email protected])

ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 14, 2007

More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming.

The event was cut short by heavy rain and sleet, said organizer Lisa Stiller of the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change.
“It’s kind of disappointing that the weather kept people away,” Stiller said. “But we still think it (climate change) is something that people should talk about.”
The storm prevented the use of solar ovens for a potluck picnic, Stiller said, and caused the planned two-hour demonstration to break up after about an hour.
‘Step It Up’
More than 1,300 events were organized in every state under the banner Step It Up 2007 to push Congress to require an 80 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
In downtown Reno’s Brick Park, demonstrators listened to speeches urging Nevadans to do their part to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Dale Brabham, a chemistry instructor at Truckee Meadows Community College, said people can reduce gas use by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles or eliminating the need for owning a vehicle.
People also can tune up vehicles for maximum gas mileage, make homes energy efficient and convert to non-incandescent lighting, he said.
“The evidence is strong and clear. The conclusion is that life as we know will change soon, very likely in our lifetime,” Brabham warned. “Everyone must shoulder the responsibility of meeting the challenge of delaying the change by reducing their impact on the environment. Our survival depends on it.”
‘Green Summit’
Reno City Councilman Dave Aiazzi talked about the city’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions and urged residents to attend its “Green Summit” on Thursday. The event is designed to develop plans to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.
Local activist Bob Tregilus gave a demonstration of his electric motorcycle and urged people to consider such alternative modes of transportation.
“Americans need to wean themselves from the pump and adopt the plug,” he said.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don't you have to wonder sometimes if Mother Nature is trying
to tell people something.......

smeagol

04-19-2007, 11:03 AM

It's 85 degrees in Buenos Aires when we are well into fall (avg temp for April is 65).

And it's full of fucking mosquitoes.

Goliadnative

04-27-2007, 01:18 PM

Study: Global Warming Could Hinder Hurricanes (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/070417_wind_shear.html)

Study: Global Warming Could Hinder Hurricanes

By Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 17 April 2007
06:01 pm ET

Global warming might not fuel more intense hurricanes in the Atlantic after all. Despite increasing ocean temperatures that feed the monstrous storms, climate change may also be ramping up the winds that choke off a hurricane’s development, a new study claims.

“The environmental changes here do not suggest a strong increase in tropical Atlantic hurricane activity during the 21st century,” said study team member Brian Soden of the University of Miami.

Hurricanes form as storms shoot off the coast of Africa and pull energy from the warm, moist air over the oceans. As the hurricane intensifies, it begins to rotate. But when winds vary in speed and direction at different heights in the atmosphere, a phenomenon known as wind shear, they prevent the organization of the storm’s circulation, stopping its development or intensification.

Other studies have found that global warming will increase ocean temperatures over the coming century, fueling more intense hurricanes, but this study is the first to suggest that wind shear may also increase and counteract the effects of ocean warming.

“Wind shear is one of the dominant controls to hurricane activity, and the models project substantial increases in the Atlantic,” said study leader Gabriel Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Based on historical relationships, the impact on hurricane activity of the projected shear change could be as large—and in the opposite sense—as that of the warming oceans.”

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was not affiliated with the study, pointed out that the model predictions in the new study were averaged. For a given four-year period, for instance, three years could yield suppressed hurricane development, while the fourth could turn out like 2005 (the season that generated Hurricane Katrina), he said.

The models used in the study, detailed in the April 18 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, did show that global warming could lead to a more favorable environment for hurricanes to develop in other regions, including the western tropical Pacific.

“This study does not, in any way, undermine the widespread consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming,” Soden said. “In fact, the wind shear changes are driven by global warming.”

gtownspur

04-27-2007, 01:55 PM

global. climate. shift. (destabilized climates, trending towards warmer average temperatures)

Global.Stick.Shift.
right here, suck it.

pfffffffffftttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!

=====}~~

Aggie CHoade Bloatations.

Nbadan

05-31-2007, 01:09 PM

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

... The forecast effects include "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones," according to the NASA announcement.

By heralding the new research paper, NASA is endorsing science that places considerably more urgency on the need to reduce emissions to avoid "disastrous effects" of global warming than was evident in the recent reports from the world's scientists coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1)

Yonivore

05-31-2007, 01:11 PM

I guess they didn't get the memo:

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1)

Nbadan

05-31-2007, 01:12 PM

Then Michael Griffin, NASA talking-head, comes out minimizing the issue...

Michael Griffin NASA Administrator has told America's National Public Radio that while he has no doubt a trend of global warming exists "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air in Thursday's edition of NPR News' Morning Edition, Administrator Griffin explains: "I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Space Daily (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrator_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global _Warming_A_Problem_999.html)

..and we wonder why wing-nuts are so confused about important issues....

xrayzebra

05-31-2007, 02:06 PM

Who is confused? There is NO conculsive evidence man is causing
the problem. Why didn't you post the whole story.

Here is the whole story:

ABC News
NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming
By CLAYTON SANDELL and BILL BLAKEMORE

May 31, 2007 —

NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings where and when are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

News media inquiries to NASA headquarters about Griffin's comments prompted the space agency to make the unusual move of issuing a news release late Wednesday night.

"NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming," Griffin said in a statement. "The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems. It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well."

Hansen, featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has been warning of the potential dangers of climate change since the 1980s.

In late 2005, he accused NASA of trying to improperly censor him after he warned that Earth's climate might be approaching a dangerous "tipping point."

The agency later fired a public affairs employee, a political appointee of the Bush administration, over the incident.

Last year, many NASA scientists were upset when reports surfaced that the agency had quietly deleted the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" from the NASA mission statement. The scientists believe research on issues like climate change will suffer as NASA shifts priorities toward exploration missions to the moon and Mars.

"Earth has always been central to NASA's science," Hansen said.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Are we to assume, you a dyed in the wool Socialist, are the
sole source of the perfect tempreature. Did you read my post
the other day? No I didn't think so.

In it, the arthur stated that where the melting snow and ice in
alps in Switzerland has receded they have found evidence of
mining and water projects.

Anyhow for your education and another side of the argument
I am re-posting the article here for you. I hope you read it
this time.

The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions

Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.

How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Renaissance Man, Marathon Man

When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.

“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”

This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”

The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.

Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”

“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”

Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.

With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”

Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.

“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.

“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman

Wild Cobra

05-31-2007, 06:54 PM

Why don't I ever see the believers of Man Made Global Warming ever tell us the science of suns output vs. earths temperiture.

I don't recall the numbers, but a 1% change in the suns output changes our temperiture by more than 2 degrees Farenheit. We haven't recorded that level of change in the sun, but we have only been able to monitor it for a couple decades, and we have seen something like a 0.2% change!

xrayzebra

06-01-2007, 08:59 AM

bumped for dan, cause I never source anything. Of course he
always give you the whole picture, not just his version....like fun.

Wild Cobra

06-01-2007, 04:58 PM

I like the article where the guy talks about 80% of the IR being trapped in the first 30 feet. However, I think he misspoke. The idea is correct, and I don't have the numbers at hand, but 30 feet sounds exaggerated.

Anyway, CO2 only captures IR in three narrow bandwidths of the IR spectra radiated from earth. Water absorbs these same frequencies, and masks any absorption that CO2 can do. Not 100%, but the remaining energy at these bands becomes insignificant. Even on the driest of atmospheric conditions, CO2 absorbs nearly 100% of what it can in these bands! See this graph below:

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/CEGraves/Eas107/radgas1.gif

What I don't like about this graph is the horizontal scale is not consistent. It starts logarithmic, then turns linear at the 10 μm point. Note however the CO2 absorption is near 100% in these three bands and that water vapor covers the same wavelengths. The 13 to 20 μm band should be as narrow as the other two without the expanded scale.

When it comes to the ice core data, when you correlate CO2 vs. temperature, for all practical purposes, the temperature has been relatively stable. Sure, it has about a 1500 years cycle, but for the last 8000 years has maintained within certain limits. No temperature changes can be correlated to CO2 levels considering they have not gone up like they did before the last 8000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Note on the above graph the high and low temperatures in red, and the higher CO2 levels since industrialization has not changed the pattern of the 1500 year cycle. If CO2 caused temperature changes, then according to the graph, we should see much higher temperatures.

Consider this. At 180 ppm CO2, we have –8 Celsius on the graph. Pre-industrialization has us at about 265 ppm and zero on the graph. The graph peaks at about 285 ppm for I think the year 2004, but I haven't looked at this for some time. It might be older yet like 2000, or 2001. Anyway, if we stay true to the scale, we should see a 1.8 degree Celsius increase from the zero point, which I believe is reference to the 14 degree global average. Today, levels are said to be what. Help me out here. 360 ppm? is that right? Well at 360 ppm, we should be seeing temperatures on the scale equivalent to 8.9 on the graph, or a global average of 22.9 degrees!

Kinda blows the CO2 theory out the window if you ask me.

The below graph indicates how much radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere directly from the sun, and the reflected IR from the earth:

http://www.sos.bangor.ac.uk/~oss046/pictures/spectrum1-2.jpg

If you don't understand it with it's stand alone description, then I doubt I can explain it without teaching more science than I have the time to. For those with enough understanding of science, notice the wavelengths that are absorbed, and that are not, and consider how little the CO2 portion represents.

Wild Cobra

06-02-2007, 12:21 PM

xrayzebra

06-03-2007, 10:21 AM

Another article about the "deniers". The link to this article
is placed at the bottom.

Sunday » June 3 » 2007

They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Al Gore's views have credible dissenters.
CREDIT: David McNew, Getty Images File Photo
Al Gore's views have credible dissenters.

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."

Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Email: [email protected].
© National Post 2007

Close

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

The series

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX

More on the environment

Go to link below and you can link to all the series give above.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af