Global Warming debate is over.

[proudpegger]

Global Warming debate is over.

scientists very recently compiled data from ice cores that provide atmospheric gas levels for the last million years, and the evidence shows what we’re seeing today has never been seen before. With this evidence the consensus on global warming and it’s causes is complete. The debate is over, and although the truth is inconvenient it must be dealt with, not denied.

Read rest ---> http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/19/1/

Agree 100%. I heard about those ice cores a little while ago. I guess they've put the nail in the skeptics coffin.
The "LIARS ALERT" is pretty funny!! Tattlin' on the google ad LOL!

 

[Jay]

November 16, 2004

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCain:

As you know, climate varies in the Arctic more than globally-averaged measures reveal, prompting not inconsiderable ecosystem responses.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report by the Arctic Council documents significant ecosystem response to surface temperature warming trends that occurred in some areas since the mid-19th century and in the last thirty years.

Estimates of the amount of surface warming trends over those periods and their causes relies on scientific knowledge of natural and anthropogenic effects, the latter including landscape modification, urbanization, plus the air's concentration of aerosols and greenhouse gases. Moreover, Arctic climate varies dramatically from one region to another, and over time in ways that cannot be accurately reproduced by climate models. The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic.

For example, for Greenland's instrumental surface temperatures a team of experts headed at Los Alamos National Laboratory recently found:

Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 degrees C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.(1)

Analysis of ice corings of the Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island show that the recent warming trend is unexceptional compared to natural variability in centuries past, when the enhanced greenhouse effect cannot have had much impact:

Our sea-salt record suggests that, while the turn of the [21st] century was characterized by generally milder sea-ice conditions in Baffin Bay, the last few decades of sea-ice extent lie within Little Ice Age variability and correspond to instrumental records of lower temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic over the past three decades.(2)

From a detailed study of sea core sediment from the last 10,000 years in the Chukchi Sea, researchers concluded that, "in the recent past, the western Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is today." They also found that "during the middle Holocene [approximately 6,000 years ago] the August sea surface temperature fluctuated by 5 degrees C and was 3-7 degrees C warmer than it is today,"(3)

The relatively recent discovery of the PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation,(4) points to a strong natural component of the recent warming trend. Researchers noted in 1997:

Our results add support to those of previous studies suggesting that the climatic regime shift of the late 1970's is not unique in the century- long instrumental climate record, nor in the record of North Pacific salmon production. In fact, we find that signatures of a recurring pattern of interdecadal climate variability are widespread and detectable in a variety of Pacific basin climate and ecological systems. This climate pattern -- hereafter referred to as the Pacific (inter)Decadal Oscillation, or PDO (following co-author S.R.H.'s suggestion) -- is a pan-Pacific phenomenon that also includes interdecadal climate variability in the tropical Pacific.

The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977 is typical in the documented pattern of natural climate fluctuations going back at least several centuries. In Alaska in particular, although the onset of the 1976-1977 shift ended the several-decades-long period of cold in the middle of the 20th century recorded by many of Alaska's good weather station records, it returned temperatures to warmth seen in the early decades of the 20th century. Thus, it is unsurprising that Alaskan ecosystems have responded to recent warmth, which has the characteristic step-upward shape of the PDO, but not the gradual but large warming trend implied by the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The PDO may have shifted back in 1998-99 to its mid-20th century state, which would tend to deliver sharply cooler temperatures in the next several decades to the western U.S., including western and southern Alaska. For example, scientists from British Columbia's Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans and Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences found recent cooling of the North Pacific:

Subsurface upper ocean waters off Oregon and Vancouver Island were about 1 degree C cooler in July 2002 than in July 2001. The anomalously cool layer coincides with the permanent halocline which has salinities 32.2 to 33.8, suggesting an invasion of nutrient-rich Subarctic waters. The anomalously cool layer lies at 30-150 m.(5)

Surface air temperatures (SAT) going back 125 years were studied from "newly available long-term Russian observations of SAT from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chuckchi seas."(6) Those researchers found "strong intrinsic variability, dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations with a timescale of 60-80 years." Comparing those measures of Arctic regional variability to that of computer simulations, the researchers concluded that observations do "not support amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by GCMs [General Circulation Models]."

A comprehensive study of Arctic temperature records(7) found that "in the Arctic in the period 1951-90, no tangible manifestations of the greenhouse effect can be identified." However, strong year-to-year variability is present, as the researcher notes that "a more recent analysis of mean seasonal and annual air-temperature trends in the Arctic (Przybylak, in press) shows that in the mid-1990s there occurred quite a large rise in air temperature," and as a consequence, "the areally averaged annual air temperature for the whole Arctic for the last 5 year period of the 20th century was the warmest since 1950 (1.0 degree C above the 1951-90 average)."

Those examples demonstrate that Arctic climate has and will continue to exhibit intricate patterns not reliably reproduced by global climate simulations, thus underscoring their scientific incompleteness and need for advances in Arctic climate science, in measurements, theory and models.

The history of the Arctic and its ecosystems remains complex, a fact too often perceived by reporters under deadline or extremists as irrelevant nuance. Ecosystems and humans survived the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, as they survived the warmth from A.D. 900 to 1200, when Thule people migrated from Alaska across the Arctic while Vikings farmed in Greenland soil now permafrost and sailed in Arctic waters now permanent pack ice. They survived the warming of the last 15,000 years as earth emerged from the last glacial period, whose termination produced much more radical temperature shocks than those observed in the last several decades.

As Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and IPCC author concluded in testimony before your May 1, 2001 Commerce Committee hearing:

The question of where do we go from here is an obvious and important one. From my provincial perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism. The benefits of leaving future generations a better understanding of nature would far outweigh the benefits (if any) of ill thought out attempts to regulate nature in the absence of such understanding.

We appreciate your efforts to support scientific fact-finding concerning responses of Arctic ecosystems to climate variability.

Sincerely,

http://www.envirotruth.org/news/20041116.cfm

 

[proudpegger]

November 16, 2004

Envirotruth, huh?

That deserves another LIARS ALERT!!!

Same batch of lying "scientists" that are responsible for the link in the google ads here: http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/19/1/

Here's a clue for ya: when people are funded and paid for by companies like Exxon to say things about global warming, just turn the page. Ignore.

BTW, the ten liars who signed that letter hardly match up to the thousands of relevent scientists (meaning they are actually climatologists) who have already weighed in on this issue:
http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/15/1/

 

[Kreskin]

As usual, just follow the money trail.

 

[jerry]

Those f****** scientists don't know what they're talking about, in the 70's they thought the earth was cooling down. If there is a global warming, it's just part of a natural cycle. They were times in the Middle Age when the earth was warmer than it is now and they weren't any greenhouse gases then.

To me global warming is the biggest hoax since the y2k scare. In 20 years from now, if the earth cools down, they will probably say there is a global cooling.

Now it does'nt mean we should just go ahead and pollute like idiots but i hate the tone of this debate where no contradiction is allowed. If you question global warming, they will not argue, they will just say you're crazy or say you're on the side of big business. I am always worried when a group of people decide they hold the truth and call everybody that disagree with them idiots.

Now before you say i'm a on the side of the polluters, i would like to add that i make a point to use my bike or walk to work and i own a small car that is very good on gas.

 

[Toro]

I lean towards supporting the global warming theories. However, I think all scientists must be heard.

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

 

[proudpegger]

I lean towards supporting the global warming theories. However, I think all scientists must be heard.

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

 

[Jay]

Here's a clue for ya: when people are funded and paid for by companies like Exxon to say things about global warming, just turn the page. Ignore.

No, here's a clue for you...when Liberals in general support anything, turn the page...don't listen to it and don't give them any of your money.....the last one is hard to do, because Liberals like to right laws that suck your money out of your pocket to support stupid things and buy votes with it.


Global warming is real, and so are Liberals.....we can do something about one of these things.

 

[#juan]

What has global warming to do with the Liberals?

Most scientists in the field of climate study, agree that global warming is real, and that man is causing it. This is not speculation but scientific study.

Multinational corporate interests obviously don't want to talk about global warming because their financial interests lay in the other direction.

Evidence for global warming is so abundant that it can't be ignored.

 

[Jay]

Because the Liberals support Kyoto. It's a wealth transfer scheme.

You might believe there is a consensus about why the world is getting warmer, but I don't.

You want to blame it on "Multinational corporate interests" and I want to blame Liberals and their ilk.

 

[Jersay]

You know it is surprising how people cry about what Kyoto was going to do to economies and such. However, most scientists agree that from Kyoto another 80% 85% cut in Carbon transmission should be included.

And I think oil is going to help that out as it goes higher and higher.

 

[#juan]

Re: RE: Global Warming debate is over.

Because the Liberals support Kyoto. It's a wealth transfer scheme.

You might believe there is a consensus about why the world is getting warmer, but I don't.

You want to blame it on "Multinational corporate interests" and I want to blame Liberals and their ilk.

Ignorance, I suppose, is not a crime. A hundred aqnd sixty countries signed on to and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. An overwhelming majority of world scientists, including those from the U.S., agree that global warming is man made. Global warming, in fact, is caused by all of us.

The Kyoto Protocol was, and is, a chance for the whole world to get together and do something about it. Those countries that have not signed, for the most part, are those countries so embroiled in conflict , and violence, that ecology is their least concern. The U.S. has no such excuse . Their wonderful scientist; George Bush, thinks it would cost his country money. This coming from a man who has cost that country more money than the the previous four administrations put together.

Kyoto signatories

 

[Jay]

It isn't true Juan, there are factors being left out of models and things they can't model.

Yes ignorance isn't a crime, but we should have to be brought down because of it either.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

Read this Juan and provide the rebuttals.

http://www.envirotruth.org/news/20041116.cfm

 

[Jay]

Those countries that have not signed, for the most part, are those countries so embroiled in conflict , and violence, that ecology is their least concern

Like China, India and the US....right.

 

[#juan]

I don't know why I bother. You obviously don't read. Or can't.

 

[Jay]

Whatever, just read the link and provide the rebuttals.

 

[#juan]

I wrote:

Those countries that have not signed, for the most part, are those countries so embroiled in conflict , and violence, that ecology is their least concern

I know these things can be subtle for some.

 

[Jay]

Where as that might be true, China, India and the US have about 3 ish billion people in them and none of them fall into that category. Many nations will benefit greatly from this wealth transfer scheme. There are better ways to go about doing this.

As one of the articles on the link I posted asks...why can't we have a scientific debate on this issue (in Canada) before we jump onto something like Kyoto? We simply do not have the information we need to make a sound judgment, and how people can believe this all to be "fact" is beyond me.

I encourage you to read the link and refute these points.....it needs to be done.

 

[Jay]

Letter to the editor of the Welland Tribune
Date: October 25, 2005

Subject: Suzuki needs to accept differing opinions

Speaking as one of the "rogue scientists" who disagree with David Suzuki's views on climate change ("Speaking out in the name of science", October 18), Suzuki must accept that if scientists should be advocates, they will not all advocate what he believes. He cannot chastise us for keeping quiet, and then dismiss us when we speak out in a manner contrary to his beliefs. That is irrational.

As far as speaking for insiders on climate change, I would simply ask what scientific circles Suzuki travels in these days - certainly not climate science as far as I know. In real science, and climate science is no exception, there is plenty of controversy. Being a "rogue" in science is the norm and is largely accepted.

While consensus may exist for earlier theories (e.g. a heliocentric solar system or continental drift) it is seldom observed in areas of active research (e.g. nuclear waste disposal or climate science). Until there is proof with empirical data and independent verification, controversy and debate will reign in science. A "consensus" is abnormal and should be viewed with suspicion as political meddling.

Whenever I hear of an alleged "consensus among climate scientists" I reflect on the large number of peer-reviewed publications showing solar effects controlling climate, and conclude that politics and environmental advocacy have polluted science in this field. It is the height of arrogance for humanity to assert that we have become the undisputed climate driver and can turn down the CO2 dial like a global thermostat.

Canada's Kyoto funding should be diverted to real environmental issues such as our damage to ecosystems and fresh water resources.

We must also help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever climate change nature has in store for us and continue scientific research to better understand this complex phenomenon.

Dr. Ian Clark,
Professor,
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa

 

[Vicious]

Got any 3 page quotes from scientists who believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?

It's not the disease or the cause I'm concerned with, it's the proposed cure/solution.

At least they test cancer drugs before launching them on the public. A bullet to the head would stop all cancers but no one proposes that as a cure. Make sure the cure is not worse than the disease.

I have no confidence that the proposed solution will have any impact on climate change at all.

Is there any proof that reducing CO2 emmissions below 1990 targets will do anything to address climate change? I know we are all supposed to be good little lemmings and not ask any questions, but I'm uncomfortable adhering to Kyoto when there is not proof that it's the right solution.

As well, when reading research from scientists I try to keep in mind that this is a person (or prganization) that relies on research grants from government and industry. It rarely taints the research but these scientists are open to the same criticism as industry scientists.