Death knell for AGW

May 11th, 2008, 09:05 AM

GLOBAL WARMING - WHY THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING As the world approaches the close of a decade of stable temperatures, with recent hints of cooling, in New Zealand and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are starting to realise that there is no substance to the hysteria about human-induced "global warming" hysteria created by their governments for political reasons, fanned by news media more interested in attracting readers and viewers with doom and gloom reports of impending catastrophe than presenting the simple facts. Take a few minutes to read this item, to see how you have been misled.


It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/sc...=1&oref=slogin
which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming.

At this news, the rare balanced commentaries that hitherto have been but a trickle through cracks in the monolithic dam of climate alarmism have coalesced into a steady, fissured flow, and there is an imminent likelihood of total dam collapse. Interestingly, at the same time, the fierce discussion about the pros and cons of dangerous human-caused change that has formerly been conducted almost exclusively on the internet (including particularly blogs and video outlets like YouTube) is starting to spread to the more mainstream press.

For instance, critical analyses of global warming science reality and policy options have recently been provided by two leading articles in the National Business Review ;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate...ming-cancelled
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...id=265Itemid=1
and others on Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research website
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest92.htm
and in the New Zealand Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10508067
Christchurch Press
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4510160a12735.html
and U.K. Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml
and NZ Farmers Weekly
http://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/article/7384.html

Finally, and most belatedly of all, even radio and TV commentators are now starting to provide a broader and better balanced perspective on the global warming issue.

Nzone Tonight is a nightly news and current affairs programme broadcast by Shine TV, a NZ Christian broadcaster that aims to provide a balanced and truthful review of all the day's news suitable for family viewing. In mid-April, Nzone broadcast a current affairs discussion about global warming between host Alan Lee and Professor Bob Carter. Since being posted on YouTube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU
this video has attracted 15,000 worldwide viewers, and during its first three weeks has become the most viewed, most discussed and most favoured - and the number two top rated - New Zealand News and Politics video clip of the month. Amongst other supportive comment, one US viewer noted that “I did enjoy the respectful nature of the interview. I do wish this interview was shown on every network in this country, and at every school!”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...limate-realism

That these events represent a deep public demand for balanced presentations of the science of climate change is indicated by another Bob Carter video clip - this time of a lecture to the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) that was posted on YouTube just over 6 months ago (in four parts).
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

To date this video clip has achieved more than 100,000 viewers and lists as the 14th most discussed Australian News and Politics item of all time - a remarkable result, and by far the highest ranking that a fact-based lecture has ever achieved.

Comments made on the AEF video lecture have included:

“That was a superb set of videos. Very well done, and thank you, Bob Carter. Should be compulsory viewing for everyone who sees Gore's movie. Any chance of getting (it) into all British schools?”; and 

“Watching Bob Carter's presentation, which he has articulated in a no nonsense manner, I am alarmed at how the so-called environmental movement, supported by sensational journalism, are promoting such an alarmist position on CO2 emissions. It is a frightening prospect that money which could be spent on far more sensible issues may well be wasted on carbon sequestration, which apparently will have little or even no effect on climate change”.

For a science lecture to receive comments such as these, and attain such a large number of viewings, is indicative of a great public hunger for accurate, well balanced information on the science of the global warming issue.

Perhaps, at last, the time has arrived when YouTube and blog discussions will now be supplemented by mainstream newspaper, radio and TV outlets providing the balanced news and documentary programs about global warming that have been so lamentably lacking for the last ten years. Keep your eye on that dam.

May 12th, 2008, 06:12 AM

In the heat of the battle, nobody is talking about climate change
Saturday, 10 May 2008

Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone and 300 Labour councillors were not the only casualties of the local and London elections. No one seems to have noticed, but the other big losers were those people who care about the environment.

We might just look back on May Day 2008 as the moment when the power of green politics peaked and went into reverse. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The reaction of the two main parties to the elections was instructive. Desperate to prop up his own position after Labour's rout, Mr Brown needed to toss a few bones to the voters and jittery Labour backbenchers. So it suddenly emerged that he was about to dump the so-called "bin tax" – allowing councils to charge householders who do not recycle their rubbish. Downing Street didn't confirm it, and five token pilot schemes will go ahead, but it's clear the bin tax has been binned.
Brown allies also floated the idea that the 2p rise in fuel duty might be shelved again. No doubt this was an attempt to placate motorists. As well as being anti-green, it was a surprise, since the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, will need all the revenue he can get when he delivers his pre-Budget report in the autumn – not least to compensate the losers from the abolition of the 10p tax rate.
Mr Brown was not alone in relegating the environment to the back burner. David Cameron, the wind in his sails after the elections, held a prime ministerial press conference in which he set out his priorities for government. Significantly, the words "environment" and "climate change" did not appear in his 1,200-word statement.
Was this the same man who fought the local elections on the campaign slogan "vote blue, go green"? And was the leader who hugged huskies to convince us his party had changed addressing new issues and no longer preaching to the Tory converted? Green issues have gone out of fashion for Mr Cameron; they have served their purpose.
Naturally, the Tory leader denied it. "We have made quite good progress," he insisted. "I'm not saying the job is done. There is still a huge amount that we want to see changed."
But whatever happened to the impressive tome of green policies produced last year by the Tory policy review headed by John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith, who seems to have disappeared off the planet he was trying to save? When asked, Mr Cameron banged on about the fuel price pressures facing motorists and hauliers.
Officially, the Tories remain committed to raising green taxes in order to cut taxes for families. But they don't talk about it much. After a brief detour, they seem to have arrived at the same point as Mr Brown: that the public needs "carrots" as well as "sticks" to go green; that they suspect green taxes are stealth taxes.
Another reason why the elections have set back the environmental cause is the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. He will dump Mr Livingstone's plan to charge drivers of gas-guzzlers £25 to enter the capital's congestion charge zone, and review its recent expansion into west London. In Manchester, the councillor behind plans for a £5 congestion charge lost his seat to a community party which opposed it.
Labour and the Tories will doubtless argue that the Manchester experience shows they are right to be cautious on green issues. Similarly, Labour MPs say the bin tax was an issue on the doorsteps in the local elections. As The Independent reported eight days ago, a new opinion poll found that more than seven out of 10 people are not prepared to pay higher taxes to fund projects to tackle climate change.
It's hardly surprising that people downgrade soft issues such as the environment when economic times are hard. Yet politicians surely have a duty to lead rather than follow public opinion. Despite that, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quietly shelved plans to bring in annual personal carbon allowances this week, saying the idea was "ahead of its time".
The two main parties will continue to pay lip service to green issues in the run-up to the general election. But something has changed in the past week. Both parties will put saving seats before saving the planet.
If they carry on like this, voters who still put the environment at the top of their list will have to vote Liberal Democrat or Green if they want to change the climate of British politics.

May 19th, 2008, 06:10 AM

32,000 deniers
Posted: May 17, 2008, 12:20 AM
That’s the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol’s corruption of science

By Lawrence Solomon
Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations — virtually every nation in the world — including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world’s environmental groups came too — they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming,” decrying “the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.”
To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world’s most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.
Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit’s end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.
These scientists — mere hundreds — also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.
The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change — an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world’s poor.
Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.
The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition. Some claimed the petition was riddled with duplicate names. They were no duplicates, just different scientists with the same name. Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony — such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series — were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.
Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto’s corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.
“E-mails started coming in every day,” he explained. “And they kept coming. “ The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. “We decided to do the survey again.”
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who’s who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, “much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you’d ordinarily expect,” he explained. He’s processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go — most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?
“I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming,” he says, “and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren’t alone.”
At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn’t be done by poll, he explains. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.”
Some 32,000 scientists is more than the number of environmentalists that descended on Rio in 1992. Is this enough to establish that the science is not settled on global warming? The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Club in Washington.

May 19th, 2008, 06:17 AM

May 16th, 2008
So what happened to global warming?


Posted by: Gerard Wynn

So what happened to global warming?
It’s not just that it’s disappeared from media headlines this year - shoved off by the credit crunch and natural disasters, for example. It can’t be ignored that 2007 came and went as another very warm year - the 7th hottest on record since 1850 according to the World Meteorological Organization.
But it wasn’t a record. In fact that was 1998, a full 10 years ago — the year of an exceptional El Nino, a Pacific weather pattern which heats the whole globe. So is global warming not living up to the hype?
Two weeks ago Leibniz Institute’s Noel Keenlyside stirred an academic hornet’s
nest by saying that we may have to wait longer - a decade or more - for another
peak year, because a natural weakening in ocean currents may be cooling sea
temperatures.
Many scientists flatly rejected the idea, saying Keenlyside had over-estimated the effect. But some pointed out that a recent switch in a weather pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation could indeed cool temperatures globally.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year recent warming was
“unequivocal” and most of it ”very likely” manmade. And almost all scientists in the latest debate, including Keenlyside, agree that any temporary cooling doesn’t alter that - blips due to natural effects are to be expected.
But how long is a blip? No-one knows.
It could be many years before there’s an El Nino as bad as 1998, scientists say. And in the meantime the doubts will grow, just as policymakers try to negotiate one of the most complex global treaties ever. A new Kyoto Protocol will affect issues of equity and poverty: in the case of poor countries the right to grow, for island states perhaps the right to exist, and for rich countries the right to compete on a level economic playing field.
Meanwhile one or two doubters are already saying the present lull in warming
casts doubt on just how far manmade greenhouse gases are influencing the climate. MIT’s Richard Lindzen reckoned that if it was as bad as all that temperatures would be rising faster.

May 19th, 2008, 12:34 PM

May 19th, 2008, 12:42 PM

Unfortunately, global warming is alive and well. The following Scientific American article simply adds to the mountain of proof that is readily available for those who can read. More proof is available in the Arctic where the shrinking pack ice has caused the American government to declare the Polar Bear an "Endangered species".


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...of-global-warm

More Proof of Global Warming

TEXT SIZE:
By Harald Franzen
Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period," says John Harries, a professor at Imperial College in London and lead author of the study published today in Nature.
As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)�as well as water vapor. Satellites can measure changes in the infrared radiation spectrum, allowing scientists to detect changes in the earth's natural greenhouse effect and to deduce which greenhouse gas concentrations have changed.
The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft�the NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect.

May 19th, 2008, 08:59 PM

Global warming is alive and 'well' as you say. But the deniers continue to pretend it does not exist in order to have something to distract people from the meaningful issues of the day such Bush's war, food shortages, and high gas prices.

May 20th, 2008, 12:09 AM

I don't think you're convincing anyone, Walter. The evidence for global warming is incontrovertible, there can be no doubt that it's happening. The human contribution to it is less certain, but that's no justification for riding around in an SUV. Every little bit hurts.

May 20th, 2008, 04:25 AM

"Campaigners for cutting greenhouse emissions scare us by proclaiming that a warmer world is a worse world... it probably won't be... Some deserts may expand; others may shrink. Some places will get drier, others wetter. The evidence that the world will be worse off overall is flimsy." - The Fight Against Global Warming Is Lost, Paul C. W. Davies, Physicist, Cosmologist and author.

"The earth doesn't need ice caps or permafrost or any other particular sea level. Such things come and go and rise and fall as a matter of coarse... Climate change may not hurt the planet, but it hurts people. In particular, it will hurt people who are too poor to adapt. ...many people in the various green movements feel compelled to add on the notion that the planet itself is in crisis, or doomed; that all life on earth is threatened... this eschatological approach to the environment is baseless... The idea that the planet is not in peril could thus undermine the [environmental] movement's power. This is one reason people react against it so strongly... The idea that people can be more persuaded to save the planet (which is not in danger) than their fellow humans (who are) [the poor ones in poor regions] is an unpleasant and cynical one,... because it may hold some truth... I suspect people are flattered, in a rather perverse way, by the idea that their lifestyle threatens the whole planet rather than just the livelihoods of millions of people they have never met... The most important thing about environmental change is that it hurts people; the basis of our response should be human solidarity. The planet will take care of itself." - Our Planet Is Not In Peril, Oliver Morton, chief news and feature editor of Nature.



I find it strange that people are willing to destroy themselves so readily. If it isn't bad enough that we outsource so many of our jobs and agree to egregious trade imbalances; that now on top of it, we are told we must curb our consumption, support ridiculous taxes which further destroy our economy, recycle etc... to save the planet; when in reality, all we are actually doing is saving the very people that are now trouncing us, and ensuring that we will never again rise to the top!

So cut back people! while China and India continue to flood us with cheap crap, and if we sacrifice enough, maybe we can save them from their own excesses... save them from their own carbon emissions... while we doom ourselves...

It's just unfathomably stupid IMO.

"If this is indeed the 'information age,' what exactly are well informed about? Video Games? Clearly history, literature, philosophy, and scholarship in general are not our specialties." - David Gelernter

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! oh wait... it's only our collective IQ, the sky is fine.

May 20th, 2008, 05:37 AM

So much for 'settled science'

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.
Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.
In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.
It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.
This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.
Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.
Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.
Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.
According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.
Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."

May 20th, 2008, 06:00 AM

Monday, May 19, 2008
Even Flawed Data Can’t Hide the Cooling
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
NOAA reports that April 2008 was a full degree (F) below normal making it the 29th coldest April out of 115 years for the United States, the coldest in 11 years. Much of the western 2/3rds of the lower 48 were colder than normal. In Washington State, it was the second coldest April on record. In contrast in the east, in New York State it was the 3rd warmest.
All the monthly global data sets are updated now. The University of Alabama Hunstville (Spencer-Christy) MSU satellite derived lower tropospheric data shows an anomaly of just +0.015C. The UK Hadley Center version 3v which includes land station and some ocean reports showed an anomaly of +0.265C. Adding this month to the plot since 2002 shows the downtrend continues.

See larger graph here
NOAA reported the combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April ranked 13th warmest since worldwide records began in 1880. However as numerous peer-reviewed papers have shown in the last few years, the global (and even the United States) data sets overestimate the warming by as much as 50% because they downplay the importance of urbanization (thanks to the acceptance of flawed papers by Peterson and Parker) and because as Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke Sr. have shown, there is poor siting of many of the instruments and improper documentation and adjustments for land use changes around the sites. The ocean data sets have their own set of issues as the methods (buckets, intake tubes and now satellite) have changed over the years. Hadley only includes data from merchant ships and noted that its ocean coverage is limited to regularly traveled ship routes and vast areas of the oceans (which make up 71% of the globe) are unaccounted for in their analysis (especially the southern oceans and a look at your globe will show you clealy that the Southern Hemisphere is mainly ocean). Satellite data which senses over land and sea has the best coverage and is the most reliable, consistent and objective but is available only since 1979.
There has no doubt been some cyclical warming from 1979 to 1998, but it has been exaggerated by the poor station data. The state records as documented by Bruce Hall in 2007 tell the story. Scroll down to see the monthly records by state and link to other states. Most all of the heat records were set in the early half of the 1900s. A plot of Des Moines, Iowa June and July record highs by decade graph says it all. These tables and chart show that the current warming is clearly not unprecedented as alarmists claim, not even in the last century.

See full size graph here
I believe that if we had satellite monitoring for the last 120 years, we would see the recent warming though real, fell short of that in the 1930s and that the changes are cyclical and thus primarily natural in origin. That is not to say that cities have not grown warmer as they have grown and some warming through the population growth from 1.5 to 6.5 billion since 1900 has taken place nor that we shouldn’t be better stewards of our environment, only that man-made greenhouse warming as portrayed by the agenda driven alarmists, the mainstream media and the IPCC is a fraud.

May 20th, 2008, 10:56 AM

Amongst all the evidence and all the facts that not only make sense and are logical, but also make more logic and much more sense then the whole Global Warming BS, we still have people freaking "Oh but the ice caps are melting more and more each year.... the poor polar bears are listed as an endangered species, blah blah whine whine...." ~ Talk about people with their own distractions and attempts to skew the actual details..... cripes.

Do you guys actually think Ice caps and glaciers are not supposed to expand and retract as they currently are doing? Do you seriously think the planet is supposed to stay the same forever for our own convenience? Do you seriously think all the current animal species on the planet are supposed to live forever and not become extinct eventually, all the while new ones are replacing them? (It's happening already, no suprise there)

I'll admit, I used to be a Global Warming Fearmongerer just like many here, but after I looked further into their details and how they came to their conclusions, I have found they are not only wrong, not only spewing the same garbage as a select few were spewing in the late 80's / early 90's, which were proven as false based on their own timelines they issued back then.... but it's missing out on some very important key factors to make the Global Warming theory true and accurate.

Sorry, but I know when scientists screw up and attempt to make me fearful of something that doesn't exist.

I suppose that 2000 computer bug also threw us into the stone ages as well? (Looks at the computer which is still on)

Tell you guys what: ~ You all can try and live off your gardens in your back yards, switch over to your bio-fuel vehicles, switch your plastic bags to those fabric ones, and hug your endangered polar bears.... and I'll continue to smoke my brains out, litter all over the place, tear up styrofoam cups and plates, spray hair spray and mace into the air, and kill baby dolphins.

Oh yeah... news flash: Polar Bears are not stupid as the BBC Planet Earth's series like to make them out to be. Not only have they begun to adapt to the reduction of ice, but they have done so by moving more south onto the mainlands and into the more remote towns and cities up north.... in fact this has been occuring for a few years now..... check reports sometime. They have done this before, and they will do it again when it reduces again.

Here you go:

Polar bear killed near village in Interior Alaska
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/m...ed-fort-yukon/

Rangers net themselves a couple of polar bears in dramatic animal rescue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-rescue.html

June 5th, 2008, 06:17 AM



I know, it's just an anomaly.

June 5th, 2008, 07:53 AM

You know another thing that crossed my mind on this whole stupid debate of nothing, is that the Entire Global Warming Theory and their evidence is all based on information that only goes back to about 100 years or since the Indurstrial revolution.... where as the other side of the argument which claims this is a natural occuring pattern on the planet and through time which refutes every damn thing that Global Warming represents, is based on much longer time patterns which go beyond 100 years, using Glacier Ice Core data that dates back for thousands of years, which shows more accurate scientific proof that this is a natural occurence that the tempratures will increase and decrease throughout time (Regardless of if we're industrialized or still beating sticks on rocks)

Eaxctly which side holds the most evidence proving their case? Certainly not Global Warming, that's for damn sure.... it's a farce and is based on limited data.

It's not just the fact that since 1998 the tempratures have been continually dropping back down to normal..... and it's not just because of the fact that this past winter most in North America had record breaking snowfalls that most haven't seen since the 70's or earlier..... and it's not the fact that the last couple of years saw very little Hurricane activity......

The most hilarious part of the whole debate is when people point these things out and the GW fearmongers claim "You can't determine that global warming doesn't exist based on just a couple of years of cool." ~ When in the same mentality, you can't determine Global Warming exists based on a century of data, compared to multiple melinias of data proving otherwise..... it's completely brainless.

Let's look at the two shall we?

Here's the Global Warming's side of the argument:

^ Oh my Goodness.... We're all going to die!!! UBER and all that!!!! Geez... it just keeps on climbing and climbing with no end in site..... EVIL!!!!

Oh but wait.... let's look at an Ice Core shall we:


^ WOW!!!! Look at that!! There's a continual pattern above of the tempratures going up and then going back down, like a heartbeat on the planet and right now we're going up.... and shortly after, we're going to go right down real fast and we're going to freeze our nads off.

So where were all the Evil SUV's back 225,000 years ago to cause the tempratures to rise like that?

Hmmmmm..... Maybe the GW Freaks are just full of Ignorant Sh*t!

June 5th, 2008, 10:59 AM

Here is a very basic set of overview information related to global warming. This page has been compiled by Texas A&M University's Laboratory for Applied Biotelemetry & Biotechnology.
This data is compiled from a variety of online sources. For a detailed introduction to this issue, check out Common Questions about Climate Change (United Nations Environment Programme & World Meteorological Organization).
See also: Statement on the Status of Global Climate in 2000 (1.3 Mb pdf) by the World Meteorological Organization (U.N.)


Is Global Warming happening?
Yes:

The above graph shows the departure from the long-term average, of average global temperatures, in degrees Farenheit, since 1880. (Source: EPA)
The figure below shows average global temperatures from 1860 onwards, in degrees Celsius and Farenheit. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)


Are there observable effects that may be tied to Global Warming?
Yes:

To give one example, the graph above shows the percentage of US area (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) with an unusually large amount of the total annual precipitation originating from extreme precipitation events. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization).
In another example, the figure below shows anomalies in Arctic sea ice extent since 1970. (Source: Statement on the Status of Global Climate in 2000 (1.3 Mb pdf) by the World Meteorological Organization, U.N.)

What emissions have an effect on global temperatures?
Many different emissions have an effect on global temperatures:

The figure above shows the relative importance to global warming and cooling of various gases and particulate matter in the atmosphere. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
Have CO2 emissions increased?
Yes, since the industrial revolution:

The figure above shows total fossil CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions for three regions, from 1860 through present. Since 1860, global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 1000%. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
How about CO2 emissions prior to the industrial revolution?

The graph above shows CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) concentrations as measured in the atmoshpere and in ice cores. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
Who are the biggest contributors to global CO2 emissions?
The single biggest contributor are the United States of America:


How might this be related to population size and affluence?
Generally speaking, richer countries and more affluent life styles contribute more to CO2 production, but there are notable exceptions that proove that affluent living does not automatically result in high CO2 production:
The figure below shows the per capita production of carbon dioxide (in metric tons of carbon per inhabitant emitted per year) in 1997, for all the 31 countries that contributed more than 0.5% to the total global production of fossil CO2. North American countries (U.S. and Canada) average about 5 tons of CO2 carbon per person, most countries in the European Union average less than half that (around 2.2 tons per person), and some of the most highly populated countries (and thus big CO2 producers) including the Peoples Republic of China, India, and Brazil are all below the global average of 1.13 metric tons of CO2 carbon per person.
Two notable countries not listed in the figure below are:
The U.S. Virgin Islands as the country with the highest rate of any on the planet (33.22 metric tons of CO2 carbon per inhabitant, corresponding to 0.05% of global fossil CO2 production in 1997).
Switzerland as the most affluent nation on the planet (based on per capita median income and GDP values for 1997). Switzerland in 1997 produced 1.52 metric tons of CO2 carbon per inhabitant (corresponding to 0.18% of total global production). The example of Switzerland shows that it is possible to maintain an affluent community at per capita CO2 production rates near the global average, or about 28% of the U.S per capita CO2 production rate.

What can you do?
That's actually very simple: reduce the amount of fossil fuels you use:

• Drive less and/or use more efficient cars. These days, it is absolutely not a problem to use cars that obtain at the very least 40 miles-per-gallon efficiency in city driving, and 50 mpg on the highway. Cars with at least that much mileage are made by Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen, amongst others. The world record for a production car is currently held by the VW Lupo 3L TDI, the first production 3-litre car (a car that uses less than 3 litres of fuel per 100 km, or about 75 mpg, on average). Volkswagen recently accomplished the first "Around the world in 80 days on 1000 litres" trip at an average consumption of only 2.38 l/100 km with a production Lupo (that is 94 mpg, at an average speed of 50 mph).
• Use energy efficient lighting, including fluorescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs.
• Lower your thermostats in winter time, raise them in summer time to reduce heating and air conditioning usage.
• Insulate buildings! It is amazing how much energy and money can be saved with a few efforts at insulating homes.
• In areas where available, use an energy provider that uses renewable energy resources. In Texas, that is Green Mountain Energy, a provider generating energy from 100% renewable resources (in Texas currently 100% wind power). From an ecological perspective, we support the choice of Green Mountain Energy as an energy provider.

June 5th, 2008, 12:26 PM

Thanks very much Juan for proving my point about how the GW defenders don't bother to address the actual more solid facts against Global Warming and would rather spew more charts and graphs which prove my point exactly about your defense..... and once again more charts and statistics that only go as far back as the Industrial Revolution (Minus your CO2 graph, which still doens't prove your point)

Every damn time I show the facts through the Ice Core Data.... this is exactly what happens.... I get more crap isolated to just the last hundred years or so, removing the overall spectrum of the situation and ignoring all the rest of the information prior to the Industrial Revolution.... not even addressing it, refuting it, or nothing close to even two words towards those facts..... like some religious wing nut trying to hold true to their blind faith, they'll just keep unloading more and more of the same while not dealing with new, or in this case, very old information.

Thanks for proving my point once again

June 5th, 2008, 12:38 PM

Added:

Here's this one even supplies an explination of how it works:



Or you could also enjoy this one:



Or how about this one:



See I can unload the same thing over and over again in different charts until someone actually reads it too.

June 5th, 2008, 12:53 PM

What point was that? That we should ignore the fact that virtually all of the major glaciers are going or gone? Ignore the fact that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a small percentage of the area it once was.
It doesn't matter what happened in prehistoric times. Since the industrial revolution we have pumped something like 7 or 8 billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Along with the rise in CO2 levels, there has been a corresponding rise in global temperatures. Are the two phenomena related? It would be a pretty good bet that they are. Maybe man is not the only cause of global warming but are you saying we shouldn't do anything? I think we have to do something for our children,................. and their children since they inherit the mess we leave.