Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[FUBAR]

It really doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not anyway. The climate has always changed and always will no matter what we do. There is nothing we can do that will stop or reverse it as the planet is a dynamic and changing system. Anyone who thinks that we can go back to another time is just not thinking, the problem is whether or not as a species we can adapt to a new environment. If we do not change or adapt then we will go extinct and something else will become dominant as nature will not tolerate a static non changing process( remember evolution). We cannot stand there Canute like trying to hold back the tide and those who say we can stop or reverse climate change are just plain wrong and doing more damage than good. The natural process for life is extinction as most species only last about 2 million years and over 98% of all life that preceded us is now gone. Failure to change or adapt and we will go the way of all those others anyway no matter what the climate is like. I mean we don't have a God given right to exist forever do we............;-)

 

[Walter]

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris
Stuart Westmorland
Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.





Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

 

[Extrafire]

So, again I'll ask for that evidence, as I have a few times already.

Sigh. I have already given you that evidence, but you refuse to accept it. I'll try again.

You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.

That's a pretty brave assumption. Do you know what the forcing was that caused the shift from warming to ice age? Is it more or less than our anthropogenic forcing?

OK, I'll play along. I'll pretend that AGW is true, just this once. Again, look at the temperature drop of an ice age. Now compare that to the slight increase in temps feared by the alarmists, not even half as much as the themps for most of the holocene. Which do you think is stronger?

So now changing winds aren't to be expected, even though climate is long term weather patterns? Funny, the predictions have mentioned changing wind patterns. Sea surface temperatures were also warmer that summer. But it does appear to be anomalous. That happens with seasonal weather

All kinds of weather are to be expected. However, while they were natural in the past, now that we have "AGW", all weather is a result of global warming. Drought or deluge, windy or calm, hot or cold, it's all caused by global warming.

Again, two anomolies back to back. The overall trend is still one of decreasing Arctic ice, and increasing Antarctic ice.

Could be anomalies. The warming (and the cooling too when that's the trend) isn't a steady straight line, but an erratic trend, with ups and downs all the time. But this isn't just a matter of weather. We had unusual and record cold over the southern hemisphere (their) last winter followed by the same in the northern hemisphere this (our) winter, and at the same time, an unusually cool summer in the southern hemisphere. Hmmm....northern hemisphere plus southern hemisphere....that's global. Something not predicted by the alarmists. A global cooling which could be an anomaly if it was caused by solar fluctuations. At first the alarmists said it wasn't happening. Then they said it was just weather anomalies in localized areas, which was predicted. Now the evidence is so overwhelming and so public they can't deny it any more, and so they've admitted that it does appear to be a cooling globe, but they hasten to assure us that this current global cooling is caused by....global warming!8O They present no evidence or reasoning for that claim because they have none. Their problem is that they've invested so much of their credibility in AGW hypothesis that they don't feel that they can backtrack now.

However, the global cooling is entirely consistent with the claims and predictions of the scientists who study the sun.

One thousand years away, could be even longer than that. Funny though how your ilk has suggested that current trends mean we're switching to a cooling phase, despite the long term trends.

Well, my ilk isn't suggesting that. What we have suggested is that it's a long term warming trend, consistent with past warming patterns and solar variations. That it's an erratic warming trend because it's comprised of two cycles of differing durations. That the solar evidence indicates we're about to enter a cooling period similar to the last one from the '30's to the '70's. (Some of them suggest it may be similar to the LIA, but we aren't anywhere near that part of the cycle yet.) That the long term trend is global warming, caused by the sun.

 

[Tonington]

Sigh. I have already given you that evidence, but you refuse to accept it. I'll try again.

You agree that there will be another ice age. You agree that there have been past ice ages with interglacials of about 12,000 years each time. Where is your evidence that informs you of this? Why it's the self same evidence that I use to claim a new ice age is upon us, the naturally recurring pattern of past ice ages and interglacials. You suggest that since the recurrence changed from 40K years to 100K that the length of the interglacial could change too. You have no evidence or even hypothesis to support the lengthening of the interglacial, yet you insist that that is more likely than a repeat of the natural recurring pattern. There is absolutely no logic in your way to thinking.

I agree there will be another ice age. I agree there have been past interglacials of about 12,000 years. The evidence is in the same place you're incorrectly using to infer that a new ice age is upon us. Why is it incorrect to assume as you are now? The same place that tells us that there have been 12,000 year interglacials also shows us that there have been much longer interglacials. Marine isotope stage 11 lasted from roughly 420 to 360 ka before present.

I never said anything about more likely, I simply said you have no evidence to state that an ice age is upon us, except to say that some interglacials lasted about as long as our current interglacial. That is not evidence, nor is it a hypothesis. How do you test that hypothesis? Wait and see doesn't fly in science. Maybe you can find evidence of the Milankovitch cycles coming around, or maybe you've seen models of the future solar cycles. I haven't seen it, nor have you stated such a fact. That would be an entirely different story altogether. That is after all why I asked you for forcings.

OK, I'll play along. I'll pretend that AGW is true, just this once. Again, look at the temperature drop of an ice age. Now compare that to the slight increase in temps feared by the alarmists, not even half as much as the themps for most of the holocene. Which do you think is stronger?

Move goal posts much? I asked about forcings, the perturbations that cause change, in this particular case glaciation, and you give me a temperature graph from Greenland. Temperature is not a forcing, it is a response to a forcing. I'm not saying anything remotely related to one temperature increase being larger than another. We could have a huge positive forcing from greenhouse gases, but be dwarfed by an even larger magnitude negative change in solar irradience, or aerosols. I'm asking you for your evidence of an oncoming glaciation, as caused by changes in the radiative balance.You're failing miserably.

All kinds of weather are to be expected. However, while they were natural in the past, now that we have "AGW", all weather is a result of global warming. Drought or deluge, windy or calm, hot or cold, it's all caused by global warming.

That's a foolish statement that many ignorant folk make. As foolish as the fools claiming global cooling lately during this cold winter.

Could be anomalies. The warming (and the cooling too when that's the trend) isn't a steady straight line, but an erratic trend, with ups and downs all the time. But this isn't just a matter of weather. We had unusual and record cold over the southern hemisphere (their) last winter followed by the same in the northern hemisphere this (our) winter, and at the same time, an unusually cool summer in the southern hemisphere. Hmmm....northern hemisphere plus southern hemisphere....that's global. Something not predicted by the alarmists. A global cooling which could be an anomaly if it was caused by solar fluctuations.

We're in a solar minimum, and in a strong La Nina. Solar fluctuations aren't strong enough by themselves to give us this cold winter. The two warmest years on record (2005,1998) occurred during the low tails of solar cycle variability. I'm not saying solar variability doesn't effect temperatures, just that by themselves, they don't account for the magnitude of changes. As the solar cycle ramps up again in the next 5 years, and they coincide with El Nino's, I expect the 1998/2005 record temperature anomalies to be broke.

At first the alarmists said it wasn't happening. Then they said it was just weather anomalies in localized areas, which was predicted. Now the evidence is so overwhelming and so public they can't deny it any more, and so they've admitted that it does appear to be a cooling globe, but they hasten to assure us that this current global cooling is caused by....global warming!8O They present no evidence or reasoning for that claim because they have none. Their problem is that they've invested so much of their credibility in AGW hypothesis that they don't feel that they can backtrack now.

Deny what? That weather is variable? You're hacking a straw man. The globe isn't cooling. Neither NASA GISS or Hadley or the IPCC or RSS or UAH have said anything of the sort. They haven't said this is caused by global warming. They present no evidence, and don't say that because you're right, there is no evidence of that. AGW is not a hypothesis, it's a theory. What is your hypothesis? Is it anything like your ice age claims? :lol:

However, the global cooling is entirely consistent with the claims and predictions of the scientists who study the sun.

As I said earlier, the two warmest years on record happened in the low tails of solar forcing. And the changes are regular, and showing no trend of increasing decreasing over this warming trend of the last 30 odd years. Not at all a useful prediction. You seem to be making the mistake that AGW means no sun involvement. That's false.

Well, my ilk isn't suggesting that. What we have suggested is that it's a long term warming trend, consistent with past warming patterns and solar variations.

Solar variation doesn't explain it.

That it's an erratic warming trend because it's comprised of two cycles of differing durations. That the solar evidence indicates we're about to enter a cooling period similar to the last one from the '30's to the '70's. (Some of them suggest it may be similar to the LIA, but we aren't anywhere near that part of the cycle yet.) That the long term trend is global warming, caused by the sun.

The warming trend doesn't match the solar trend. What's the difference between your predicted long term warming trend, and your predicted ice age? Just curious, when "some of them suggest" the ice age will begin. Time for you folks to make some predictions with your hypotheses. Lets see how they match up.

I'll eat my toque if the temperature record isn't broken in the next ten years(due to differences in datsets, let's define that as GISS dataset has a new record based on their warmest year, and Hadley has a new record based on their warmest year). I'll eat my favourite t-shirt if the Arctic isn't 90% ice free during one summer before 2020.

What will you do when these things do happen? Will you admit that your predictions of similar cooling to the 40's were based on incorrect theory, and consider the AGW theory? I'm obviously confident they will happen. I will revise my views if things turn out differently.

 

[Walter]

More persuasive arguments from John Coleman

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]As presented on March 2, 2008 [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]At the Marriot Marquee in New York City [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; it is a SCAM. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James Brown, "WOW. I feel Good." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it. But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side, the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out, "Wow, I feel Good." [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial]Complete article: http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/REMARKS+OF+JOHN+COLEMAN+FINAL6c.pdf[/FONT]

 

[Walter]

Bloody facts keep getting in the way of the theory.


ABSTRACT:

​

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright: 2007 Royal Meteorological Society​

Complete paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf​

 

[gopher]

No global warming despite all the money given to the Pentagon because of it?

GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK!!

 

[Walter]

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.

 

[Walter]

• <LI class=byline>Robin McKie
• This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday March 23 2008 on p30 of the Focus section. It was last updated at 12:05 on March 24 2008.

Green beans that have been flown in from Kenya. Photograph: Wendy Stone/Corbis

Mike Small and his wife, Karen, sat down last Thursday to a dinner of smoked fish pie crusted with mashed potato and served with purple-sprouting broccoli, an unremarkable family meal except for one key factor: every ingredient came from sources close to their home in Burntisland, Fife. 'The fish was Fife-landed, while the potatoes and broccoli were grown on nearby farms,' he says.
Nor was this a one-off culinary event. For the past six months Mike and Karen and their two children, Sorley and Alex, have consumed only food and drink bought in their home district.
This is the Fife Diet, developed by Mike Small as a response to the environmental dangers posed by carbon-emitting imports of Peruvian avocados, Kenyan green beans, New Zealand lamb and all those other foreign foodstuffs that now fill the shelves of our supermarkets. Each of these imported products involves the emission of carbon dioxide from the planes and ships that brought them to our shores.
So Mike Small argues that we should eat local produce and save the planet, an idea that has obliged his family - and a growing number of adherents to his cause - to eat meals of local lamb, pork and a great many dishes based on parsnips, beetroots, kale, potatoes, leeks and all the other root vegetables that typify the agricultural output of this wind-swept corner of Scotland.
This is the future of ethical eating, insists Small: the consumption of local produce at all costs. It is an attitude now shared by thousands around the UK and overseas, individuals who have decided to reject foods that have been transported over long distances by road, air or sea to their dinner plates. They even have their own name for themselves - locavores - and insist that their way is the only one to save the planet.
But the idea that 'only local is good' has come under attack. For a start, food grown in areas where there is high use of fertilisers and tractors is likely to be anything but carbon-friendly, it is pointed out. At the same time the argument against food miles - which show how far a product has been shipped and therefore how much carbon has been emitted in its transport - has been savaged by experts. 'The concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid. It doesn't inform about anything except the distance travelled,' Dr Adrian Williams, of the National Resources Management Centre at Cranfield University, told The Observer last week.
Given that the food miles cause was hailed only a few months ago as the means to empower the carbon-conscious consumer, such criticisms are striking, and suggest that some careful reassessment of the concept's usefulness has been going on.
Certainly the issues involved no longer seem clear-cut. Consider that supermarket stalwart: green beans from Kenya. These are air-freighted to stores to allow consumers to buy fresh beans when British varieties are out of season. Each packet has a little sticker with the image of a plane on it to indicate that carbon dioxide from aviation fuel was emitted in bringing them to this country. And that, surely, is bad, campaigners argue. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are trapping more and more sunlight and inexorably heating the planet, after all.
But a warning that beans have been air-freighted does not mean we should automatically switch to British varieties if we want to help the climate. Beans in Kenya are produced in a highly environmentally-friendly manner. 'Beans there are grown using manual labour - nothing is mechanised,' says Professor Gareth Edwards-Jones of Bangor University, an expert on African agriculture. 'They don't use tractors, they use cow muck as fertiliser; and they have low-tech irrigation systems in Kenya. They also provide employment to many people in the developing world. So you have to weigh that against the air miles used to get them to the supermarket.'
When you do that - and incorporate these different factors - you make the counter-intuitive discovery that air-transported green beans from Kenya could actually account for the emission of less carbon dioxide than British beans. The latter are grown in fields on which oil-based fertilisers have been sprayed and which are ploughed by tractors that burn diesel. In the words of Gareth Thomas, Minister for Trade and Development, speaking at a recent Department for International Development air-freight seminar: 'Driving 6.5 miles to buy your shopping emits more carbon than flying a pack of Kenyan green beans to the UK.'
'Half the people who boycott air-freighted beans think they are doing some good for the environment. Then they go on a budget airline holiday to Prague the next weekend,' adds Bill Vorley, head of sustainable markets for the International Institute for Environment and Development. 'They are just making gestures.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving/print

 

[Walter]

Buoy Meets Gore

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Global Warming: Computer models used by environmentalists predict imminent and disastrous climate change. But actual temperature measurements by high-tech equipment show something completely different.

An early scene in the sci-fi disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow," showing what allegedly will happen to the planet if we continue to ignore Al Gore's warnings on global warming, shows three of the film's secondary characters at some kind of scientific station in Scotland. They're watching as automated data buoys in the Atlantic Ocean report sudden drops in water temperature resulting from melting Arctic ice stopping the Gulf Stream, which warms the Northern Hemisphere.
"I don't understand what's supposed to be going on," says one of the three, an oceanographer.
Apparently neither do the film's creators, Gore or any of his climate-change cultists. For actual measurements of actual oceans by actual instruments have thrown cold water on the theory that such a scenario could ever occur or is in fact occurring now.
As Lorne Gunter reported Monday in Canada's National Post, the first of 3,000 new automated ocean buoys were deployed in 2003. They amounted to a significant improvement over earlier buoys that took their measurements mostly at the ocean's surface.
The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing to the surface readings taken at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.
The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoys' five years of observation, but that drop was "not anything really significant." Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.
Climate-change promoters also are perplexed by the observations of NASA's eight weather satellites. In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14C — well within the range of normal variations.
In January 2007, folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the "fact" that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental U.S. This was based on daily readings gathered by NOAA's climate data center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.
As we've reported, the locations of some of these land-based stations are suspect. One in Forest Grove, Ore., stands just 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. Another in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an air-conditioning unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.
If the Argos buoys and satellites had confirmed the greenie computer models and Gore hype instead of natural temperature variations, it would have been big news. The silence speaks volumes.

 

[Walter]

 

[Zzarchov]

Buoy Meets Gore

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Global Warming: Computer models used by environmentalists predict imminent and disastrous climate change. But actual temperature measurements by high-tech equipment show something completely different.

An early scene in the sci-fi disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow," showing what allegedly will happen to the planet if we continue to ignore Al Gore's warnings on global warming, shows three of the film's secondary characters at some kind of scientific station in Scotland. They're watching as automated data buoys in the Atlantic Ocean report sudden drops in water temperature resulting from melting Arctic ice stopping the Gulf Stream, which warms the Northern Hemisphere.
"I don't understand what's supposed to be going on," says one of the three, an oceanographer.
Apparently neither do the film's creators, Gore or any of his climate-change cultists. For actual measurements of actual oceans by actual instruments have thrown cold water on the theory that such a scenario could ever occur or is in fact occurring now.

Seriously? Thats what you lean on? Bad hollywood tripe isn't possible? No duh, everyone said that at the time.

I also heard that Clive Owen's "Shoot em up" is apparently not a realistic portrayal of firefights!

 

[Walter]

deleted

 

[Walter]

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:

"No credible peer-reviewed scientist in the world disagrees any longer that the globe is warming and that humans are causing it." - Laurie David, Producer 'An Inconvenient Truth'

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)- Richard A. Kerr
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic(Science, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003)- Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown
Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002)- W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad
Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change(PNAS, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000)- Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf
The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records(Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)- M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2003)- Stefan Rahmstorf
Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001)- Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada

An Inconvenient Truth:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September, 2007)- David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)- Roy W. Spencer

Anthropogenic:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Global warming(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)- S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)- Soon, Willie

Complete article: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

 

[Walter]

The Environmentalists' Real Agenda

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Ideologies: Once in a while the truth accidentally tumbles out on global warming activists' real agenda. That's exactly what happened at the U.N., when Bolivia's leader called for ending capitalism to save the planet.

Delivering the keynote address at the United Nations forum on Indigenous People on Monday, Bolivia's President Evo Morales told the adoring crowd that "if we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system."
Morales elaborated on that by calling for an end to "unbridled industrial development, extraction of natural resources, excessive consumption of goods and accumulation of waste."
More conveniently, he also demanded that trillions of dollars from the West be diverted to places like Bolivia, "to repair the earth."
Seldom has the environmentalist agenda to end the capitalist system been laid out so plainly.
But in reality, it's capitalism — combined with the framework that enables it to flourish, like rule of law and property rights — that has lifted billions of people out of poverty and improved the environment. Contrary to Morales' assertions, the most capitalist countries are also the cleanest.
According to a 2006 study by the Heartland Institute, free enterprise does more to protect the environment than state intervention.
"The nations that have the best track records on environmental protection and improvement are those with the highest amount of free-market capitalism," wrote Samuel Aldrich and Jay Lehr, in "Free Enterprise Protects the Environment."
Morales is a Marxist, so the environmental records of the communist and socialist systems he touts to save the earth are instructive.
After communism fell in Eastern Europe, some of the biggest revelations were about how vast the pollution was in countries where no one was permitted to own or care for land.
Getting rid of capitalism created the black rivers of China, filled Eastern Europe's skies with unfiltered coal and diesel exhaust, brought deforestation that's led to sandstorms in China, spilled oil that destroyed Siberian lakes, and poisoned land with mercury and nickel waste in large swaths of Eastern Europe and Cuba.
It also brought the still-dead nuclear devastation of Chernobyl. Diverse as these regions are, the lack of capitalism means there was no accountability or incentives to save the earth.
And, sadly, it's still that way now. According to the Blacksmith Institute, the 10 most polluted places on earth are in Azerbaijan, China, India, Peru, Russia, Ukraine and Zambia, all of which have long histories of communism, socialism or nationalist isolation, the very alternatives Morales proposes to replace capitalism.
Morales' attack on capitalism represents the real agenda for the radical environmentalists. They seek global governance and an end to private property, an unsalable concept given the record of communist countries. So they're marketing it under a new brand name, wrapped in the greener concept of "saving the earth."
Milking the West's fascination for the exotic, Morales has the game down flat. "We feel that we have the ethical and moral right to talk about these things as indigenous peoples because we have historically lived in harmony with Mother Earth," he said. "It is indigenous peoples who have defended this Mother Earth, Planet Earth."
For that, he's feted in the radical-chic circles of Manhattan as an indigenous font of truth — a real Aymara Indian from Bolivia and thus, wiser about conserving the planet than us ordinary mortals.
The patronizing attitude is obvious in statements like U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's:
"Indigenous peoples live in many of the world's most biologically diverse areas. As custodians of these lands, they have accumulated deep, firsthand knowledge about the impacts of environmental degradation, including climate change. They know the economic and social consequences, and they can and should play a role in the global response."
What's really going on with the people Ban extols is something else: "Too often their real agenda is power — power to remake the economic and social systems to suit their own command and control goals, not to serve the public good as they so loudly proclaim," Aldrich and Lehr wrote.
Romanticization of nature to promote state control hasn't had it this good since the days of Rousseau's noble savage. The only problem for environmental radicals, of course, is that sometimes the designated "savages" accidentally reveal the truth.

 

[Tonington]

IBD practicing their trademark yellow journalism. What rubbish.

 

[Walter]

Andrew Bolt
April 25, 2008 12:00am

RAIN sure is falling this week on the parade of our global warming alarmists.
Wettest of all is Tim Flannery, who was made Australian of the Year last year for wailing the world was doomed.
We were making the planet heat so fast with our filthy gases, Flannery insisted, that the ice caps were vanishing and we had to "picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof".
No scare seemed too absurd for this Alarmist of the Year.
"I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis," he groaned. But buy his The Weather Makers before you flee.
Reporters solemnly reported even this: "He (Flannery) also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years."
And when did he say that? Oh, three years ago? Yet what do I read in my papers yesterday but this: "Sydney's run of rainy days in a row - 11 - is the most in April for 77 years."
And Sydney's dams? Above 65 per cent capacity now, and rising.
How embarrassing for Flannery and others in the scary weather business. No wonder the NSW Bureau of Meteorology yesterday complained "the rain was getting people down".
I bet. So it was probably no surprise Flannery didn't turn up at the Rudd Government's ideas summit last weekend to talk more about how warming was dooming Sydney, despite being issued a gold-edged invitation.
He flew to Canada instead to tell their yokels to cut gases like the ones he just blew out the back of his jet, and talked warming with British Columbia's Premier and businessmen.
But once again Flannery picked the wrong time and place to preach his warming gospel. A local paper reports: "In some regions of usually balmy British Columbia, many were caught by surprise by a storm that moved in late Friday and set snowfall records in Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver."
How the weather mocks Flannery. He's flooded in Sydney, where he predicted drought, and snowed in in Canada when he predicted heat.
It turns out, in fact, that Flannery is a metaphor for a wider phenomenon - in which our most honoured warming alarmists are finding the weather not conforming to what they predicted.
Most significantly, the world has failed to warm above the record of 1998, and last year cooled dramatically, according to all four big monitoring centres.
And with solar activity now unusually low, a small but growing number of scientists is speculating we may be entering a period of cooling - far more dangerous than warming.
Indeed, geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian astronaut with NASA, this week put the likelihood of global cooling at 50-50.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for whipping up global warming panic, says he'd check the apparent pause in warming so far this century, asking: "Are there natural factors compensating?"
Natural factors may indeed be at play, drenching Flannery in Sydney, chilling him in Canada, and giving a cold shower to the rest of us, warning us to at least check the predictions of a Flannery with the facts outside.
Verdict? Cool it on the overheating.

 

[Walter]

Best ski season ever in North America?

Posted By: Bill Steffen on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 7:00 am
Across almost all of North America, this has been the best, or one of the best seasons ever for those who love snow. Practically every ski area…from Alaska across Canada…in the Western U.S. - the Midwest and New England saw plenty of snow; some places reporting all-time record snow. Michael Berry, President of the National Ski Areas Assn. told the AP that “This could very well be a record year”. Pictured is the Brundage Ski Area in Idaho. They just received another 10 inches of snow and they’ll be open a THIRD bonus weekend into early May. This is the first time they have ever had lift service into May. This has been their 2nd snowiest winter ever with 422″ so far. Alyeska, Alaska has picked up 826″ of snow this winter! On the summit, they still have 198″ of snow on the ground. Timberline in Oregon plans on skiing through the summer on Mt. Hood. They are taking ski camp reservations for early August! They’ve had 780″ of snow this winter and still have 237″ of snow on the ground at the lodge, where the AM temperature is 20°. Whistler-Blackcomb in British Columbia is offering skiing into June. They’ve had 389″ of snow this winter with a base of 94″. The Alta Ski Area in Utah has had 673″ of snow this season. The Snowbird Resort in Utah says they’ll be open “through Memorial Day and maybe beyond!”. Aspen Highlands in Colorado reports over 400″ of snowfall since Nov. 30 (the state of Colorado reported over 25% more snow than average this winter. They are expecting the most runoff from snowmelt in the Colorado River Basin in at least 10 years. The Killington Ski Area in Vermont reported a whopping 282″ of snow this winter. Last year and this year were the best back-to-back years for snow there since 1995-97. You may have heard that because of global warming we weren’t going to have any more snow. I can tell you as a meteorologist…first, that ain’t happenin’ now, and second that there will likely be plenty of snow in the coming years for those who want to get your skis on and enjoy winter on the slopes. Oh…if you haven’t had enough winter, you might want to go here.

 

[Walter]

 

[Walter]

When Will Media Expose Gore's Ethanol Investments?


By Noel Sheppard | May 5, 2008 - 14:43 ET

As media turn against ethanol due to the growing international food crisis, there's one idol they need to topple: Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
After all, this man has not only been strongly advocating the use of biofuels for years, but has also admitted to having investments in companies involved in such agri-business.
Of course, it's possible press members aren't convinced enough about the the connection between ethanol and rising food prices around the world that they're willing to fell their Green God.
If this is the case, might I recommend such fence-sitters immediately read Marlo Lewis's spectacular piece "Food for Fuel Is No Laughing Matter" published at the NRO's Planet Gore blog Monday (emphasis added throughout):

Both World Bank President Robert Zoellick and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Domenique Strauss-Kahn warn that the increase in world food prices could force 100 million people back into absolute poverty (defined as a household income of $1 a day or less), wiping out all the gains the poorest billion people achieved during the past decade.

The price of wheat jumped 120 percent in the past year, hitting a 28-year high in February. The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147 percent over the past year, hitting 19-year high. The price of corn tripled in the past two years, increasing from $2.00 a bushel in January 2006, to $3.05 in January 2007, to $4.25 in January 2008, and hitting $6 a bushel in April 2008.
The consequences are appalling. El Salvador’s poor are eating only half as much as they did a year ago. Afghans are now spending half their income on food, up from a tenth in 2006. In Bangladesh, a two-kilogram bag of rice now consumes about half of the daily income of a poor family. Many Haitians try to assuage their hunger by eating toxic patties made of dirt, spice, and cooking oil.
​

Astounding, as is Lewis's evidence of just how linked ethanol is to such problems:

According to the USDA, total U.S. corn production was 11.8 billion bushels in 2004/05 and will reach an estimated 13 billion bushels in 2007/08 — an increase of 1.2 billion bushels. Corn production for ethanol was 1.3 billion bushels in 2004/05 and will reach an estimated 3.2 billion bushels in 2007/08 — an increase of 1.9 billion bushels. Ethanol manufacture is consuming all the increase in total U.S. corn production, and then some.

Indeed, according to the World Bank, “Almost all of the increase in global maize [corn] production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio-fuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses.” The World Bank explains: “From 2004 to 2007, global maize production increased 51 million tons, biofuel use in the U.S. increased 50 million tons and global consumption for all other uses increased 33 million tons, which caused global stocks to decline by 30 million tons.” That bears repeating: “Almost all” the increase in global corn production from 2004 to 2007 went to produce ethanol in the United States, and in the process global corn stocks declined by 30 million tons. How could that not have dramatic effects on global corn prices?
​

Exactly, Marlo. And, this is not just impacting corn prices:

A major reason wheat prices are so high is that wheat inventories are at record lows. Wheat inventories are low because U.S. farmers, responding to the ethanol mandate, increased corn acreage by 18 percent over the past year but increased wheat acreage by only 1 percent. Moreover, corn competes with wheat not only for land but also for customers. This means that when Congress artificially increases the demand for and price of corn, wheat farmers are able to charge more for their product and still be competitive.
​

And, as there are speculative arbitrages between all agricultural commodities futures, typically when one goes up in price, they all do. With that in mind, Lewis crescendoed to a marvelous conclusion that should convince even the most "Gorish" of media members:

The one factor exacerbating world hunger that Congress can do something about is U.S. biofuel policy. Repealing the corn ethanol mandate would free up billions of bushels to feed people and livestock. Grain prices would fall — by an estimated 20 percent for corn and 10 percent for wheat, according to IFPRI.

When you get right down to it, the ethanol mandate is just a Soviet-style production quota system in green garb. Even the green tint is rubbing off as experts document how corn ethanol produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline it displaces, and how Europe’s biofuel directive is bankrolling rainforest destruction and species loss in Indonesia and Malaysia. Even Time magazine, a voice of global warming alarmism, now calls the U.S. and EU biofuel programs a “clean energy scam.”
​

And, as Gore is right in the middle of this flimflam, the time has come for media's disgust with ethanol to begin exposing those that advocated it, and are financially benefiting from it.
If it makes them feel better, they can follow such reports with another segment on Dick Cheney having run Halliburton years ago.