Damn Climate Change

[Yonivore]

The bears would disappear entirely from Alaska, the study said.

And thrive elsewhere...

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

Indeed.

I will begin treating global climate change as a crisis when those claiming it is a crisis begin treating global climate change as a crisis.

'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
Fri Sep 07 2007 07:48:23 ET

**Exclusive**

As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.

Developing...

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't it ironic how the polar bears have been used as a benchmark of global warming and all we ever see is the same one or two photo's.

I wish I had a photographic memory so I could recall all source information that I see. Like shown in Yoni's article, populations have been increasing in many places. Now consider this. Polar bears hunt for their food and one possibility is that overcrowding of an area has them migrating past areas of stable ice, looking for their own territory and/or food.

We can take any picture that may or may not suggest the whole picture and spin a tale. This is the most obvious conclusion.

How many times will we see the same polar bear on the same iceberg?

This whole concept that global warming is the cause is flawed as well. There is no solid evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause additional warming. All of the theory is soundly disputed. In fact, more recent studies by scientists only have 7% of them giving explicit endorsement that global warming has a man-made factor. 6% outright reject it. 48% are neutral. You have to use implicit endorsement to get a 45% consensus. Implicit only means you can make a connection theory. It does not mean cause and effect. This data comes from 528 papers. Of the 38 of them representing the 7%, only one paper indicated ‘catastrophic’ dangers.

The latest IPCC report cites over 2,000 scientists contributing. Only about 100 of them, about 5%, are climatologists. Only 52 of them contributed to the “Summary for Policymakers” Remember. This IPCC is a political group, not a true scientific group.

Why speak of consensus view? In 2004, a HISTRORY PROFESSOR, Naomi Oreskes surveyed papers from a scientific database on the web. These were papers written between 1993 and 2003. Shouldn't this be a concern? A source paper by someone who is a historian? does she use scientific methodology? This is where the Consensus View idea started. This would be like asking my mechanic for advice on stocks.

Look at some facts. According to the IPCC and the Gore-bastics, CO2 is a major threat. However, we have seen a 4% increase since 1998 with no increased temperatures. Since 1979, an increase of 17% with no significant increase. The minor increase since has other possible explanations, like the increased sun’s radiation. As solar studies are gathering better information and understanding, more scientists are ‘seeing the light’ of the suns influence.

Some source links:

Your View -- Global warming consensus more politics than science; 9/1/07

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?; August 2007 Imprimis publication

Imprimis, PDF format

High price for load of hot air, June 18, 2007

Well, I'm running out of time. Check this out if you understand science. It's a real scientific study, not IPCC propaganda:

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM, June 2007

[xrayzebra]

Hey smeagol, you will like this video clip. It is of
Puerito Moreno there in Argentinian. It is really
spectacular.

Is This Global Warming In Action

[smeagol]

Hey smeagol, you will like this video clip. It is of
Puerito Moreno there in Argentinian. It is really
spectacular.

Is This Global Warming In Action

Yes, it is spectacular.

I was there about 20 years ago. I did not see such big pieces of the glacier breaking, but I did see some cool ones.

That used to happen every 3 or four years (complete meltwown). Not sure if it still happens.

Nice video, thanks!

[Holt's Cat]

Global Warming is the War on Terror for the left.

[Wild Cobra]

Global Warming is the War on Terror for the left.

LOL... No kidding, and they fight it with "carbon credits"

[Wild Cobra]

You know what's funny. If environmentalists were less fundamental, and learned a bit of science, they would change their minds on so many things. Just a couple things many environmentalists like to block:

Nuclear power. We have solved the problems of threats like “The China Syndrome.” Waste management is the biggest concern today, but it is manageable. Using nuclear power solves the threat of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere past what the biosphere can sink.

Increase lumber operations. Now I’m not saying cut all the old growth, but the old trees are no longer efficient at absorbing CO2. New trees for at least two or three decades, become very efficient sinks of CO2. Using lumber rather than steel and concrete for construction projects where it is viable, would not only reduce the energy demands involved with concrete and steel, but use a renewable resource. Naturally, replanting must be required. Again, new trees just love taking CO2 out of the air.

Outside of normal environmental blockades;

Aluminum. Although the energy required in making aluminum is great, it recycles so easily. That process alone takes about 11 to 12 kwh (kilo-watt hours) of power per pound of aluminum. How much more does steel production and recycling take? I don’t know, but because steel easily oxidized and aluminum resists it, it recycles far easier, and because of the melting temperature differences. Aluminum is preferred when it is a viable option.

Now I have never feared CO2 as a greenhouse gas once I started learning the sciences of global warming. Still, CO2 does become toxic to life at higher concentrations. The concern for this is still a long way out, but it is possible and preventable.

Any other thoughts?

[xrayzebra]

Environmentalist to me are some of the most activist of the
activist. It seems that they and most liberals are the ones who
want to force things on to people. Our forest are a completely
renewable source of energy and building material. But they,
the environmentalist insist that they should be protected and not
touched. I remember a few years back when the acid rain was
killing the forest and even for a little while after the government
did a big study and found it all BS they still insisted it existed.
Now, you never hear much about it.

I like you don't see why old growth, with the exception of the
redwoods, which I think should be preserved because of their
size and age, should be cut. I also think that the
environmentalist have caused more damage to forest thru their
stand against clearing undergrowth and dead wood. Simply
dumb. Look at California and their wild fires and look at their
laws against clearing brush even around homes. It must cost
the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year just to
fight these fires and that is not counting the cost of fire insurance
and the anguish of watching your home go up in smoke.
The funny part I don't know of anyone who is in favor of
destroying our forest or any resource. But I find it extremely
peculiar that the big environmental folks on the East coast are
against the building of wind turbines off their coast because
that is where they boat, but think it is quite okay to do it
elsewhere to take down those awful smokestacks and eliminate
that terrible terrible pollution caused by generating electricity.
Or better yet, they are allowed to build homes and getaways
in refuse areas......yeah baby.

[smeagol]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. the rest of the World, Kyoto, me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.

[xrayzebra]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. the rest of the World, Kyoto, me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.

I think everyone with any common sense wants to take
care of the environment. Who the wants to destroy
their environment. But somewhere, somehow, there
has to be a middle ground. Unfortunately it seems in
the past years you must take a side in an argument
that is really not an argument. Everyone wants clean
air, clean water, beautiful forest and generally a nice
place to live. And I don't have the answer to how to
get both sides together. But God gave all of us the
abundance of nature and the ability to preserve that
abundance and I think we have done a pretty good job
of doing just that. And smeagol, I am not being a
smart butt, but Americans are pretty independent when
all is said and done and don't like to be preached to.
And unfortunately as time has gone by the principles
that founded this country has been forgotten. I really
don't apologize for being an old foggy, but I am, maybe,
one of the lucky ones on this forum, I was around when
Texas was really Texas. I could point in any direction
and find a relative. That is not bragging, just Texan. My
folks settled this country and it seems some of folks
have forgotten what made this country great. I cant
really think of what liberal idea that contributed. Can
you. Most folks that settled this country were
hard working and honest. They took care of their
neighbors and didn't depend on government to provide
anything. Look at things now.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, chain myself to a tree type of guy, but trying to take care of the environment appears to be the common sense thing to do.

When I read what the hard core right wing, I love America, the rest of the world kind of guys' opinions, the sense I get is that . . . well just that. the rest of the World, Kyoto, me polluting the air if that means I have to change my way of living.

And especially, it because no Frenchie or Japanese dude will tell me how to live my life.

You know, we all need to keep the radicals from blinding us to the realistic views that oppose our native thoughts. I wasn't going to respond to this, but will be posing a set of links after this.

About Kyoto. My major problem with it has to do with it mandating the USA to make cuts from levels after we took it upon ourselves to make cuts. We started in the late 60's, made major environmental regulations in the 70's, then Kyoto wants to dictate reductions from out levels of 1990... Get real... We have already made vast improvements. Maybe from our 1960 levels… Maybe we could have agreed on that now.

[Wild Cobra]

First of all, those of you who think they know Global Warming, take this test:

Global Warming Test

Did you score 100%? You would if you studied...

There never was a scientific consensus that global warming exists, like I pointed out in my 9/8/07 posting. Here is an interesting article:

Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears

A few quotes from it:

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed "It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now". Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004. This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted." "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease."

"There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

Some other interesting links:

US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, Thursday, September 13, 2007

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?By Timothy Ball, Monday, February 5, 2007

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, Friday, July 20, 2007

The gods must be laughing By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006

[DarkReign]

So, I am wondering, is this some sort of wierd year for the climate?

I have been alive for 27 years and have yet to remember a year in Michigan when we might not have pumpkins for Halloween.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...6-pumpkins.htm

Serious question (no I am not jumping to conclusions).

[xrayzebra]

So, I am wondering, is this some sort of wierd year for the climate?

I have been alive for 27 years and have yet to remember a year in Michigan when we might not have pumpkins for Halloween.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...6-pumpkins.htm

Serious question (no I am not jumping to conclusions).

Why is that? No pumpkins? Too much rain, not enough
rain, not cool enough.

Never mind, I read the article. Really not that unusual
to have a crop failure because of weather. It
is something farmers don't like but it happens every
year somewhere.

[DarkReign]

Why is that? No pumpkins? Too much rain, not enough
rain, not cool enough.

Never mind, I read the article. Really not that unusual
to have a crop failure because of weather. It
is something farmers don't like but it happens every
year somewhere.

Never before in my life. This is the first year, what if it happens next year? The year after?

At what point does it graduate from "one-year phenomenon" to "understood normal activity"?

[xrayzebra]

Never before in my life. This is the first year, what if it happens next year? The year after?

At what point does it graduate from "one-year phenomenon" to "understood normal activity"?

Well DR, in my 75 years, I have seen it happen for
several years in a row. I know it gets old, but when I
was a youngster and my Grandfather grew corn and I
can remember it getting six feet tall and then bam,
Texas weather kicked in, hotter than you know what and
no rain at all, he was a dry land farmer, in just a matter
of days brown stalks in the field. You don't like it, but
nothing can be done.

I guess it is like anything, until you experience something,
it is really unknown to you. Even when you read about it.

Changing the subject a tad. I heard something the other
day on the TV which I have thought about many times.
I know I thought of it when I lost of my Grandfather,
Father and Mother. What a source of information and
knowledge was lost with their death. Anyhow, this man made the statement that when you lose someone it is like a
library is burned down, I never thought of it that way,
but it is true, isn't it?

[DarkReign]

Well DR, in my 75 years, I have seen it happen for
several years in a row. I know it gets old, but when I
was a youngster and my Grandfather grew corn and I
can remember it getting six feet tall and then bam,
Texas weather kicked in, hotter than you know what and
no rain at all, he was a dry land farmer, in just a matter
of days brown stalks in the field. You don't like it, but
nothing can be done.

I guess it is like anything, until you experience something,
it is really unknown to you. Even when you read about it.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info.

Changing the subject a tad. I heard something the other
day on the TV which I have thought about many times.
I know I thought of it when I lost of my Grandfather,
Father and Mother. What a source of information and
knowledge was lost with their death. Anyhow, this man made the statement that when you lose someone it is like a
library is burned down, I never thought of it that way,
but it is true, isn't it?

Quite true. We all have loved ones that passed.

But, as the great Johnny Cash so eloquently put it...

We'll meet again.
Dont know how....Dont know when.
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.

[xrayzebra]

Fair enough. Thanks for the info.



Quite true. We all have loved ones that passed.

But, as the great Johnny Cash so eloquently put it...

We'll meet again.
Dont know how....Dont know when.
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.

Yep, how true. I remember when my
Father died and I was there with him in ICU and
the strangest thing happen to me, it was just like
my Mom, who has passed away a few years prior,
came into the room and told me, don't worry, I am
here waiting on him. She had the biggest smile.
Yeah, so now the rest of you can start the: Take your
meds, but I still like to think it really happened.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yeah, so now the rest of you can start the: Take your
meds.

I'm pretty sure I started that one. Lolz. I kill myself sometimes.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a recent scientific study attributing the Sun to Global Warming:

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –
The persistent role of the Sun in climate
forcing

Another interesting article of Paleoclimatology:

Questioning 20th Century Warmth

Another about warming:

Study finds CO2 didn't end ice age

Everything I've been saying for some time is supported.

[xrayzebra]

Little story I lifted off of Drudge Report this morning.

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
Advertisement

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...696238792.html