Global Warming

[sjslhill]

I guess it's not a good thing to go here.

[Dr. Jet]

:iagree: Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by those who stand to profit from the resulting government regulations and taxation.

Don't worry boys and girls, I will not go off on another political diatribe. The other one is more than enough for this author........... :zip-up:

[Bill-SOCAL]

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming

:iagree:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

thanks,
Steve

Maybe you want to check the fact first rather than simply regurgitate misinformation.

Here is what the American Physical Society has to say:

APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged


The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

http://www.aps.org/

I mean really, doesn't ANYBODY ever actually check if something is true before rushing to post it simlpy because you agree with it??

[avengersteve]

oh christ.. so it gonna get hotter and wetter.. i guess we will just evolve like always.

[Bill-SOCAL]

:iagree: Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by those who stand to profit from the resulting government regulations and taxation.


Exactly. Except for the fact that you are misinformed. The mistake you make is thinking that global warming was invented or dreamed up by politicians. That is absolutely wrong. The primary researcher that got the ball rolling is the Chief Climatologist at NASA, Dr. James Hansen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Please explain to me how he will benefit from global warming and how it serves him as a political agenda.?

Other scientists involved in the research and study of global warming also have little to gain from the situation, except perhaps the continuation of the research.

You guys just get lost in the fact that Al Gore is involved and since you hate Al Gore then the whole deal must be BS.

Now ask yourself who benefits from pretending that global warming is as you put it, a hoax? Well, that would be the oil companies, the coal companies, power companies, and other business ventures involved in the production and consumption of carbon based fossil fuels. And if you can't trust the oil companies, then who can you trust??

Now the political question is what do we do about it, if anything?? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that man is having an accelerating influence on the natural rhythm of global climate change. The real question is if this is something we need to be worried about.

So rather than spend time arguing the facts, shouldn't we be spending our time considering what we can do, and determining if there is anything that we should do in the first place??

The climate of the world is absolutely changing. But is that necessarily a bad thing?? That is the question I want answered.

[Dr. Jet]

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

________________________________________


http://www.thelocal.se/12580/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-warner-debate-senator-rohrabacher-do-you-really-think-the-world-is-filled-with-morons/
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1696
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010607
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

[Dr. Jet]

Now ask yourself who benefits from pretending that global warming is as you put it, a hoax?

It is the people selling "carbon credits", getting tax breaks for "green" projects (some may be valuable, some may be a complete waste), and similar ventures. Not to mention entire new government departments with huge staffs of cubicle-dwellers making a living off MY tax dollars with no benefit to anyone but themselves. In government employees jargon it's called "empire-building". Employ a large staff, get promoted, get a bigger budget, employ more staff, get promoted, get a bigger budget and so on ad infinitum.

Just what we need. More layers of government regulating something we can not control or even quantify. I'm not saying there is no warming, we go through the warming/cooling cycle every 10,000 years or so. In 1978, the New York Times warned of certain doom due to global cooling. A concensus of scientists agreed. We were all going to die.

I fly over the Sierras and see evidence of glaciers, long gone. Greenland used to be green. They grew wine grapes in England during the middle ages. The earth's temperature changes, but it's not because I drive my 6-wheel drive Pinzgauer (makes a Hummer look wimpy) or use incandescent light bulbs.

P.S.

Bill,

Just because I think you are sadly misguided and an ill-informed consumer of left-wing propaganda, it doesn't mean I don't consider you as a friend. I actually enjoy this political banter. I will never convince you to see things my way, and you will never see things my way, but you are more than welcome to come race boats and have some fun with the SLOBS. We promise not to talk religion, politics or sex. :beerchug:

[Doby]

Hey, whats wrong with talking about sex ??????????????????????????????

[Dr. Jet]

Hey, whats wrong with talking about sex ??????????????????????????????

Bill is of the male persuasion and so am I. This isn't some "Brokeback Mountain" thing we SLOBS engage in. :rofl:

[Bill-SOCAL]

I am glad you cited Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte. Here is what the scientific world has to say about his "research"

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be

Beyond that you have committed a basic error in reviewing scientific works, and that is the error of generalization of expertise. The good doctor is just that, a doctor. A medical doctor. He is not qualified to even be doing the review he has done. Now I imagine that if you needed surgery you would go to a surgeon and not a climatologist, but somehow you will take the word of people outside a field of study when it comes to sustaining your preconceived beliefs.

I know you love to cite a barrage of links, but again you never delve into the links themselves. For instance the link to Dr. Art Robinson's famous petition fails to acknowledge that the very project that he did was in fact financed to a large degree by oil companies. In addition, he admits that he himself has not done any research into global warming.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

All I can say is that we will once again reach an impasse on this subject. You fervently believe that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by villainous politicians. I see the deniers as tools of those that will profit from denying global warming.

I still maintain that it is counter productive to discuss the IF of global warming. It is happening. The question is still can we and/or should we do anything about it.

[sjslhill]

deleted

[sjslhill]

nah

[ghostofpf1]

Anyone denying that we have an impact is shortsighted enough that they can't see past their front porch..hell even my dog is smart enough not to defecate in her food bowl...

last post in this subject..most I get caught up with in these discussions indeed can not see past their own veranda instead posting others hyperbole and propaganda claiming them as their own independant thoughts ...parrots..:tape:

Have fun
Ghost

[sjslhill]

nah

[sjslhill]

woops

[avengersteve]

MY .02 global warming is a non issue. all it means for me is my sweet potatoes will grow better and better. and i may loose some weight

[sjslhill]

It's going to have to change first...look at the graph, it's going the other way at the moment.


MY .02 global warming is a non issue. all it means for me is my sweet potatoes will grow better and better. and i may loose some weight

[NorthernBoater]

I have always been of the opinion that are many more variables in climate change that we can account for. The climate follows a cycle just like everything else does. One thing you never here about is the amount of volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Right now the levels are very low and it can account for some of the change. They are able to measure the amount of volcanic dust in the air by observing how bright the moon is during a lunar eclipse. Satellites are not suited to do this observation because they can only take a very small sample of the atmosphere.

[sjslhill]

How do they explain the mini ice age back before 1800? That's my question. Before that mini ice age, mankinds population exploded. Seems to me that heat is better than cold. From what I have read, it was the sun and volcanic dust during that period. Right now the sun is very low in activity.

[Bill-SOCAL]

I have always been of the opinion that are many more variables in climate change that we can account for. The climate follows a cycle just like everything else does. One thing you never here about is the amount of volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Right now the levels are very low and it can account for some of the change. They are able to measure the amount of volcanic dust in the air by observing how bright the moon is during a lunar eclipse. Satellites are not suited to do this observation because they can only take a very small sample of the atmosphere.

You are correct, the climate is a complicated thing. Fortunately they are getting a handle on it thanks to the mind boggling amount of computing power available today. Even 5 years ago some of the climate models would have runs for months, now they take hours to run.

With respect to natural cycles, that is true. The point that most scientists are trying to make is that man is making this natural cycle worse. The worry in that is that our contribution may drive us to an extreme that is well outside the natural variations we have documented over time. Think of lake that rises and falls naturally during a year. Then have a guy start pumping the water out during the low periods, it could get to the point where the lake dries up and changes the whole system.

Volcanoes. Always a topic. Bottom line, no real effect.

For instance, volcanoes spew about 130 million tons of CO2 each year. Man emits 27 Billion tons, or 208 times more.

As far as dust and other things that can cause cooling due to eruptions, that does happen, but it is short lived. Usually on the order of a few years. Over the long run they have no real effect. Having said that, if there was an eruption large enough it could be devastating. One of the biggest concerns is the Yellowstone super caldera in the US. If it were to let go again (it has done so in the past) it is thought that it could be a planet ending event. No lie. Think of 6 to 8 FEET of volcanic ash covering the entire US Midwest (farmland). Think of enough debris in the atmosphere that the sun is effectively blocked for years and perhaps decades. Plants die and then the whole thing goes to crap!!

[Bill-SOCAL]

How do they explain the mini ice age back before 1800? That's my question. Before that mini ice age, mankinds population exploded. Seems to me that heat is better than cold. From what I have read, it was the sun and volcanic dust during that period. Right now the sun is very low in activity.


All part of that natural variation we talked about above.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/Iceage.htm

[sjslhill]

most scientists? Do you have a list? Or as you say, are your just regurgitating information. I want to see your list, not some wicopidiea data. Anyone can post on wicopidiea.

What have you done to lower your CO2 footprint?

[ghostofpf1]

What have you done to lower your CO2 footprint?

I retired....no more commuting to work in a gas guzzler for me:banana: ..walk wherever I can..converted all my nitro burning rc junk to relatively clean electric...
what else would you like me to do...:laugh:

Like I said..anyone denying we've had an impact simply has blinders on...
good luck

Ghost

[sjslhill]

Sod House and Horse

[sjslhill]

whatya going do when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation comes for you?

the deep freeze is on

[Dr. Jet]

In the last chapter of Michael Crichton's novel "Jurassic Park" there are a few paragraphs wherein he discusses how the prehistoric earth was being poisoned by toxic, corrosive gasses, and the future of the planet was in grave peril. The primordial soup that contained all primitive life forms was exhaling this poisonous waste product into the atmosphere and it was endangering the survival of all living things. The whole point of his novel was that life will find a way to survive. That toxic, corrosive, gas that was poisoning the planet was oxygen. Go figure.

Our view of the planet is based on our own lifespan. Do the global warming fanatics like Algore have any concept of a thousand years? How about ten thousand years? A hundred thousand? A million? In geologic terms, a million years is nothing. Planet earth has been around for 4.2 billion years (give or take a few days). That is 42,000 million years (sorry Jehovah’s Witness folks). Continents move around the globe and slam into each other. Mountains appear and then wash into the sea. Land masses erode to nothing and new ones appear from the ocean bottom. The planet warms and cools in cycles. These cycles seem have something to do with a rather large thermonuclear fusion reactor some 93 million miles distant. Ever wonder how Greenland (currently covered in ice) got its name? Did you know that they grew wine grapes in Northern England? How arrogant can we humans be to actually think we can have any “global” impact whatsoever, simply by driving an SUV and using hairspray over a miniscule 50 years?

The global warming fanatics think we can save our planet by raising taxes, or increasing the power of government in some other fashion. When has government ever been the solution to a problem? Name one thing the government has done that can be considered a success. The War on Poverty? Social Security? Welfare? Campaign Finance Reform? Border Security?

Why is Algore promoting this hoax? He is making millions of dollars off of it, selling carbon credits while he flys around in his inefficient bizjet and tells you to drive a lawnmower with seats and your knees in your chest. People actually paid money to see his propaganda film. And don't forget how much he got from the Nobel prize. There's big money in it for him. Algore says there is a concensus among scientists about this. How can it be science if it is a "concensus"? I seem to recall a concensus of scientists thought the earth was flat in 1491. It didn't make it true. And why does Algore refuse to debate those that disagree?

Here's the text of an email I received during the past winter from a fellow glider pilot and retired Marine (Semper Fi George):

Cool News About Global Warming
By Bill Steigerwald
Tuesday, March 4, 2008

You've no doubt seen the stories about strange snowfalls in Saudi Arabia. A brutal winter in China. The heaviest snow cover in North America, Siberia and elsewhere since 1966.

And if you are a vigilant observer of the global warming debate, you know how inconveniently cold it is in the Arctic this winter for Al Gore and his army of climate alarmists.

But how cold is it, Johnny?

Well, NASA says recent satellite images show that the allegedly endangered polar ice cap -- which will melt completely one of these summers and kill off all the polar bears if we don't slash our greedy carbon footprints and revert to the lifestyles of medieval peasants -- has recovered to near normal coverage levels.

That's what Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, told Canada's CBC News -- the Canadian government's version of NPR/PBS - on Feb. 12.

As far as Google's search engine knows, Comiso's comforting report has appeared nowhere but in Canada.

There's even better news for polar ice-pack lovers from ice expert Gilles Langis, who says Arctic ice is now even thicker than usual in spots. A senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, he's another scientist you shouldn't expect to see talking to Anderson Cooper on the next episode of CNN's "Galaxy in Peril."

Meanwhile, in other news too climatically incorrect for U.S. mainstream media to touch, California meteorologist Anthony Watts says January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years.

Even more shocking, the average temperature of Earth dropped significantly from January 2007 to January 2008. As Watts explains on his Web site wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com, he determined the lower figure by crunching data from four major public and private global tracking sources.

You may remember Watts from last summer. He popped up in this paper and on Fox News because of his self-funded project to quality-check 1,221 ground weather stations around the country that are used by NASA to measure the "official" average annual temperature of the United States.

So far, Watts and his volunteers have checked out more than 500 weather stations (none in Western Pennsylvania) to see if their temperature data can be considered credible. As he details on his other Web site, surfacestations.org, nearly 70 percent of the sites fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc.

Watts was shocked and surprised to find such unequivocal proof that Earth's temperature has cooled in the last year, he said to me Wednesday. But he's very cautious about what it means in either the short or long run.

Calling it a "fluctuation" and "a large anomaly" compared to the 30-year running temperature average that climatologists use, he emphasized that the cold spell is "no indication that global warming is over" but does "illustrate that the driving mechanisms behind our planet's climate are still very much in control of changing the climate and that the planet's not in the death grip of CO2 just yet."

A careful, honest man of science, all Watts would say for sure was that his findings and all the strange cold-weather events of this winter prove only one thing so far -- that "Mother Nature is still in control of things, not us."


Bill Steigerwald, born and raised in Pittsburgh, is a former L.A. Times copy editor and free-lancer who also worked as a docudrama researcher for CBS-TV in Hollywood before becoming an associate editor and columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

:iagree:

Did you know that water vapor is the number one "greenhouse" gas in our atmosphere? Did you know that all the carbon dioxide (the EVIL man-made greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere accounts for only 2% of the total of all greenhouse gasses? Did you know that only 0.28% of all the carbon dioxide is man-made?

Let us assume for a moment that Scotty beamed the entire human population off this planet tomorrow, and shut down every machine in existence. The greenhouse gasses would drop to 99.72% of what they currently are.

That will certainly make a big difference in total greenhouse gasses won't it? And the only cost would be the loss of the entire human race.

Look at the environmentalist-whacko logic: I've been here on this planet for a lifetime (a few galactic seconds) and it's warmer than I remember in the past: Ergo, global warming is a fact and we must radically modify the way the civilized world operates.

Incorrect. Insufficient data. You need thousands of years (a few galactic minutes) of accurate data to make such a sweeping generalization.

The earth warms and cools in cycles, despite the best efforts of mankind. In 1978, Time Magazine had a cover story about the pending life-threatening global cooling that was predicted by the world's leading climatologists. Again we were told that it is our fault and that we must go back to living a third-world mud-hut existence. What happened to all those scientists that concurred with that theory (another hoax)?

Let's suppose for a moment that the EVIL George Bush decided he wanted to kill all democrats by warming up the planet. So he goes to Haliburton and the Department of Defense and says: "I want you to make a Global Warming Doomsday Death Weapon!" The answer would be: "Sorry George, we just don't have the technology or the ability to change the weather."

Mankind can not change the weather if they put their best scientists to work on it, so how arrogant can you be to believe the type of vehicle you chose to drive can have any (significant) impact whatsoever.

Lastly, who is to say that warming is a bad thing? We certainly could grow a lot more crops for food (and fuel) if things were a few degrees warmer. I'm certain the Canadians would like being a wine producing country, and I'd like to grow more types of bananas that I can now.

[ghostofpf1]

I'm sure the people who live in Palm Springs could adapt to 140 deg summers no problem :flame42:

Ghost :laugh:

[sjslhill]

Your not going to need to worry about it. The PDO has started and it lasts for 20-30 years. :w00t: Stay warm dude, it's going to get cold. :rockon2:



I'm sure the people who live in Palm Springs could adapt to 140 deg summers no problem :flame42:

Ghost :laugh:

[sjslhill]

And look, the people from NASA even agree.

Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode

[Jeepers]

Hmmm not sure what to make of this....... read the debates here and I have read it in many sceince magazines. here is what I know

in Pueblo we recorded the coldest Spring Season in 42 years.

This morning it was 65 degress when I left for work at 4:30 am and its 96 degrees now. This is mild for here where usually July & Aug are typicaly in the 100's every day.

[Dr. Jet]

Here's what you can make of this. The earth is going to do whatever it wants to do and there is nothing we can do to change it. Paying more in taxes, or giving the government more power will only change your liberty, and in an adverse manner.

Whether the earth is warming or cooling, we have no appreciable impact; if any at all. If you think otherwise, prove it. And proof does not mean a "concensus" of scientists or laymen with an agenda. I mean rock-solid, incontovertable proof. Like the proof that the earth is not flat.

[sjslhill]

I heard Al Gore on the radio today.....wow was he talking some of the dumbest stuff I have ever heard. You would think...
A. We had no bad weather in the history of the planet
B. No forest fires
C. CO2 never exsisted before man arrived
D. He can fly all over the world and use as much NG and Electricity as he can and it's okay.

I wonder is Obama is a dumb as Al Gore acts?

[sjslhill]

It's the last of the global warming freaks on the last iceberg telling us all....we told you so. :w00t:

[Jeepers]

I
I wonder is Obama is as dumb as Al Gore acts?


YEP!

[sci-flyer]

What a grandiose marketing scheme.
My problem with it is they're salespeople don't walk the walk.

Remember that guy who used to eat pine trees?
He managed to sell some cereal. LOL

I tried it, and it sucked! ")

[Dr. Jet]

Remember that guy who used to eat pine trees?


Euell Gibbons wasn't it? Not sure of the spelling. Didn't he die from some gastro-intestinal problems?

Algore is just a "shinola" salesman with a mouthfull of samples.

[J Solinger]

Just something to read:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_ the_debate_is_not_over.html

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html

God willing, may science prevail!

[sjslhill]

Gore’s scientific advisor, Jim Hansen from NASA, has even topped his protégé. Hansen suggests that there will eventually be sea-level rises of 24 meters (80 feet), with a six-meter rise happening just this century. Little wonder that fellow environmentalist Bill McKibben states that “we are engaging in a reckless drive-by drowning of much of the rest of the planet and much of the rest of creation.”

Given all the warnings, here is a slightly inconvenient truth: over the past two years, the global sea level hasn’t increased. It has slightly decreased . Since 1992, satellites orbiting the planet have measured the global sea level every 10 days with an amazing degree of accuracy – 3-4 millimeters (0.2 inches). For two years, sea levels have declined. (All of the data are available at sealevel.colorado.edu.)

[sjslhill]

Who voted for Sen. Boxer? She indeed is a clown.

[Dr. Jet]

Who voted for Sen. Boxer? She indeed is a clown.

Not to mention her counterpart, Dianne Feinstein. I live in a land populated by ignorant consumers of media propaganda. Ignorant is not a derogatory term in this sense. It simply means they do not know what they do not know.

The values and ideals that created this country have long since gone down the toilet. Welcome to the People's Republik of Kalifornia. There was a time when Americans said they would rather die on their feet, than serve on their knees. Now it appears that from each according to their ability; to each according to their needs, is the motto of the ignorant masses.

How sad. :crying:

[sjslhill]

In the end the sheep that follow this global warming thing cannot look for data and do any sort of thinking.....the earth has been cooling since 1998 and is going to get cooler. I am all for moving towards other energy but we cannot do it in 10 years like moron Gore thinks. The fact that Gore even has a venue is a total joke.



da, Gore said it was....it must be. Pathetic....I am done with this thread.

bunch of morons

[Dr. Jet]

Here's an interesting article from David Evans on the anthropogenic global warming hoax:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.


Have you noticed, those that believe in anthropogenic warming are changing the language from "global warming" to "climate change"? Subtile change in rhetoric to cover their bases when anthropogenic warming is refuted.

[sjslhill]

Please tell me that this is incorrect...

I find it interesting that Dr. James Hansen's computer model was used in the 1970's to predict a coming ice age and now he is using a newer version of it to predict global warming.

[Dr. Jet]

Exactly. Except for the fact that you are misinformed. The mistake you make is thinking that global warming was invented or dreamed up by politicians. That is absolutely wrong. The primary researcher that got the ball rolling is the Chief Climatologist at NASA, Dr. James Hansen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Please explain to me how he will benefit from global warming and how it serves him as a political agenda.?

Other scientists involved in the research and study of global warming also have little to gain from the situation, except perhaps the continuation of the research.

You guys just get lost in the fact that Al Gore is involved and since you hate Al Gore then the whole deal must be BS.

Now ask yourself who benefits from pretending that global warming is as you put it, a hoax? Well, that would be the oil companies, the coal companies, power companies, and other business ventures involved in the production and consumption of carbon based fossil fuels. And if you can't trust the oil companies, then who can you trust??

Now the political question is what do we do about it, if anything?? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that man is having an accelerating influence on the natural rhythm of global climate change. The real question is if this is something we need to be worried about.

So rather than spend time arguing the facts, shouldn't we be spending our time considering what we can do, and determining if there is anything that we should do in the first place??

The climate of the world is absolutely changing. But is that necessarily a bad thing?? That is the question I want answered.

Well, it looks like Dr. Jet was right all along. Who can you trust? Obviously not the scientists that share a "concensus".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

[Dr. Jet]

http://www.kusi.com/home

[Bill-SOCAL]

Sadly you are once again completely wrong. The so called "Climategate" is an absurd reach on the part of the deniers. But it is useless to argue. But still, let me at least provide this information:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

But I know you will enjoy your Christmas on the flat Earth upon which you with the sun revolving around it.

[Dr. Jet]

I'd rather be on a flat earth than worry about the sky falling. See tag line at the end of this post.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+Arctic+Happy+News+for+Mankind/article12882.htm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

[Bill-SOCAL]

OK

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025


"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

And from one of the articles you cite:


Wong's take is that melting arctic ice is responsible for the cooling of the oceans.

[Dr. Jet]

NPR??? Now there's an unbiased reference.:olleyes:

Why not just quote Tass or Pravda?

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/harvard-astrophysicist-global-temperature-corresponds-to-solar-activity/
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Anot her+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

[Bill-SOCAL]

NPR was simply reporting a story. The issue here is that you see this as some sort of political thing. You have filtered the science through your political filter and concluded that it is a hoax. Until you somehow can look at it as a scientific issue versus a political one there is little hope that you will understand that actual issues.

But what can I expect from someone who is so juvenile in their thinking that they find calling liberals mentally ill amusing. If that is the extent of your intellectual sophistication then it is no wonder you think Al Gore invented Global Warming to screw you with more taxes.

[Darin Jordan]

NPR was simply reporting a story.

I'm not sure which "political filter" is being used to determine this, but NPR is HARDLY an "unbiased" news source... I listen to them regularly, and they are clearly in need of a visit to the "No Spin" zone... :olleyes:

[Bill-SOCAL]

Well, regardless, the Factcheck.org article makes it clear that at least "Climategate" is BS.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

As far as a bias in their report, please show me where you see that.

Here is the guy they quote:

http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/people/Willis/

Here is a blog he writes:

http://blogs.jpl.nasa.gov/?p=8

A NYT report on Willis' work:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/

And his actual words:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx

So in light of this, again, please show where NPR presented a bias in their story about ocean cooling.

I like this direct quote of Dr. WIllis:


It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other's work.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Seems that somehow these hoaxers have gotten this glacier (and many others around the globe) to go along with their hoax:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/world-s-highest-glacier-is-set-to-melt-into-history-17239365;_ylt=Aod1GCrXwixOPgTac98VF6qz174F;_ylu=X3 oDMTE0amhjbW5jBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNd1ZpZGVvSHViQnJvd3Nl BHNsawN0aXRsZQ--