Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Julie

We're having record breaking temperatures here in the SE (104 yesterday), and the huge lake is drying up in the subdivision I live in, which has been in existence the last 35 years.

The problem is our records are incomplete and merely a blink of an eye in earth's history.

What is 104 years to the earth? What is 35 years to the earth? The ice age goes in cycles of hundreds of thousands of years. Greenland was really green 1000 years ago. But we don't have accurate record of that. We know this by the large settlement it supported along with evidences of large number of grazing animals at the settlement. Grazers can't really survive on glaciers. So what happened?

Just thought I'd drop this in for a read.
I'm learning more about GISS's Mr Hansen every day.

Chilling Effect
August 07, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Aug. 7, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --

Environment: Newsweek equates global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and accuses reputable scientists of being paid to create confusion in the face of consensus. Galileo is once again on trial.

Even the supporters of global warming hype found the title of Newsweek's Aug. 13 attack on skeptics, "The Truth About Denial," offensive. The use of the word "denier" is deliberate, an attempt to paint as either crazy or corrupt what Al Gore has proclaimed as Truth. Reputable scientists have been accused by a major news magazine of being paid to lie.

"Let's be blunt," said Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. "This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system."

Newsweek says "the denial machine is running at full throttle" and is a "well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists."

How well-funded? Newsweek cites Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) "giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)" to produce what eminent climatologist Sen. Jay Rockefeller is quoted as calling "very questionable data" on climate change.

No mention is made of the $3 billion contribution to the global warming crusade by Virgin Air's gazillionaire owner Richard Branson alone. Donations such as these are the reason the 2004 budgets of the Sierra Club Foundation and the National Resources Defense Council were $91 million and $57 million respectively.

Newsweek portrays James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as untainted by corporate bribery.

Hansen was once profiled on CBS' "60 Minutes" as the "world's leading researcher on global warming." Not mentioned by Newsweek was that Hansen had acted as a consultant to Al Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, that he had endorsed John Kerry for president, and had received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Newsweek reporter and editorial, uh, article co-author Eve Conant was provided, during her interview with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., documentation of the overwhelming funding advantage enjoyed by those who promote fear of climate change. Newsweek chose to ignore it.

In a Sept. 25, 2006, Senate floor speech, Inhofe noted: "The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a 3-to-1 ratio."

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter testified before Inhofe's Environment and Public Works Committee: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."

Nor did Newsweek put a dollar value on the 75 hours of free airtime that corporate cousin NBC gave Al Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance Channel, Universal HD and Telemundo. We bet it is more than Exxon's $19 million or CEI's meager $3.6 million annual budget.

It is in fact the high priests of global warming that have had a, uh, chilling effect on free scientific inquiry. Richard Lindzen, a professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T., says, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges."

In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial "for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many," namely that the earth moved around the sun. In Newsweek's view, Galileo was a "denier" of the accepted "consensus." You know the type -- hacks like Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that Earth was flat.

Deniers all.

Equating people who are disputing global warming claims with Holocaust deniers is quite literally one of the most disgusting and vial things that I can ever remember hearing.

Originally Posted by Stan187

Equating people who are disputing global warming claims with Holocaust deniers is quite literally one of the most disgusting and vial things that I can ever remember hearing.

I can't speak to that aspect of it, but the entire affair has been such a dishonest and anti-intellectual one from its very beginnings that it drives me absolutely up the gorram walls when I hear otherwise-intelligent people mouthing the "global warming" platitudes.

As anyone who's read my posts for the last 2 years knows.

-dale

A poster I met on another board (not the one I'm linking to) gave me permission to post this link here, which is an excellent resource he's developed to counter the priesthood. A bit of a one-stop shop for serious rebuttal, and well worth the read through. He also encourages posting of relevant material not already on the site.

Accumulated Global Warming Skeptic's Guide

Looks like Newsweek got it wrong... again.

Newswise — A recent Newsweek magazine cover story on global warming contained significant errors and used outdated scientific material in its representation of global climate data collected by satellites, according to the scientists who maintain that dataset at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, who created and maintain the global temperature dataset, are available to answer questions about how instruments aboard NOAA satellites collect temperature data, and about the accuracy of that data. The most recent monthly update of global temperatures shows a warming trend of about 0.25° Fahrenheit per decade (about 0.14 C) since satellites started collecting the data in late 1978.

"One of the more egregious errors in the Newsweek article is the misrepresentation of the satellite data relative to a January 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences," said Christy, who is director of UA-Huntsville's Earth System Science Center and who participated in writing the 2000 NAS report. "That report did not 'skewer' the satellite data, as the Newsweek article contends. Instead, it found that the apparent disagreement between surface temperature records and the satellite record was not so significant as to invalidate either dataset.

"There were also at least two major Newsweek errors relating to research that helped us correct an error caused by degrading orbits. First, that research (which was done by scientists and not by ‘engineers’) did not prove the satellite data are wrong while the surface data are accurate. It did help us correct a problem we had noticed but whose cause we had not identified. That is how the scientific process works. The resulting corrections, rather than being major, were rather minimal and were within our previously published margin of error.

"The other Newsweek error, which has unfortunately been widely repeated, is that the satellite data were showing no warming at the time that research was published," Christy said. "That is not correct. By 2000 the satellite temperature dataset was clearly showing a long-term global warming trend, albeit a trend that was slightly less than the warming seen in surface data. That is still true today."

"There has been significant research since 2000, continuing to both refine and confirm the accuracy of our satellite dataset," said Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center. "This research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is part of the public record. It is troubling that a major news organization devoting significant resources to a story about an important environmental issue would choose to cite data from seven years ago rather than current data, and would still get it wrong."

Newswise Science News | Scientists: Newsweek Erred in Global Warming Coverage

edit: oops, I saw the wrong date on the screen. I thought this is the new article published today which pretty much says the same thing. I will look for that article.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster, As Temperatures Climb Sharply, Sea Ice Melt Seems To Speed Up - CBS News

I love these guys.

"We don't know what else to blame..."

The sun...maybe?

They even admitted themselves, records were sketchy before 1978. And that just happens to be when the current "warming trend" started. Too bad no one was here in 1938, right after the hottest decade on record, to mearsure the Arctic ice pack.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Looks like Newsweek got it wrong... again.

"That is not correct. By 2000 the satellite temperature dataset was clearly showing a long-term global warming trend, albeit a trend that was slightly less than the warming seen in surface data. That is still true today."

Newswise Science News | Scientists: Newsweek Erred in Global Warming Coverage

Well there's a surprise

And a study I've been waiting for for quite some time.

Pollution not affecting Gulf Stream flow: study

Scientists dispute claim global warming causing current to slow down
Tom Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, August 17, 2007

A major study is throwing cold water on the idea that global warming is already slowing down the Gulf Stream, which supplies much of western Europe's warmth.

That's the idea behind Hollywood's disaster movie on global warming, The Day After Tomorrow: The flow of the Gulf Stream drastically changed and everything freezes.

Some preliminary observations have hinted that global warming has already begun to slow down the Gulf Stream.
And even conservative scientists warn that within 50 to 100 years, the Gulf Stream is likely to slow by 20 per cent, or possibly more.

But there's no evidence this is happening yet, says the study, released today in the research journal, Science. It says the decreases reported so far in the warm ocean current are consistent with natural, normal variations in the Atlantic Ocean -- not pollution caused by humans.

The giant ocean current, in fact, delivers more than eight times more water at some times than at others -- a vast difference that has been there, unnoticed, all along.

When it's in slow gear, the Gulf Stream carries four million cubic metres of warm water every second, northeast from the Florida Strait to Europe. But its maximum flow is 34.9 million cubic metres per second.

The news that this ocean current has such big natural swings has the potential to raise a political ruckus in the climate field.

Opponents of global warming theory haven't had much scientific support lately, as supportive evidence keeps piling up for proponents.

The opponents still maintain, however, that changes seen in Earth's climate are a natural variation that are incorrectly interpreted as the result of human pollution. Now the Gulf Stream study, while not denying that global warming threatens to change the ocean current eventually, shows that "natural variability" is indeed a potent force.

"Earlier estimates of decreasing circulation (of the Gulf Stream) fall within this variation, suggesting that the decrease may be part of a natural yearly trend," Science says in a summary of today's research.

Gordon McBean, a former senior official at Environment Canada who now teaches at the University of Western Ontario, doesn't think the Gulf Stream study should change anyone's mind on global warming. But he acknowledges it will likely be cited by skeptics as if it does undermine the basic theory.

"I'm sure they will try and use it," he said. "The skeptics will use any indications of natural variability that are large, as a reason for casting doubt on some observation."

Mr. McBean says this would be wrong: "You will expect to find natural variations in the ocean, and the role of climate science -- and governments need to support this -- is to make the systematic long-term observations that will put these short-term observations in their proper perspective.

"The way we use the observations of the climate system is to understand how it functions, to understand its natural and other variability. And we use that to make projections for the future. The climate we're seeing now is not the issue, so much as the climate we are projecting for the future."

The British, German and American oceanographers spent a year gathering data in 2004 and 2005. They stretched an array of instruments at different depths from the Bahamas to Africa, measuring the current's flow.

Gordon McBean, a former senior official at Environment Canada who now teaches at the University of Western Ontario, doesn't think the Gulf Stream study should change anyone's mind on global warming. But he acknowledges it will likely be cited by skeptics as if it does undermine the basic theory.

"I'm sure they will try and use it," he said. "The skeptics will use any indications of natural variability that are large, as a reason for casting doubt on some observation."

Right. Don't let data that contradict your made-up panic scenario count against it, or anything.

The Sun could explode tomorrow and these "global warming" religious nuts would still be blaming carbon. Wankers.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Right. Don't let data that contradict your made-up panic scenario count against it, or anything.

The Sun could explode tomorrow and these "global warming" religious nuts would still be blaming carbon. Wankers.

-dale

It's amazing isn't it, especially considering their whole case is built on a one-off variability

It doesn't matter if it's global warming, or the natural order of things, the Artic is melting at a fast pace. This is what I want to know....

Does everyone here have access to a boat? I do, I have two, one of which I could live on indefinitely if need be.

Originally Posted by Julie

It doesn't matter if it's global warming, or the natural order of things, the Artic is melting at a fast pace. This is what I want to know....

Does everyone here have access to a boat? I do, I have two, one of which I could live on indefinitely if need be.

My property is 80 feet above mean sea level, and I expect most members here will live above MSL. Do we have any in the New Orleans area? A report in todays paper said much of the city has just been abandoned.

Originally Posted by Julie

It doesn't matter if it's global warming, or the natural order of things, the Artic is melting at a fast pace. This is what I want to know....

Does everyone here have access to a boat? I do, I have two, one of which I could live on indefinitely if need be.

Julie,

In one post you talk about your lake drying up in another your asking us if we have access to a boat like you....

The alarmist have you where they want you. On two sides of the issue and in a heated tissy. It is the sun who is causing the warming to be sure.


Ivan