Global Warming...true Or False?

[Scheetz]

Eh, Global Warming must be true. Because its cold as shit outside so I guess thats just a side effect right?



Anyone remember the epidemic of Global Cooling about 10 years ago? Or has anyone read the article that the Weather Channel creator put out saying Global warming is a bunch of crap people made up to make money and become famous.

[anathema]

Haha, I was trying to answer both questions at the same time.

Global warming is true, since the average temperatures of the globe are indeed increasing. And it is a problem, see last line.

It is false that it's man-made, I consider the effects of the addtional CO2 gases since the Industrial Revolution to be insignificant. H2O, water, is the most abundant greenhouse gas. If anything, we should lower the amount of water in the atmosphere.

Though I consider the increase in CO2 gases to be insignificant, there's always the idea of the positive and negative feedback loops of the entire ecological community of earth.
Positive feedback loop: If CO2 traps heat, more heat yadda yadda.
Negative feedback loop: more heat, better conditions for photoautotrophs, more photosynthesis, less CO2 more O2.

The timeline does not have to show correlation between CO2 gases in the atmosphere and temperature. A timeline just shows that there is just deviation in the average temperature of earth. If you look at the time frame of 8000 years ago to present, you would see a trend in the decline of average temperature of earth.

I don't blame co2 producing stuff or my own biological processes for creating shorter snowboarding seasons. I just say hey, it's just deviation.

[Sonthert]

I only read the first two of your posts, dccrook, thick and informative! I am printing out the bbc report, too.

I think almost every scientist believes that global warming is happening, but whether man's activities are responsible or not remains to be seen...I think it unlikely.

I keep hearing the same guff, "Plant a tree, it will reduce the carbon dioxide in the air." And "An Inconvenient truth" says something like trees are the biggest recyclers of carbon dioxide or something like that. If I remember my near A.S. in biology...90% of the oxygen in the air (and 90% of the CO2 removed) is from phytoplankton, the microscopic stuff in the oceans...right? Planting trees isn't going to make a large difference at all.

I think a good number of people have the best intentions. They believe that this is science and they hear their college professors telling them its true...but is it? 100 people can tell me something is true,, until I it makes sense to me, I don't believe it. Evolution makes perfect sense to me, Einstein's special relativity theory seems wrong to me (and I found out there is evidence that it is wrong.). 100 experts, in a line, could tell me its true, and until somebody provides some reasonable evidence to prove it, I don't care who said it... Even Carl Sagan believed in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, and I respect the work Carl Sagan did AND his opinion.

Again...lets say global warming is real...how do we tell and man-caused global warming from a natural-caused global warming? If you can't reliably show that one has characteristics A,B and C and the other has Characteristics D,E and F (or ~A, ~B and ~C), you can't reasonably say its scientific. Science operates on hypotheses and antitheses. If you can't show characteristics that would distinguish between two conclusions, you can't decide which is true.

The Warming period around 1000A.D. is estimated to have been 4-5 C warmer than it is now...they're talking about 1C in warmth right now...how is that significant.

I would like to see some refutation that Earth has a natural counterbalancing system (I did read the support of the idea, dccrook)in its climate change.

[TheScotsman]

Global warming update:

Sure wish it was true...

-9f here last night.


Where the hell is Al gore when you need the beady-eyed bugger anyway?

[anathema]

Sonthert's post looks like mine but just 10x prettier.

And yes 90% or so of the O2 is created from the ocean via photosynthesis.

And that warming period? Are you talking about that warm medieval period(my history sucks, eeets so boring)?

All of this is proportions, so people say CO2 has increased 30-35% over the past 300 years. And CO2 makes up ~.04% (may vary) of the atmosphere. Then you have to factor in how much infrared radiation does CO2 absorb and what fraction of the total greenhouse gases are CO2, then determine how effective this 30-35% increase in CO2 is in warming our homes. Humans still can't predict weather, how lame.

But on the bright side we can predict where missles will be in mid-air and launch another missle to blow up the other missle. Edited November 28, 2007 by anathema

[ASUSEAN1]

Eh, Global Warming must be true. Because its cold as shit outside so I guess thats just a side effect right?



Anyone remember the epidemic of Global Cooling about 10 years ago? Or has anyone read the article that the Weather Channel creator put out saying Global warming is a bunch of crap people made up to make money and become famous.

lol


but anyways.. the ice age was only 3 degree's colder on average than it is now. so now that it is 3 degrees warmer on average now there is some huge threat of global warming? meh..

I don't think humans have caused global warming, I think it is just a normal cycle. Edited November 28, 2007 by ASUSEAN1

[Sonthert]

Here is the problem, since nobody has answered it, I have never found anybody to try and answer the question "How would you tell the difference between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate change?". The problem is, if we can't tell the difference...if we are in a natural warming period, the increases in temperature are in some part man-made and some part natural. If you can't tell the difference, how can you know how much each is?

I read the BBC article on the Global warming that gaia.plateau submitted. One thing they point out, kind of lost in the middle, squished between tow much larger paragraphs "Increases in temperature reduce the natural uptake of CO2 by the ecosystem." If that is true...how do they know that the temperature isn't just going up which is causing the CO2 levels to rise. Why is it that CO2 levels cause the temperature to go up? I'm sure they do, a little...but what if the relationship is backwards from the direction the global warmin proponents claim? Something is making the Earth warm up...what? What is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect? Water. What are the two products from the combustion of petrochemicals? CO2 and Water. So, if CO2 is a problem, water would be too. Increased amounts of water in the atmosphere could explain many of the phenomena the global-warming people are talking about. Wouldn't it affect the severity of cyclones and the distribution of rainfalls? Sure. Read into the changes the global-warming crowd says. First, I was thinking "Look at all the jobs for scientists." Could there be an economic incentive to global warming proponents? Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" says there is money to be made, like its a prospectus for a stock mutual fund. He says its goig to be big business. Its near the end. Listen to this guy carefully. The report also deals with adaptation, which I said I thought was important. Some of them though, are specifically attenuated to reducing CO2. If H20 is the problem, some of them will exacerbate the problem, like switching from coal to natural gas. If there really is a problem, we bettr be damned sure we're right before we start making expensive, costly changes that might, on further analysis, prove to be the wrong direction to go.

These people are talking about major changes in society, which is cool, if its necessary, but I am not satisfied with the proof. If the world is going to stop, restart running in a different way, I want something more than a bunch of foggy-headed scientists telling me its necessary. Technocracies are not pretty. In the same report, read the section "2. Reasons for change". It says something to the effect that a certain list of gases and other factors can change the climate. Which is true. The report fails to connect the dots...IF those factors can affect the climate, show me that the impact of man's greenhouse gas emissions is enough to affect the climate. We are just assuming that it is. This is the basis for the skeptic's objections. Man is too small and insignificant to affect the Earth in any significant degree. They are glossing over the one point that is the basis for skepticism. Are we, as a race, invasive enough to affect the Earth's climate? Prove that we are...if you just gloss over it, I think you can't prove it. It doesn't make you wrong, but it makes a logical argument highly suspect.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='Nov 29 2007, 04:18 AM' post='174426']
Here is the problem, since nobody has answered it, I have never found anybody to try and answer the question "How would you tell the difference between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate change?". The problem is, if we can't tell the difference...if we are in a natural warming period, the increases in temperature are in some part man-made and some part natural. If you can't tell the difference, how can you know how much each is?

I read the BBC article on the Global warming that gaia.plateau submitted. One thing they point out, kind of lost in the middle, squished between tow much larger paragraphs "Increases in temperature reduce the natural uptake of CO2 by the ecosystem." If that is true...how do they know that the temperature isn't just going up which is causing the CO2 levels to rise. Why is it that CO2 levels cause the temperature to go up? I'm sure they do, a little...but what if the relationship is backwards from the direction the global warming proponents claim? Something is making the Earth warm up...what? What is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect? Water. What are the two products from the combustion of petrochemicals? CO2 and Water. So, if CO2 is a problem, water would be too. Increased amounts of water in the atmosphere could explain many of the phenomena the global-warming people are talking about. Wouldn't it affect the severity of cyclones and the distribution of rainfalls? Sure. Read into the changes the global-warming crowd says. First, I was thinking "Look at all the jobs for scientists." Could there be an economic incentive to global warming proponents? Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" says there is money to be made, like the whole DVD is a prospectus for a stock mutual fund. He says its going to be big business. These parts are near the end. Listen to Gore carefully.

The BBC report also deals with adaptation, which I said I thought was important. Some of them though, are specifically attenuated to reducing CO2. If H20 is the problem, some of them will exacerbate the problem, like switching from coal to natural gas. If there really is a problem, we better be damned sure we're right before we start making expensive, costly changes that might, on further analysis, prove to be the wrong direction to go. The same thing happened with smokestacks. "Experts" insisted that they needed to be lengthened to protect the environment. Soot and grime built up around shorter stacks. It built up on people's houses. Natural conclusions. What they didn't know is that those raised stacks would just deposit the crap further downwind. Moreover, since it was higher up, aloft winds could catch the smoke more...and contaminate rain...what we now call "acid rain".

These people are talking about major changes in society, which is cool, if its necessary, but I am not satisfied with the proof. If the world is going to stop, restart running in a different way, I want something more than a bunch of foggy-headed scientists who speak with the conviction of a train-platform-preacher, telling us its necessary and its all true. Technocracies are not pretty. In the same BBC report, read the section "2. Reasons for change". It says something to the effect that a certain list of gases and other factors can change the climate. Which is true. It is 100% true, that statement. Something is missing. The report fails to connect the dots...IF those factors can affect the climate, show me that the impact of man's greenhouse gas emissions is enough to affect the climate. They are just assuming that it is. If they weren't, they would have some reference, some study, some logical, scientific reasoning. This is the basis for the skeptic's objections. Man is too small and insignificant to affect the Earth in any significant degree. They are glossing over the one point that is the basis for skepticism. Are we, as a race, invasive enough to affect the Earth's climate? Prove that we are...if you just gloss over it, I think you can't prove it. It doesn't make you wrong, but it makes a logical argument highly suspect.

[shisha fan]

i think global warming is happening, but it`s a normal cycle and humans have nothing or very little to do with it.

[HookahDude831]

here is the thing, most of the global warming activists were telling us we were going to have an ice age in the 1980's, now they are saying its global warming, its a natural change and we just need to sit back and enjoy our hookahs!

[Loki]

Global warming is good for business and a good excuse for higher taxes.
Then again... so are fossil fuels. If I invent a car that runs on water I prolly die in some weird accident and losing all research the next day.

Climate change is just a natural thing.

[Tati]

I do think global warming is happening... Mostly because I watched "the Day after Tomorrow" last night... And Im cold.

[gaia.plateau]

I do think global warming is happening... Mostly because I watched "the Day after Tomorrow" last night... And Im cold.

I got chills from that movie also... from the god-awful plot, Donnie Darko's abysmal acting, and the laughably animated CG wolves.

[MikeMike]

I'm not sure about the causes for global warming and i really don't pretend to know a lot about it, but i think that it's simply not an option to sit back and watch it happen, no matter how small the chances are that humans are causing global warming we must do something about it. Why? Because we can't just sit back and watch it happen, if we are wrong and all this eco-stuff we are doing was a waste, so what? Being more eco-friendly isn't going to do us or the planet any harm, so imo it's really not worth the risk of something bad happening because we "weren't sure at the time" Edited December 2, 2007 by MikeMike

[MechAnt]

In my honest opinion, I believe that Global Warming is happening but the hype brought to it has blown it out of proportion. I've taken multiple environmental science courses and they all point to that exact fact. It is happening, we are contributing to it, but not as much as all this hype is telling us. In our lifetime, we will not see a major change in much anything.

[Scheetz]

Here is the problem, since nobody has answered it, I have never found anybody to try and answer the question "How would you tell the difference between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate change?". The problem is, if we can't tell the difference...if we are in a natural warming period, the increases in temperature are in some part man-made and some part natural. If you can't tell the difference, how can you know how much each is?

DING DING DING


You cant tell the difference. Unless someone creates a time portal there is no way to prove that the earth's temperature was a certain degree 1 million years ago and 2 million years ago it was something different. Hell, we are still arguing how the dinosaurs died. There needs to be a scape goat. Since you cant blame it on anything else, it must be people. My money is on the damn Polar Bears. Probably tired of freezing their ass off and want a warmer climate.

Planets go through changes, stars go through them as well. That is a proven fact. The Earth will cope with it just like it has in the past.


All you have is a failed Presidential candidate looking to be in the spot light. So what do you do, take a tree hugger theory and blow it out of proportion. Now, its our fault and the cows. Don't forget they play a huge role as well. But we cant tell India to kill off their cows, they are sacred over there.


"Sarcasm"
So, what do we learn here: Quit being vegetarians and eat more meat.

[MechAnt]

Yes! Cows and their damn methane production

[btuner]

DO PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS IF U WANT MY POINT ACROSS...
This was taken directly off the weather channel website.



By John Coleman(director, founder, ceo of the weather channel)

jcoleman@kusi.com

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... It is a SCAM.

Some scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science, the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As temperatures rise, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern will all fail to occur as predicted, and everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

[dcrooksjr]

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit.

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society . �The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: �Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: �The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless � but very costly." The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system , from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra , but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

[gaia.plateau]

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit.

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society . �The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: �Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: �The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless � but very costly." The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system , from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

I only skimmed the other posts you made before, and after being unable to find any continuity of argument or understanding of what you were copy and pasting, I gave up, and so I won't comment on those. After clicking on some of the "sources" in this post, however, I just had to weigh in against this propaganda.

Firstly, one quantitative study by four university professors does not "shatter" the qualitative analysis of 15,000 scientists from around the world.

Secondly, your third link points only to several studies done before the UN or anyone else began any studies into human-affected climate change. This makes them ineffective as rebuttals.

I couldn't access the academic journal article that you posted, which is unfortunate because it is the only potentially viable source. Could you copy and paste it, or find some other way of presenting it?

So far I've seen no one in this thread, that is advocating natural climate change or non-existent climate change, post anything but copy-and-pasted dubious quantitative data, presented as fact, apart from the positions of Sonthert and Scheetz which seems to be "if you can't prove your argument beyond the shadow of a doubt, my argument is right". If someone has and I've missed it in between copy-and-pasted dubious quantitative analysis, I apologize, and please quote it for me.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra , but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

Are you actually basing your perception of reality on prison planet, one of the perhaps top 5 most radically subjective websites on the internet? They were one of the leading advocates of the ridiculous "9/11 Truth" movement that claimed there were planted explosives in the world trade centers.

Moreover, the notion that the scientists telling us to relax and ignore global warming are the ones who are being intimidated is simply outrageous, and nonsensical. They're the ones who are getting the data to keep their jobs- global warming is an economically inconvenient idea for their bosses, why would they be threatened for doing their best to save money for the powers that be?

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

This ultra-neoconservative internet press site, which also publishes the satanic evils of The Golden Compass starring Daniel Craig, is a laughably unreliable source that not only bears no relevance but throws this entire position into question.

I'm willing to accept objective information supporting natural or non-existent climate change, but when you simply shill for the neoconservatives by throwing out studies that were meant to find a specific conclusion, and that's what most quantitative analyses are; they are used because numbers are easy to manipulate and massage, you really aren't helping your position.

Edit: had to include this gem from that last source, simply couldn't resist. Posted in a Canada Free Press article about the Global War on Thanksgiving (like you need something else to be terrified of).
"A radical Leftist life Hitler could never have come to power if the German people had been thankful for all that they had."

Forget about the typo... forget about the logical disconnect at the end... Nazism and Fascism are at the extreme right of the political spectrum, not the left, as I would hope most of you understand.

I just thought that this was a perfect example of how so many right wing politicians, pundits, and academics (I don't particularly support the liberals of Canada or the US, I just find them to be more straightforward) are somehow able these days to get away with blatantly manipulating information for their argument, like labeling Hitler a Leftist for purposes of incredulatizing or claiming that the intelligent design advocating, "global warming hoax" crying scientists are the ones being marginalized and intimidated.

I personally wouldn't be tipping any hats to these guys. Edited December 12, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[dcrooksjr]

didn't know where the source was for the last thing i posted i found it on a blog thought it looked interesting.

I know for a fact it is not man made, and when the weather chanel founder comes out and says its a scam i listen.
global warming is nothing more than an over hyped natural event that they are using to try and push carbon taxes witch are not needed and i would refuse to pay.
just remenber the little scam from a few decades ago. Global Cooling was going to be the death of us all now we have Global warming.

Please...Please..Cry..Please Mr Gore, ah sire, my Lord how much money do i have to give you before i can feel safe again. Oh please save me from this terrible fate.

Mr Gore: says well son, live in a small arpartment, give up your car for a smaller one, pay your carbon taxes and use as little electricity as possible.

Me: But...But..Mr. Gore you live in a 20 room mansion witch uses uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity , fly around in private jets your carbon imprint for a years gotta take me at least 10 to match, why should i live in squaler while you live in luxury.

Gore: Because thats how it works.

Me: So then global warming in just a fraud, you make me use less so you can use more while taking more of what little money i have. You sire should be ashamed.

Gore looks very mad: Heretic! get him out of here.

This is the way i see it give me a break, when those who use the most and support this crack pot theroy start using less and show me some evidence that it exists and isn't just another taxing scam maybe i'll listen.

Remember Mrs. Crows use one piece of toilet paper to save the earth. well lets take a look at her carbon foot print from her global warming tour shall we.

when the global warming warrior hits the road, her touring entourage (and equipment) travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. Now that's a carbon footprint!

how about Travolta:
At the British premiere of his movie Wild Hogs, actor John Travolta urged everyone to "do their bit" to fight global warming, warning that "We have to think about alternative methods of fuel."

Travolta has five private jets parked in his runway (pictured above) , has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions, 100 times more than the average person in the last year, is a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas and named his son Jett as a tribute to his love of flying. So when Travolta lectures me about "doing my bit" forgive me for taking it with a pinch of salt.

Mr Gore:
Gore's 20 room private mansion uses 20 times the national U.S. average of gas and electricity , as Gore lavishes himself in his heated swimming pool while poor people and the middle class await the onslaught of carbon taxes to eviscerate any disposable income they have left.

Madonna, Gore and Live-8:
Gore is behind the spectacle of the Live-8 style Live Earth concerts that will take place in numerous cities around the world on July 7 to raise awareness about climate change. The performers who will be showcased at these concerts include people like Madonna, who owns at least 6 gas-guzzling cars including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. According to a report , last year "Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners." The singer's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year.

Red Hot Chili Peppers:


Other acts, including rock group Red Hot Chili Peppers, all use private jets yet are set to throw their stardom behind an effort to propagandize the notion that we are producing too many carbon emissions.

"If you still believe in the notion of man-made global warming, then you should be very concerned about the fact that the leading proponents of the theory are all giant hypocrites espousing outlandish and radical measures to combat climate change while fearmongering about doomsday scenarios that will befall us unless we all drastically reduce our carbon footprints, while their own carbon footprints dwarf the average person's by a hundred times or more." - Paul Watson

"Meanwhile, real environmental issues like genetically modified garbage poisoning our very food supply, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world, deforestation and toxic waste dumping, all get buried while global warming monopolizes the attention of the phony environmental movement.

No doubt there'll be several responses to this article accusing me of denying that the planet is heating up and saying I'm on the payroll of the oil companies. For those people, I would like to remind you of the fact that it was none other than Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month , to exploit the hysteria of global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder." -Paul Watson Edited December 13, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[dcrooksjr]

<h1 align="center">[b]The Global Warming Scam[/b]</h1>

by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg
by Nima Sanandaji and Fred Goldberg

The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned that the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the end of this century and that the polar bears might become extinct due to this development.

But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions are that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.

If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show an increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003.

Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of studies that go against the notion that human activity leads to global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an environmentalist view of the world.



An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

Capten Årnell at the summer expedition with the polar-ship Oden could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through the region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.

As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 900 between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing and 3 are not possible to comment about.

Global climate is an important issue to debate, but it is sad that what is communicated often has a clear shifting towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by giving them only one side of the argument.

March 18, 2006

Nima Sanandaji [send him mail] is president of the Swedish think tank Captus and the editor of Captus Journal. He is a graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Cambridge. Fred Goldberg is associate professor at the Royal School of Technology in Stockholm and was on a Polar trip whilst writing this article.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

[dcrooksjr]

Global Warming is over early this year

Snow expected across the state
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...0,5727130.story
Newsday, NY - 23 hours ago - Wintry weather began blowing into western New York with snow expected to follow across much of the state by Sunday night, according to the ...

NY ski resorts at their peak

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/trave...eir_peak-2.html
New York Daily News, NY - 5 hours ago - There are plenty of mom-and-pop hills like Thunder Ridge in Patterson, where the owner picks up vanloads of city snow-seekers at the Metro-North station. ...



Coldest winter in 15 years, Environment Canada says

http://tailrank.com/4061096/Coldest-winter...ent-Canada-says

[dcrooksjr]

'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding the thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=58767
Posted: November 18, 2007
9:55 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.


IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/de..._level_data.htm
Posted by ReasonMcLucus at 07:39 on 05 Dec 2007

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises. "Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge" in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking. Morner says that the claim that salt water invasion of a fresh water aquifer indicated a sea level rise ignores the more likely cause due to draining the aquifer for the pineapple industry. Sea level in the Maldives actually fell during the 70's according to Morner, but the area is cited as evidence of a sea level rise. He accuses Australian global warming advocates of knocking down a tree on one island to attempt to prove sea levels were rising. Morner is particularly critical of the overemphasis on computer modeling by IPCC "experts" instead of doing actual field research like geologists do. " Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing." Edited December 13, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[joseph*]

I didn't read all the posts, but for those who care about science and reality over ideology, go to www.pubmed.com, search for global climate change or global warming, and start reading the peer reviewed articles. Reading the actual research is the best way to go. I am studying biochem, not climate, but I can tell you that when I go to journal clubs or lab meetings, we don't look to places like www.worldnetdaily.com for scientific findings, as it is not peer reviewed material written by scientists.