Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Walter]

A Scientific Basis for Doubting Man-made Global Warming
By Michael R. Fox, 11/14/2007 1:34:58 PM
The scientific basis for challenging the theory of man-made global warming is large and expanding. Entire books are being written summarizing the many weaknesses. However, for an excellent 12 page summary of some of these weaknesses a recent paper by Willie Soon, Art Robinson, and Noah Robinson, (SRR) is difficult to match.
The paper is hard-nosed science at its best -- http://tinyurl.com/2ca6q The paper zeroes in on the alleged relationships between global temperature and man-made CO2 increases in the atmosphere. As we are witnessing from wide spread media-driven political correctness regarding global warming, one of the prevailing hypotheses posits that man-made CO2 is causing an increase in global temperatures. This relationship, although widely accepted, is also highly questionable.
Most people do not appreciate the simple rules of science, of hypothesizing, predicting outcomes, collecting data, testing hypotheses, replication of findings, discussions, peer reviews, etc. Thus, when an advocate, who in this case a leading lawyer, a also a scientific imposter claims impending doom, huge doubts and red flags are raised. When Mr. Gore says that the scientific debate is over, he is making a statement of uninformed hope that the testing and review will stop. This is not science. And by the way there has been little debate either. Gravity is yet to be understood. We can only describe it, but not its origins. Questions about this mysterious force have been pondered for centuries and still continue. We do not understand the causes of cancer, arthritis, lupus, or the common cold; only describe them and some symptoms. We do not completely understand the phenomenal chemistry of life, of reproduction, aging, immune systems, and the other systems of the body. Discussions have lasted for decades and longer. There are hundreds of other areas of research which are at the interface of the known and the unknown. None of these debates have ended and won’t for decades. To declare that the debate of global warming is over is stupendously silly and ill-informed. Given some of the solutions that are being proposed, it is also dangerous to our economy and our way of life.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b9172d65-e431-4390-9660-954038395cbf

 

[MikeyDB]

You must live in a unheated wood shack with no running water. Your life will be short and miserable. The rest of us will enjoy the fruits of industrialization, thank-you very much.

Well Walt actually I don't live in an unheated wood shack, and those "fruits of industrialization" allow me to participate here at CC from my tent.

You're a persistent if not entirely erudite proponent of the idea that global warming has nothing to do with billions of tons of pollution pumped into the atmosphere and oceans of the world for the past hundred years...

You could be right....please understand this now Walt....I DON'T CARE

Creating a hullabaloo about man-made vs "natural" occuring climate change conveniently sidetracks the obvious and readily observable behaviors of the human species that are destroying this planet....

Good job Walt....

 

[Walter]

What about the poles?
By Dennis T. Avery
web posted November 19, 2007
"The relentless grip of the Arctic Ocean that defied man for centuries is melting away," warned Doug Struck in the Washington Post. "The sea ice reaches only half as far as it did 50 years ago. In the summer of 2006, it shrank to a record low. This summer, the ice pulled back even more, by an area nearly the size of Alaska."
NASA's James Hansen keeps claiming that CO2 is "pushing the climate past its tipping point."
British banks are sending "volunteers" to the Arctic to see for themselves the loss of sea ice, and to view the "endangered" polar bears—whose numbers have tripled in recent years.
Ho hum. Just another day at the scare factory.
Point one: We've known for 20 years about the earth's moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle, which we discovered in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The ice shows seven previous global warmings in the past 12,000 years. Two of these—8,000 years ago and 5,000 years ago—were, for many centuries, substantially warmer than today. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps didn't melt.
Point two: This can't be global warming. 1) The Arctic was also warm in the 1920s; the Russians say it happens every 70 years or so. 2) The Antarctic Ice is now at a modern high. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, according to Peter Doran's 2002 paper in Nature. Thanks to warming's additional snowfall, the East Antarctic ice cap is currently gaining about 45 billion tons of ice per year.
Neels Reeh of the University of Denmark says that another 1 degree C of warming would melt enough Greenland ice to raise sea levels perhaps half an inch per year—but added ice in the Antarctic would lower sea level almost that much. The net increase has been six inches per century, and it isn't expected to change.
Why not? Cliff Ollier, well-known geoscientist from the University of Western Australia, writes to say that Hansen is just a climate modeler who doesn't understand either ice caps or their melting. He thinks the whole ice cap melting thing is a figment of the climate modelers' computerized imaginations, conjured up to ensure that we're properly frightened of global warming. Otherwise, the grant money might dry up.
If the media only reported facts, who would be frightened about sea levels rising at the current rate of six inches per century? Who'd be frightened by the earth warming just two-tenths of a degree C over the past 70- years?
Ice caps don't melt from the surface down, they melt only at the edges. Once the edges are melted, further ice loss depends on the uphill weight of the ice built up over previous centuries. The ice flows—reluctantly because it's so cold—on the warmer ice at its base, with the upper, brittle ice carried downhill by its own weight. When a chunk of ice reaches the edge of the cap it falls off—and the AP writes a news story. That's neither melting nor collapse.
The Greenland ice cap is 2–3 kilometers deep and much of its ice lies inside a basin that won't slide off. Its undisturbed ice dates back at least 105,000 years. The temperatures over the ice are well below freezing, at about -30 degrees C in the north, and -20 degrees C in the south.
The Antarctic ice cores date back more than 760,000 years, in the coldest place on earth. The lowest recorded temperature was -89 C at Vostok in 1983. The highest Vostok temperature taken was -19 C in 1992—still far below freezing.
By the way, even the southernmost polar bear population is doing fine in the Davis Strait, with higher numbers and some of the largest bears yet seen.

Dennis T. Avery was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the national intelligence medal of achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book, Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues, Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.

 

[Walter]

Swiss Snow Makes 50-year Record

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

Swiss ski resorts are expecting a record season after promising early snowfall, it has been reported.

Ski break spots including Davos, St Antonien and Braunwald have experienced exceptionally strong snowfall for so early in the season, swissinfo has reported.

Last weekend, some 62 cm of the white stuff fell in the eastern resort of Davos, while St Antonien received 64 cm and Braunwald got 72 cm of snow on Sunday, states national weather service MeteoSwiss.

According to the report, Switzerland has not received such a strong start to its winter ski season since 1952, with the amount of snow being swept to the southern areas by the wind cited as a particularly interesting feature of the weather.

Resorts are said to be anticipating a busy ski season, with many readying themselves for a rush of bookings as reports of the good weather disseminate.

The Ski Club of Great Britain described the prospects for Verbier, Saas Fee and Engelberg as "promising" last week.

 

[EagleSmack]

Ignore what is happening in Switzerland. The Earth is warming... so sayeth the Religion of GW.

 

[coldstream]

The more evidence that GW is a FRAUD, a political concoction, that appears.. the more shrill and hysterical the cries of these ecowizards of DOOM..

utter nonsense.. GW.. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

The 'evidence' is left wanting. Delusional. If the theory is wrong, why is it that there hasn't been a replacement for the theory? Are greenhouse gases a figment of scientists imaginations? Are nutrient cycles a fairy tale? Why is there no encompassing proposal put forward by skeptics-in place of the centuries of meticulous physics that say otherwise-that is in agreement with observed measurements?

 

[coldstream]

The most damning evidence of that GW is a hoax, better described as a criminal fraud.. is that the ecological history of the planet shows that carbon in the atmosphere.. through the eons.. has gone up AFTER rises in temperature.. not before. This of course turns to utter RUBBISH the climate models that are the basis the GW theory. It completely inverts the hypothesis. There are many climate scientists who have pointed out the glaring fallacies of the GW theory.. but they are silenced by the press.. who continue to pander to ecofascists who support it.

Kyoto, with its carbon credits has manged to co-opt large segments of the neoliberal establishment, which stands to make big money from trading them

Only FOOLS like Al Gore, and UN coopted 'scientists' believe in GW.. and they do so by betraying all of their scientific methods and principles.

If you really want to know the cause of GW Hysteria.. you can look to the state of western civilization.. in economic, social and spiritual crisis.. and an easy mark, for a lot of people, to believe in any nonsense regardless of merit.

 

[Zzarchov]

First it was "Global Warming is a myth"

Then it was proven true, in a very easy to prove manner.

Now its "Man-made Global Warming is a myth".

You know what? Even if "man-made" is a myth, the ability to cause man-made global cooling is not.

Who cares WHY the earth is heating up. It is, and its bad for our economy, our health and our very lives. We have the ability to cool it.

Debate should be over.

It would be like argueing over whether your house is on fire due to nature or arson, who cares, call in the fire department and put out the fire. Worry about who to blame and who should pay for it later.


Note to Eaglesmack:
Yes, we will ignore anectdotal small scale evidence from Switzerland. It rains in many parts of the world during droughts as well.

How about the fact that the North West Passage, a fabled joke, is now a reality? Kind of a larger issue isn't it? I mean, simply in terms of geography.

 

[Tonington]

The most damning evidence of that GW is a hoax, better described as a criminal fraud.. is that the ecological history of the planet shows that carbon in the atmosphere.. through the eons.. has gone up AFTER rises in temperature.. not before. This of course turns to utter RUBBISH the climate models that are the basis the GW theory. It completely inverts the hypothesis. There are many climate scientists who have pointed out the glaring fallacies of the GW theory.. but they are silenced by the press.. who continue to pander to ecofascists who support it.

I don't even know how many times I've responded to this now. It simply doesn't matter what happened in the past, because it has little to do with what is happening now. That past change has however provided the information needed to determine how strong climate forcings are.

If a glass of water is knocked over by a person last week, which we know, and we come across another glass of water on the floor this week, is it logical to assume that the same person knocked it over?

In the past, there was no liberation of stored hydrocarbons. There were orbital changes, and changes in solar forcings among other events. What is happening now is not related to those at all. Temperature is not increasing before increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It is the other way around. We know for a fact that trace gases have strong effects on the climate system.

So the historical causes are irrelevant, because the situation is not the same, therefore bares no semblance. If dinosaurs were burning fuel, or our ancient ancestors were burning fuel, well then there would be something to compare to.

 

[darkbeaver]

You must live in a unheated wood shack with no running water. Your life will be short and miserable. The rest of us will enjoy the fruits of industrialization, thank-you very much.

Actually for most of the year I live in a wooden shack it is heated and it does have running water(de tank is upstairs) and you can have the industrialization I don't use if you like.

 

[Walter]

Global Warming, Or Global Con?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: A U.N. that can't save the world from war, famine, disease and pestilence now releases a report saying global warming will cause all of the above — and it's your SUV that's doing it.

Related Topics: Global Warminghttp://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1802
The fourth and final assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reads like the Bible, but gospel it is not.
It is a "consensus" in that it started with a foregone conclusion — that man-made pollution is dooming the planet — and gathered in any and all opinions that supported it.
The report incredibly warns that the 630,000 cubic miles of the Greenland ice sheet will virtually disappear in the near future, raising sea levels by almost 30 feet, and the Amazon rain forest will become a dry savannah.
There will be widespread species extinction, as up to three-fifths of wildlife will die out. The Great Barrier Reef will die.
And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the report's release Saturday in Valencia, Spain, told the Independent, a British newspaper, that he found the "quickening pace" of global warming "very frightening."
He did not say if he found the "quickening pace" of Iran's nuclear bomb program "very frightening," or explain exactly what he's doing about it right now.
From genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan to wars and rumors of wars in the Middle East and the Balkans, the U.N. has done little to protect the human species as millions die at the hands of despots that sit on its human rights panel.
If Ban wants to prevent famine and disease, let him get busy in Darfur, which he also has blamed on global warming.
Indoor spraying of DDT in Africa could save millions from malaria. Bio-engineered foods could save millions from hunger. The billions wasted on climate change research could provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet.
The Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobel Prize winners), figured that money spent on things like micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification produces 50 to 200 times the benefit for the human species than spending money to effect imperceptible declines in the Earth's temperature.
Wealthier societies are healthier societies, and the key to ending poverty, hunger and disease is economic growth.
It is wealthy societies that can develop and afford the technologies to use energy more efficiently and clean the air and water and feed the hungry.
The U.N. report equates the devastation unleashed by the Industrial Revolution it seeks to repeal with the global impact of a comet striking Mexico's Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago.
But that just shows the power of natural events, not the threat posed by man. We have repeatedly noted the repeated warming and cooling of the earth without intervention by man.
Our growing world needs more energy, not less. To even keep per capita emissions the same, much less reduce them, would mean freezing everybody's living standards and condemning the world's poor to permanent poverty.
And for what?
Accepting something like Kyoto, which would dismantle our thriving free-market economy while reducing global temperatures by an estimated 0.04 degree Celsius over the next century, an amount too small to measure.
It would achieve this trifling result only at the cost of literally trillions of dollars over that time — money that will not come from some imaginary place or "global resources," but out of your pocket.
After all, when the U.N. grandly says "we must work together," what it's really saying is, "Americans must foot the bill."
The U.N. would do better to support things like the indoor spraying of DDT in the Third World to fight the rampant malaria that kills millions or bio-engineered crops that promote health while fighting hunger and famine, and oppose things that suppress the economic growth the world needs.

 

[coldstream]

So the historical causes are irrelevant,

This is what the Global Warming industry has descended to. It is willing the forget history, forget science, forget method.. all to push what is a purely political agenda. One that will cause economic collapse if implemented.

Understand that there is no crisis of world climate, merely the normal fluctuations we have seen and will continue to see. We as humans are having an absolutely negligible effect on the climate. A major volcanic eruption will be many fold of what humans do over the course of a century, yet its effect might be a minor cooling of 2 or three years.

The crisis we have is one of deep pessimism, bordering on panic that has sociological rather than empirical grounds. You will not be able to convince GW fanatics, because they have moved beyond proof, and now accept it as an article of faith.

Oswald Spengler, in his book Decline of the West predicted that science, in a disintegrating civilization would abandon it proofs and methods and resort to politically and culturually charged belief systems. He predicted that they would divorce themselves from technology, the fundamental inspiration of science.. and resort to purely ascetic perceptions, increasingly bleak as to the role of industry and technological advancement.. and no longer be held to utility.

We all this coming to pass with the scientific idoltry of Global Warming.

 

[Tonington]

This is what the Global Warming industry has descended to. It is willing the forget history, forget science, forget method.. all to push what is a purely political agenda. One that will cause economic collapse if implemented.

Absolutely not. The history has allowed us to derive how the system responds to changes. It's only irrelevant in this case because the causes are not the same. The science is still the same.

Understand that there is no crisis of world climate, merely the normal fluctuations we have seen and will continue to see. We as humans are having an absolutely negligible effect on the climate. A major volcanic eruption will be many fold of what humans do over the course of a century, yet its effect might be a minor cooling of 2 or three years.

Horse $hit. There is no normal fluctuation right now. Sure there were periods of high and low greenhouse gas concentrations, driven by natural variations in seismic activity and orbital/solar changes amongst the other causes. That's not the case now. We're burning that carbon which was taken from the atmosphere and oceans millions of years ago. Natural variation has nothing to do with what we're doing, liberating stored carbon.

The crisis we have is one of deep pessimism, bordering on panic that has sociological rather than empirical grounds. You will not be able to convince GW fanatics, because they have moved beyond proof, and now accept it as an article of faith.

Who is going on faith here? You're repeating the standard talking points, almost verbatim. Who is it you're getting your information from? Do you read the journals, or do you trust bloggers and media for your take on the situation? If you're not reading papers, or fact checking your talking points here, then it is you who is operating on faith. My opinion will change the moment that the new studies start to show that the past century of science is incorrect. Going all the way back to Tyndall. And lets be clear here. That is a hell of a lot of science to disprove.

There is a satellite sitting in a warehouse, built for $100 million by NASA, which has been abandoned. It was built seven years ago, and now NASA has said it will not launch the satellite, citing competing priorities. The satellite, known as DSCOVR, would sit at a point in space where it can monitor the sunlit side of earth 24 hours a day. This satellite would once and for all settle the issue of solar influence on the current climate system. The President has many times shown his aversion to science, including stifling government scientists. Now NOAA has formally requested the satellite, if NASA won't use it. NASA has yet to respond, likely more political pressure.

 

[Walter]

Global warming is not about to unleash hell on us

November 21, 2007

Long-time British chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, addressing the New Zealand Business Round Table
AS it is, the temperature projections (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does come up with in its fourth and latest report range from a rise in the global average temperature by the year 2100 of 1.8C for its lowest emissions scenario to one of 4C for its highest emissions scenario, with a mean increase of slightly under 3C. The average annual temperature in Helsinki is less than 5C. That in Singapore is in excess of 27C, a difference of more than 22C. If man can cope with that, it is not immediately apparent why he should not be able to adapt to a change of 3C when he is given 100 years in which to do so. Let us look at the gloomiest of the IPCC's economic development scenarios, according to which living standards ... would rise, in the absence of global warming, by 1 per cent a year in the developed world and by 2.3 per cent a year in the developing world. It can readily be calculated - using, to repeat, a cost of global warming (based on the gloomiest IPCC warning) of 3 per cent of GDP in the developed world and as much as 10 per cent in the developing world - that the disaster facing the planet is that our great-grandchildren in the developed world would, in 100 years, be only 2.6 times as well off as we are today, instead of 2.7 times; and that their contemporaries in the developing world would be only 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times as well off. And this, remember, is the IPCC's very worst case.
The major cause of ill-health, and the deaths it brings, in the developing world is poverty. Faster economic growth means less poverty but - according to the man-made CO2 warming theory, incorporated in the IPCC's scenarios - a warmer world. Warmer but richer is in fact healthier than colder but poorer.
The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense. And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.
We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.

 

[Walter]

Baby, it's so cold outside

Article from: </IMG>

• Font size: Decrease Increase
• Email article: Email
• Print article: Print

Andrew Bolt
November 21, 2007 12:00am

GLOBAL warming alarmist Dr Graeme Pearman tells you to look out of your window for proof that warming is wrecking our world.
Or, as the CSIRO's former head of atmospheric research put it in his best booga-booga voice: "They talk about climate change being on the radar. But it's not. It's right outside the window."
What? The monster is outside my window? Right now?
Stopping only to grab a golf club, I fling open my curtains and see ... gasp! A typical spring day, with warm wind and a garden still green from the welcome recent rain. No hurricanes. No fireballs. No bloated hailstones the size of Al Gore's head.
Of course, other scaremongers will say I'm just looking out of the wrong window. Devastating man-made global warming is here, they insist, and causing terrible, terrible suffering.
They sound so very sure of it that you'd think they could pick, ooh, dozens of examples of this present cataclysm that are so obvious, so incontrovertible, that sceptics like me will slink back into our irresponsibly airconditioned homes, flushed from shame and an eerily hot sun.

Rest of article: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22793251-5000117,00.html

 

[Locutus]

Man, this thread is harder to kill than Osama. :lol:

 

[Walter]

Man, this thread is harder to kill than Osama. :lol:

The evidence against AGW keeps mounting.

 

[Tonington]

Hah. That's funny.

 

[Extrafire]

First it was "Global Warming is a myth"

Then it was proven true, in a very easy to prove manner.

Now its "Man-made Global Warming is a myth".

Well, actually it depends where you start measuring. Over the last 6 million years it's a cooling trend. (Back then it was up to 10 degrees C warmer than now). Over the last 400,000 years it's a cooling trend. Over the last 16,000 years (which includes an ice age) it's a warming trend. Over the last 10,000 years it's a cooling trend. Over the last 2000 years it's a cooling trend (and a faster rate than the last 10,000). Over the last 700 years, it's neither, it's stasis. Over the last 150 years it's a warming trend. Over the last 8 years it's stasis again.

So, where should we measure from? The last 8 years is too short, as is the last 150 years because there are lots of ups and downs withing the longer periods of similar warming and cooling. They are statistically insignificant because they are well within fluctuations of long term trends and are absolutely not unusual.

You know what? Even if "man-made" is a myth, the ability to cause man-made global cooling is not.

Theoretically it isn't, but as yet there's no proven way to cool the earth, or any reason to want to.

Who cares WHY the earth is heating up. It is, and its bad for our economy, our health and our very lives. We have the ability to cool it.

Historically, it has been much better for us when warmer, in health, economy and lives. There is absolutely no question about that.

Debate should be over.

Scientists always welcome debate. Only politicians and activists with an agenda want to limit debate because they worry it will derail their plans.

It would be like argueing over whether your house is on fire due to nature or arson, who cares, call in the fire department and put out the fire. Worry about who to blame and who should pay for it later.

Except it's more like the alarmists are arguing that the house is on fire when in fact, it is not.

Note to Eaglesmack:
Yes, we will ignore anectdotal small scale evidence from Switzerland. It rains in many parts of the world during droughts as well.

How about the fact that the North West Passage, a fabled joke, is now a reality? Kind of a larger issue isn't it? I mean, simply in terms of geography.

The northwest passage was also open in the 1930's when it was warmer than now, as well as at the end of the 19th century for a brief period.