Breaking News-Humans 'not to blame' for climate change

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Is global warming just the latest Salem witch hunt?

Sunday, Dec. 9, 2007 3:00 am
"The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing." — Gregg Easterbrook in Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1992
Global warming skeptics look on in wonder and amazement at the daily barrage of environmental doom and gloom featured in these pages and elsewhere. How is it possible that so many people — journalists, scientists and politicians alike — could be so gullible? History and sociology may prove instructive.
In 1691, a phenomenon sociologists call a "collective delusion" swept the enclave of Salem Village, Mass. As a consequence of social paranoia, hundreds of people were accused of practicing witchcraft, and perhaps two dozen lost their lives. Of course, we enlightened moderns would never succumb to superstition and mass hysteria.
Or would we? According to sociologists Robert Bartholomew and Erich Goode, collective delusions have taken place with surprising frequency, and the phenomenon's long and shameful history includes several episodes from the recent past. A relic of the Dark Ages it is not. In fact, global warming could be described as a collective delusion, a modern equivalent to the Salem witch hunt.
Bartholomew and Goode write that collective delusions are "typified as the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture, or country." Several factors "contribute to the formation and spread of collective delusions." Among them, "mass media, rumors, the social and political context, and reinforcing actions" by "institutions of social control." Collective delusions are also distinguished "by the redefinition of mundane objects, events, and circumstances." Sound familiar?
Consider a few recent examples. In October, Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times (and mouthpiece of the liberal elite), suggested that we "may have introduced enough of man's economic activities — enough CO2 emissions — into Mother Nature's operating system that we cannot determine anymore where she stopped and we started." Man is partly to blame, Friedman suggests, for Hurricane Katrina and the California wildfires.
Unfortunately for Friedman and the doomsayers, there is no correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures. As Christopher Horner writes in the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming," "Sometimes a GHG rise has preceded a temperature rise, and sometimes vice versa. Sometimes they move in opposite directions." Worse, he writes that nature "produces 97 percent of greenhouse gasses currently in our atmosphere by volume."
Contrary to near-daily claims in the media, there is no "consensus" on global warming. Hurricane expert William Gray recently gave a speech at UNC-Charlotte and pointed out that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, but only 83 from 1957 to 2006. The inconvenient truth is that the latter period, in which fewer hurricanes developed, was warmer. Furthermore, the deadliest hurricane in U.S. history struck Galveston, Texas over a century ago — well before man's "greenhouse gasses" provoked tranquil Mother Nature.
According to Dr. Gray, man is not responsible for the warming of the planet, but "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." We will "look back in 10 or 15 years," Gray said, "and realize how foolish it was." Indeed. Rather like those who emerge from a collective delusion.
Readers in September were accosted by an alarming headline in these pages: "Thin ice dooms most polar bears, scientists predict." The breathless lead paragraph informed us that "two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic."
Evidently Canada's polar bear population did not get the memo from The Associated Press. Canadian polar bear biologist Mitchell Taylor reports that, "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, eleven are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."
And, about that "warming" in the Arctic. To begin with, many hysterical assertions have been based on information from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), the participants of which chose to expand the "Arctic Circle" some 450 miles in every direction. Worse, scientists involved in the ACIA chose as their baseline the year 1966, which features the coldest temperatures ever recorded in the Arctic. Even modest warming would seem cataclysmic by comparison.
A U.N. report released last month concludes that First World nations "must immediately help fight global warming or the world will face catastrophic floods, droughts and other disasters." Said U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, "I believe we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act." According to sociologists Bartholomew and Goode, mobilization transforms mere collective delusion into panic. Welcome back to Salem Village.
Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
One and the same Beve. All that Freddy's missing is fishnet stockings and a feathered boa.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Guilt and Global Warming[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Thursday November 29, 2007[/SIZE][/FONT] The most awful, thing about man-made global warming is that it’s our own fault. It’s our own greedy materialism that has the planet’s climate headed toward disaster. Or so we’re told.
The world has been through climate guilt trips before, however. During the 400 years of the Dark Ages (540 to 950 AD) the climate turned cold, cloudy and stormy, with poor crops and widespread hunger. The Roman Empire collapsed even as Europe’s cities were besieged by the Mongol hordes of Attila the Hun. To cap it all off, bubonic plague swept through Europe, killing perhaps 25 million people.
Christian leaders told their people that God was angry at humans. Hindu leaders in India said several gods were angry at people.
What really happened was a climate shift. The earth had enjoyed 800 years of the pleasant Roman Warming, with good crops and few storms. Then, about 540 AD, the earth shifted into a harsh, unstable global cooling.
Science today knows that this sort of climate shift happens every few centuries, apparently driven by variations in the sun. Those historic shifts are recorded today in ice cores, seabed sediments and fossil pollen—around the world.
In the 6th century, people had no such knowledge of climate change. They just suddenly found that their pleasant world had become unexpectedly dominated by cloudy skies, untimely frosts –and hunger.
Even the bubonic plague was brought by the climate change. The Little Ice Age triggered long, severe drought in the Near East, where the plague’s bacteria are always lurking. The region’s rats fled the drought, carrying their plague-infected fleas. Many hitched rides on trading ships and perhaps in the packs of camel caravans. The world’s port cities were infected first, but ultimately a big fraction of Europe’s people died. The victims literally turned black as they breathed their last.
Then, God’s anger seemed to disappear. About 950 AD, sunny skies warmed the planet again for 350 years. The growing seasons became long and fruitful, populations doubled, and plague was only a memory. A huge proportion of the world’s now-famous cathedrals and temples were built as people expressed their gratitude.
After the year 1300, came another climate shift—into the Little Ice Age. The world suffered 550 years of intense cold, untimely frosts and widespread famine. Even the bubonic plague returned, and killed perhaps 100 million people across Asia, Europe and Africa.
In the French Alps, frightened villagers called on the local bishop to exorcise the demon from the local glacier, which had been dormant for centuries and was now suddenly advancing on the town. The glacier reportedly stopped—for a while.
Witches were blamed for the crop failures. More than 1,000 witches were burned in Bern, Switzerland, between 1580 and 1620. The little town of Wiesensteig, Germany, burned 63 witches just in 1563. Once again, people were supposedly guilty of causing climate change and the populace reacted as best they could to appease.
Today, too, global warming is our fault: our sport-utility vehicles, our air conditioners, our energy-hungry lifestyles. But as climatologist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama/Huntsville has written, “This myth continues despite that fact that there have been NO scientific papers published with evidence that our current warmth is not due to natural climate variability.”
All we have is a warming which started in 1850—too soon to be blamed on human-emitted CO2—and some unverified computer models. With humanity’s always-guilty conscience, that’s been enough to threaten a shutdown of most of the world’s power plants and vehicles.
How much guilt should we feel, however, for a warming of 0.2 degrees C over 70 years? During a rebound from the Little Ice Age? How many state climatologists, weathermen, climate researchers and general Greenhouse climate skeptics must be publicly vilified and economically ruined to satisfy the thirst for sacrifice?
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/guilt-and-global-warming
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, January 07, 2008
'Something other than CO2 and CO2-related feedbacks ... are playing a large role in the region's recent temperature trends."
Read that again and keep in mind the "the region" being referred to is the Arctic. The plain meaning is that the warming in the Arctic is not only -- or even mostly -- man-made. It is not the result of carbon emissions, no matter how often we have been warned that this past summer's melt was unprecedented and a foreboding harbinger of a coming global meltdown.

Full article: http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=1987d3e5-0c53-46fb-a01a-74bb49718c8e
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 6, 2008
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.
Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.
University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.
Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.
Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?
"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."
Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.
"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.
Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."
But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."
Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
A warmer Arctic? Blame Mother Nature

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, January 07, 2008

'Something other than CO2 and CO2-related feedbacks ... are playing a large role in the region's recent temperature trends."
Read that again and keep in mind the "the region" being referred to is the Arctic. The plain meaning is that the warming in the Arctic is not only -- or even mostly -- man-made. It is not the result of carbon emissions, no matter how often we have been warned that this past summer's melt was unprecedented and a foreboding harbinger of a coming global meltdown.
In the most recent issue of Nature -- a prestigious scientific journal that in the past has shown a decided hostility to studies that contradict the climate change hysteria -- Rune Graversen and others from the meteorology department at Stockholm University postulate that the recent, allegedly dangerous Arctic thaw is far from unique in history. Rather than being the result of man-made climate change, they argue, the warming northern seas and tundra mainly result from atmospheric energy transfers from southern latitudes to northern.
In other words, tropical storms and atmospheric currents travelling from the tropics to the Arctic have shifted a large amount of heat from equatorial regions to the North.
In addition to being natural, this is also a cyclical phenomenon. It has happened before and will happen again. Big melts up north very likely occurred well before industrialization and will almost certainly recur periodically even if we cork all our factory stacks and shut off all our car engines. Maybe Arctic warming is just something the Earth does occasionally to let off steam in the tropics.
Are man-made emissions magnifying the warming? The Swedes think they may be, but their effect pales next to that of nature's own south-to-north heat conveyor.

Complete article: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=220210
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study
COPENHAGEN, Aug 21 (AFP) Aug 21, 2006
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published on Monday, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.
"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.
Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.
"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.
The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.
"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.
The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.
The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.
The study also showed new results on galloping glaciers, the name given to glaciers that surge very quickly for a few years, up to 50 meters a day, before advancing more slowly at a rate of 20 meters per year," he said.
"We have identified, thanks to new analyses of aerials photographs and satellite images, almost four times more galloping glaciers, or 75 compared to just 20 in previous estimates," he said.
The two authors of the study were to present their results on Monday at a conference in Cambridge, England on the impact of global warming on glaciers.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Carbon Dioxide in Not the Primary Cause of Global Warming: The Future Can Not Cause the Past

Post echoed from Icecap
Paper by Dr. Allan M.R. MacRae, Calgary Alberta Canada
Despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2, no significant global warming occurred in the last decade, as confirmed by both Surface Temperature and satellite measurements in the Lower Troposphere. Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend. Earth Surface Temperature warmed approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius from ~1910 to ~1945, cooled ~0.4 C from ~1945 to ~1975, warmed ~0.6 C from ~1975 to 1997, and has not warmed significantly from 1997 to 2007.
CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.
The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming - in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.
There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature ("ST"), Lower Troposphere Temperature ("LT") and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 ("dCO2/dt"). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ("CO2").

ST and LT anomalies have been multiplied by 4 for visual clarity. See full size image here.
See paper here
Allan MacRae B.Sc., MS. Engineering., Ph.D. Engineering is a retired professional engineer.

He's from Calgary so he must be a shill for big oil.