DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The Climate Change Climate Change

Couldn't find the old thread.

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.


Associated Press

Steve Fielding
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

web page

The US Congress better hurry up with that cap and trade legislation before they discover the emporer has no clothes.

700 scientists say man made climate change/man made global warming is BS...versus 54 scientists who say it is true, and most of the world believes the 54 scientists. Unbelievable!

A good chunk of Obama's campaign financing came from GE. GE has a LARGE "green" industry waiting to get ramped up and commercialized, and is also expected to benefit greatly from the new Health Care plan.
GE also owns NBC Universal, which comprises all of these media channels.

Do we now see why certain bits of media are very pro-Obama?



GE Turns Green

Obama's hidden bailout of General Electric

Does G.E. Stand to Gain From the Obama Administration?

CNBC SWEATS 'OBAMA-BASHING'

GE: A Corporate Sponsor

True that.

Follow the money people.

Obvious BS from the beginning.But hey it got Al Gore a Nobel Prize,and CNN a lot of viewers,so it can't be all bad.

Too little, too late? Cap-n-Trade is almost a reality...

Hmmm, no main stream media coverage...I wonder why?

I don't think it is going to slide through the Senate ..

No. It wasn't. The fact is, man made global warming is a farce, and it is now becoming known as such - although many people whose jobs are directly related the lie are still living it.

they will continue to do so until the funding for their "science" dries up.

That is a fact - a fact that will be proven soon. Won't be long till the global warming people start harping on something else.

Watch.

Do you still not see how stupid the idea of man made global warming is? Most intelligent individuals do see the stupidity in it. Those that don't see it are either looking to profit from a lie, or ignorant, OR, think they are scientifically smart.

Whatever the reason, those that believe in man made global warming are alarmists with no science behind them. That is evidenced in the growing number of people that refute man made global warming.

Facts are facts. And the fact that man made global warming is being proven wrong will not change.

Before you know it, scientists that rely on gov'tl money will be telling us an ice age is coming. (the last threat of an ice age was only about 35 years ago - and at that time an ice age was inevitable - according to scientists.)

Did I say anything about global warming? I said his statistic was stupid....

It was.

You told me I was wrong...

I wasn't.

~Lyuokdea

Whatever. You are spoon fed your information from your prof's. Everyone knows prof's are people that couldn't make it in the real world.

I'd be leary of putting my faith in professors. If it is a fact, like 2 plus 2 equals 4, yeah, they know what they are talking about. When it gets into things they can't prove - they still try to instead of saying " maybe......."

Hey, prof's have to get paid too, right?

Arch , your pissing in the wind .. You ( and I ) have been hearing this kind of stuff coming off of University Campus for how many years now ?? Remember the 60's ?

1860's or 1960's

I agree Arch

I personally don't believe mankind caused global warming, but I do think mankind contributes to makin the symptoms of it much worse then they need to be

I liken it to having pneumonia...a virus caused the sickness, but smoking a cigarette sure doesn't help it any.....it the same formula here..man didn't cause it, but we sure are helping it get worse.

I am not for the Cap and Trade though, we have to be reasonable here............we can't just throw out all manufacturing and cars at one time

instead this should be a slow transition period that should have a 50 to 60 year leeway where we slowly migrate to something else, training new workers, and implementing new technologies

we can't just do this all at once, its impractical....

You Sir , stab me to the quick Some times my body feels like the 1860's !

I know the feeling bro

GE makes a lot of products, including medical machinery and instruments.

At least the moons not on a trajectory to smash into the Earth yet.

To the original poster I think this is the original thread and article you were referring too.

http://www.theclimatescam.com/2008/04/15/un-asked-to-admit-climate-change-errors/

Here's the article:

UN asked to admit climate change errors
by maggie

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14


14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

***Note: the graph doesn't provide a link by itself***

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and


The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl...search/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/11/global-warming-update-earth-brink-ice-age

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
January 11, 2009 - 12:57 ET

As Democrats and their president-elect -- with invaluable assistance from their media minions -- continue spreading climate hysteria in order to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, a possibly inconvenient truth has just been presented to the international community: "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science."

Additionally, the entire bogus manmade global warming theory that climate alarmists and their surrogates have been forcing down the throats of the citizenry "is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change."

Such was reported by Russia's Pravda Sunday, and it not only goes quite counter to the junk science being espoused by folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his accomplices James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, but it has also been regularly proffered by many of the real scientists and climatologists around the world that global warming loving media not only refuse to cite and/or interview, but also disgracefully ridicule as deniers and flat earthers.

According to Pravda, it is Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, and all their sycophant devotees that are the flat earthers who are distracting the world from a much more serious climate threat (emphasis added throughout):


The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Sounds much like what the realist side has been saying for years, doesn't it? But it gets better:

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

Sounds exactly like what the realists claim, and have been claiming, correct? But there's more:

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose [sic] their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from losing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

The conclusion:

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

For what it's worth, Accuweather's Joe Bastardi told Glenn Beck last Tuesday that Russia's Vladimir Putin may have cut supplies of gas from the Ukraine to Europe because he believes the globe is about to go into a cooling phase, and controlling natural gas will give his country a great deal of added power on that continent.

Maybe Putin was aware of this article about to be published by Pravda?

Regardless, it's going to be very interesting to see how much this report gets covered here in America where our media, regardless of how cold it is or how cold it might get, still believe Al Gore.

Stay tuned.

Post facto thought-provoker: the climate alarmists regularly proffer that America and the world, regardless of whether or not AGW theory becomes prophecy, should prepare for that possibility. Not doing so in their view would be foolish.

Well, what if the realists who believe we're entering another serious cooling phase are right? Wouldn't it be foolish for us not to prepare for that outcome?

After all, as most American residences and structures were built during the recent warming phase, they're not prepared for significantly colder temperatures. Neither is our current electricity grid or our supply of natural gas and heating oil.

Also, it is MUCH easier to deal with warmer temperatures than cooler ones. Maybe more important, a lot more people die from the cold than the heat.

As such, using the alarmist argument that it's foolish not to prepare for a possible outcome, and given the greater consequences involved in a global cooling, shouldn't we be allocating more resources and energy to preparing for it?

How might we accomplish this? Well, with the economy in a serious recession, and Congress considering a stimulus package, how about one that offers tax credits to individuals and businesses that upgrade their heating systems, improve insulation, and install double-pane windows?

Such purchases would not only prepare the nation for a possible cooling, but also fuel the economy and create jobs.

While we're at it, as we're going to need more heating oil, maybe we should fast-track the licensing of new refinery construction so that the inventory of such will be on the upswing thereby reducing the likelihood of price spikes from future supply constraints. Such construction would also create jobs.

Of course, if we are going to need more heating oil, we should remove the current impediments to exploration and drilling both offshore and in the nation's oil shale-rich interior.

Without question, if Pravda and the hundreds of climate realists predicting a cooling are right, America needs to prepare for it. Given the current state of our economy, proactive solutions should be looked at as sound investments in our nation's future with the ancillary benefit of much-needed job creation.

Or is this too logical for global warming-obsessed politicians and media?

*****Update: NBer robertinseattle accurately pointed out in the comments section that the author of this Pravda piece has some interesting views about 9/11 that would make Rosie O'Donnell proud. In fact, Gregory F. Fegel, although being an American, doesn't care for his homeland much as depicted in his blogs here and here.

How delicious that an America-hating Truther who contributes to Pravda has a firmer grasp of climatology than Nobel Laureate Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and most of the folks at the IPCC.

Now THAT'S entertainment!!!

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.




There is also this...

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/hol.html

http://lovescapenovels.rolf-witzsche.com/ice_age.html

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ice_age

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

I'm sure the climate change debate will continue on... I do have to admit though that I'm glad we appear to be entering a phase where those with conflicting ideas are at least able to voice a contrary opinion without fear of becoming a professional outcast.

No kidding!

I can't wait till we get to the point where we strip Al Gore of his nobel prize and instead give him the Pulitzer for best fiction.

Quote:

---

Everyone knows prof's are people that couldn't make it in the real world.

---

Yes, when they hand out the diplomas at graduation, those regarded as "faulty" are shunted into the professor profession.

I'm sorry, but you do realize that we owe all of our technology, medical advances, etc. to your so-called rejects?

Quote:

---

but you do realize that we owe all of our technology, medical advances, etc. to your so-called rejects?

---

Not sure I would say "all"... I'm pretty sure Bill Gates and his associates weren't professors at the time.. the private sector has contributed...

And I don't consider those who work for universities but mostly do research to be professors... yea, they might teach a class or two because they have to, but they aren't "professors."

I don't know about you ... but most my fresh and soph-level classes were taught by TA's. Then I got the prof's later on for the last few years, who taught me the building blocks of code design and the like. As soon as I graduated, I moved into the job market, disregarded pretty much everything I had just learned ... and proceeded to learn more in 4 months than I did in 4 years of college.

What arch is saying has some grain of truth. Most of the profs I know either wanted to be a prof from the get-go ... or couldn't get a job in the real world, so they just turned around and went back to school for a few more years.

J/C

I'm not quite sure I see whats wrong with looking for ways to reduce fossil fuel usage. Besides being a national security issue, it's also a health issue.

Internal combustion engines produce carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Neither of which is healthy. I think you all remember that China had to lock down factories and cars just to people could breathe in Beijing for the Olympics.

Global warming or not, there is quite a bit to be said for reducing fossil fuel emissions.