Seeking Alpha

James Quinn's  Instablog

James Quinn
Send Message
James Quinn is a senior director of strategic planning for a major university. James has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 25-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning. He is married with three boys and... More
My blog:
TheBurningPlatform.com
  • GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD 54 comments
    Jul 22, 2009 5:01 PM

    Sent to me by a reader:

    When it comes to global warming, there is a disturbing trend emerging: "The discussion's over.  The Earth's climate is getting warmer, and we must do something about it."  This attitude is typified by Tim Barnett, a research marine geophysicist at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, who said in 2005, "New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is underway.  The debate over whether or not there is global warming is now over, at least for rational people."
    (www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516179.ece)   
     
    This pompous, overbearing, elitist attitude is appalling and has spread rapidly, particularly among elected officials, who now enjoy lampooning global warming skeptics as the "Flat Earth" crowd.  True, for most of the 20th century, global atmospheric temperatures were trending warmer until they peaked in 1998.  Trouble is, since then, global temperatures have been trending cooler, as they did in the 1960s and 70s, which prompted some scientists to predict the onset of a New Ice Age (don't these people ever get embarrassed by being wrong?).  Yet Mr. Barnett and many others have the chutzpah to declare the debate over and attack the rationality of people who might disagree. 
     
    If you Google the words "global warming expert opinions," the very first hit you should get is a Feb 1, 2008 report entitled "Global Warming: Experts Opinions Versus Scientific Forecasts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st308).  This report was written by two experts on the science of forecasting, Dr. Kesten Green from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, and Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, a PhD from MIT who is currently a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
     
    Drs. Green and Armstrong take dead aim at one of the seminal documents on which many of the global warming alarmists rely, a 2007 "Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers."  The United Nations (uh, oh) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NASDAQ:IPCC) issued this assessment, and it contains a plethora of doomsday scenarios for the year 2100 (!).  The assessment advises that, unless global warming trends are not dealt with right now, there will be rising sea levels resulting in flooded coastal areas, severe droughts, severe floods, increasingly violent storms, spread of tropical diseases, and so on.  Here are some observations by Green and Armstrong on the IPCC document.
     
    Problems with Computer Models.  Climate scientists now use computer models, but there is no evidence that modeling improves the accuracy of predictions.  For example, according to the models, the Earth should be warmer than actual measurements show it to be.
     
    Skepticism Among the Scientists.  It is not surprising that international surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries in 1996 and 2003 found growing skepticism over the accuracy of climate models.  Of more than 1,060 respondents, only 35 percent agreed with the statement, “Climate models can accurately predict future climates,” whereas 47 percent disagreed.
     
    Violations of Forecasting Principles.  Forty internationally-known experts on forecasting methods and 123 expert reviewers codified evidence from research on forecasting into 140 principles. The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report.  They found that:

    • Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
    • Of these 127, the methods described in the IPCC report violated 60 principles.
    • An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38.
      As a result of these violations of forecasting principles, the forecasts in the IPCC report are invalid.  Specifically:

    The Data Are Unreliable.  Temperature data is highly variable over time and space. Local proxy data of uncertain accuracy (such as ice cores and tree rings) must be used to infer past global temperatures.  Even over the period during which thermometer data have been available, readings are not evenly spread across the globe and are often subject to local warming from increasing urbanization.  As a consequence, the trend over time can be rising, falling or stable depending on the data sample chosen.
    The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable.  Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately.  These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting.  For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) by extrapolating past data into the future made more accurate three-month forecasts than 11 complex models.  Every model performed poorly when forecasting further ahead.
    The Forecasters Themselves Are Unreliable.  Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process.  For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC. The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific forecast supporting the widespread belief in dangerous human-caused “global warming.”  In fact, it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible.
     
    Footnote: Not only did Green and Armstrong dismantle the IPCC report, they also challenged Tim Barnett's use of computer models on ocean temperatures to forecast anything further ahead than a three-month period (see above text highlighted in red).
     
    There are many highly qualified, and skeptical, scientists who are critical of the political climate created by global warming alarmists.  Consider Richard Lindzen, a PhD in atmospheric physics from Harvard, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.  Dr. Lindzen wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on his concerns (www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220).  Two quotes from the article:

    "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves listed as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse."
     
    "In 1992, he (Senator Al Gore) ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism.......Mr. Gore, as Vice President, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists, a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate."
     
    Dr. Lindzen wasn't kidding about dissenters being targeted by global warming supporters.  Go to www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming and you will find a convenient list of 54 individuals and 18 organizations identified as global warming skeptics.  Click on the individual or organization, and there's plenty of uncomplimentary information, the favorite being the strong implication that many of these people are industry stooges, and perforce, compromised and unreliable.
     
    There's more.  An interesting story is just starting to slip into the national media (www.foxnews.com/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/).  It appears that John Holdren, President Obama's Chief of the White House Office of Science and Technology, aka The Science Czar, has some 'splainin' to do (Holdren's 50-person staff has two main functions: focus on energy independence and global warming).  Holdren co-authored a book published in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," which put forth suggestions of "a planetary regime" that would oversee population growth and control of all of the Earth's natural resources.  To control population, the authors suggest forced abortions and compulsory sterilization on a global basis, which would be enforced through an armed international police force to which all nations would surrender a part of their sovereignty.  That's so far beyond bizarre, it's in the Twilight Zone. 
     
    The stated guiding principle behind the book was, "To provide a high quality of life, there must be fewer people."  Although for different reasons, Hitler couldn't have said it better.  Holdren is currently tap-dancing while searching for palatable answers to the news organizations that are beginning to ask probing questions which the U.S. Senate should have asked in his confirmation hearing (full disclosure: Holdren was confirmed unanimously).  Best answer Holdren has come up with so far: the book is over thirty years old, and I don't support the suggestions made.  Which begs the question: Then why did he even include them in the first place?
     
    Footnote: in 1986, Holdren predicted that 1 billion people would be killed by the effects of global warming by the year 2020.  At his Senate confirmation hearing this past March, he was asked about that prediction by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.  Incredibly, he said it is still possible.  He's STILL in the Twilight Zone!  Hopefully, our Science Czar is working right now with the IPCC on drawing up contingency plans which use green methods to dispose of 1 billion dead bodies. 
     
    It gets better, and here's the real reason why Holdren suggested forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to hold down global population growth.  The co-author of Holdren's 1977 book was none other than whacko scientist Paul Ehrlich, who is an entomologist specializing in the study of butterflies, has a PhD in bee research, and wrote a 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb" (please don't attempt to make a connection between bees, butterflies and global population; you'll get a severe headache).  In the book, Ehrlich predicted that "the battle to feed all humanity is over.  In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death" due to mass famine.  Ehrlich's book was eventually discredited and is so scientifically flawed that it's laughable, but keep in mind that, in 1977, Ehrlich was still being hailed as a science guru, and "The Population Bomb" was a big influence on public policy.
     
    So there you have it.  Our nation's Science Czar, who has the President's ear on energy and global warming policy, has already hopped on a totally flawed, and outrageous, pseudo-science bandwagon on global population.  Anyone wanna bet he isn't taking us on the same ride on global warming?

Back To James Quinn's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (54)
Track new comments
  • NucEngineer
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

     

    The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

     

    The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

     

    The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

     

    The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

     

    NucEngineer
    22 Jul 2009, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Wisdom vs. Information
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    climatologists are global weathermen, not scientist. geologists have been saying man-made global warming is a hoax since 2004, and the upper atmosphere temperature studies that finished in 2007 put the nail in the coffin of the man-made theory-- yet the administration and pirates like Immelt (long GE, sorry) call it a closed subject. Obama wants to control your industrial capital and Immelt wants your money. bottom line, if you believe in global warming, you wearing the dunce hat because you are ignorant, and you are supporting the richest most powerful people become more rich and powerful. freedom comes from knowledge, get educated on the subject or you will remain Obama and Immelt's slave.
    22 Jul 2009, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Swashbuckler
    , contributor
    Comments (715) | Send Message
     
    I wonder why it is that the the most extreme nut cases (Holdren) always get elected or appointed to the very highest positions in government. A compelling case has yet to be made that man-made global warming exists, but there are legions of government bureaucrats aching to spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on the issue. When I see slam-dunk evidence, not just of warming, but MAN-MADE global warming, then I will convert to the cause. Until then, I will continue to regard it as a crock of sh#t that liberals enjoy deluding themselves about.
    22 Jul 2009, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (7891) | Send Message
     
    Computer modeling. How accurate is that. Isn't that what the economists and banksters were using that DID NOT see this market crash coming. This big of a crisis and not a whisper of it. And now they cant model us out of it. Obviously models don't work.

     

    Tennessee broke a record over 100 years old. Coldest day in July, 58 degrees today.
    22 Jul 2009, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Bruce Vanderveen
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier disappearance, atmospheric CO2 trends and sea level rise to get the true picture.

     

    To hail a cold (or warm) winter or summer as indicative of cooling (or warming) simply doesn't work. Likewise, personalities on both sides of the issue should all be viewed with skepticism.

     

    Most glaciers around the world have been retreating over the last several decades. The Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic's ice sheet, and northern hemisphere polar ice are all shrinking. Those are facts guys, even if you don't like em. The build up in CO2, a green house gas, is well documented. So yes, I see global warming at this point.

     

    Could this change? Sure, if the facts change I will change my opinion. However, I will have to see a reversal of the above trends to believe it.
    22 Jul 2009, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • NucEngineer
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. You may find it interesting what the head of the IPCC said 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures:

     

    www.reuters.com/articl...

     

    Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
    "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters 1-1/2 years ago, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
    Also in this article from 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.
    Well, we are 3/4 of the way to being significant.
    22 Jul 2009, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • NucEngineer
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    When the DOT-COM bust happened 11 years ago, a lot of people lost their shirts. Investments in junk stocks like walk-my-dog.com lost everthing. Those stocks were worthless. But there were still some stocks that were based on real value, google, bestbuy, yahoo, etc., dropped in value but did not die. Smart investors survived.

     

    Last year, the mortgage backed securities crashed because of the government required percentage of sub-prime mortgages, they crashed but not to zero. They were still based on real estate that physically exists. There is still value remaining.

     

    When the carbon credit scheme goes bust, because mommy earth decides to prove CO2 does not control climate, ALL carbon credits will be worthless. There will be no good carbon credits vs. bad carbon credits. And who will be holding these worthless credits after investing hundreds of billions of dollars? Power companies, manufacturers, bakeries, farmers, delivery companies, you name it. They will ALL go bankrupt.

     

    So, If you liked the way sub-prime mortgage debacle turned out, or if you enjoyed the dotcom bust, you will love what happens if we institute cap&trade and that system busts.
    Now
    22 Jul 2009, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • matt a laing
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    nuc,
    the canard that the government caused the housing crisis is complete nonsense.
    the only housing that the government, including republicans, tried to foster were first time buyers. those mortgages were by far the smallest granted over the last ten years. also, how did they force the banks to make the mortgages, since they can't make them loan money now?
    fannie may and freddie mac did not participate in one subprime mortgage until 2006. and then it was at the insistance of republican congressmen accusing them of failing to participate.
    wall street was buying up the mortgages as fast as banks could close on the deals. the banks knew they were making bad loans but they could dump them the same day as closing. the larger the mortgage, the more money they made. at the end, they were loaning 125% of appraised value without verifying income. but, if we blame the problem on barney frank, maybe we can avoid regulating the bankers and have a similar problem some time in the future. the free market is god.
    15 Jul 2011, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Leftfield
    , contributor
    Comments (3758) | Send Message
     
    NucEngineer: You assume far too much rationality in our leaders. They never admit wrong. We have countless government programs working at cross-purposes that go on forever despite proof they have failed. Politically correct nutcases like John Holdren never lack for government employment.
    Carbon cap & trade will never go away no matter if CO2 is found to cause global cooling! It's a matter of elites controlling the population and the discussion and they must have fun watching educated fools and useful idiots climb aboard.
    22 Jul 2009, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • James Quinn
    , contributor
    Comments (1016) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Haven't the ice sheets expanded and contracted throughout history? What caused it to contract 1 million years ago?

     

    On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:

     

    > You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier
    > disappearance, atmospheric CO2 trends and sea level rise to get the
    > true picture.
    >
    > To hail a cold (or warm) winter or summer as indicative of cooling
    > (or warming) simply doesn't work. Likewise, personalities on both
    > sides of the issue should all be viewed with skepticism.
    >
    > Most glaciers around the world have been retreating over the last
    > several decades. The Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic's ice sheet,
    > and northern hemisphere polar ice are all shrinking. Those are facts
    > guys, even if you don't like em. The build up in CO2, a green house
    > gas, is well documented. So yes, I see global warming at this point.
    >
    >
    > Could this change? Sure, if the facts change I will change my opinion.
    > However, I will have to see a reversal of the above trends to believe
    > it.
    22 Jul 2009, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Wisdom vs. Information
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    Bruce, the only reason you could have missed the facts is if you did not bother to read them. Geologists are telling you that The Earth is unseasonbly COOL right now, and will warm inevitably; satellites have PROVEN man-made global warming theories are ALL incorrect. READ THEM. Half of Florida will inevitably be under water and Greenland will again be green, just like they were 1000 years ago, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it
    22 Jul 2009, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • FrankLive
    , contributor
    Comments (124) | Send Message
     
    It is impossible to discuss science with nonscientists....they just don't get what it is about. This is a group of investors and dealing with global warming is seen as eating into profit. Obama and his crew are way to right wing to deal with the situation as it is in our country. His right wing views are a terrible dissappointment.
    23 Jul 2009, 12:10 AM Reply Like
  • derryl
    , contributor
    Comments (998) | Send Message
     
    Over the past 2.5 to 3 million years (the Pleistocene Era) this planet has gone through a series of global coolings that led to thousands of year long ice ages followed by global warmings that led to thousands of year long interglacials. There is no evidence of a similar period of ice ages in Earth's geological history, so in the really long term it looks like the planet is cooling enough for ice ages to get started.

     

    The past 10000 years is called the Holocene Era. We're in an interglacial period. Nobody knows how much longer it will last because nobody knows what caused the previous coolings and warmings, though sunspot activity almost identically tracks temperature variation over the 400 year history we have of both sunspots and temperatures. It makes sense: turn up the furnace (the Sun) and our planet gets warmer. Turn it down and we cool.

     

    There are many other factors possibly affecting our temperatures: variations in our orbit and wobble on our axis; decreased geothermal heating reaching the surface as our crust continues to thicken; migration of land masses toward the poles via continental drift, etc. But at present it looks like sunspots or 'solar maximums' and solar minimums are the primary driver of Earth's temperature variation.

     

    Ice core data show CO2 levels increasing about 800 years after a period of global warming (this data was known BEFORE Al Gore published his hugely profitable bullshit movie). The long lag time is probably due to the fact the oceans are involved in the CO2 cycle. The Medieval Warm Period, which incidentally saw my Viking ancestors break out of their frozen enclaves in the north, ended about 1200 AD, which is 800 years ago.

     

    There is not a single piece of scientific evidence that humans control this planet's CO2 cycle, nor is there any evidence beyond the 'greenhouse' theory that CO2 drives this planet's temperature variations.

     

    Even if the greenhouse theory is correct or somewhat correct, CO2 is at best a very minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is far and away the biggest contributor to any greenhouse effect we may be experiencing. When it's warmer more ocean water evaporates which theoretically leads to more warming in a self-reinforcing cycle, until you consider that water vapor is "clouds" which reflect sunlight back into space and contribute to cooling, not warming. To my knowledge none of the global warming models account for the effects of variable cloudiness, if they consider clouds at all.

     

    Global warming is a scam. From the 1940s to the 1970s we had about a 30 year cooling trend which led to the ICE AGE! talk. At that time nobody had much faith in weather predictions so we forgot about the impending ice age and went about our lives. Then from the 1980s to about 2000 we had a warming trend which led to the current MELTDOWN! hysteria. Now we're cooling again, but thousands of people depend on global warming for their funding and their jobs. Goldman Sachs expects to push the paper in the trillion dollar carbon trading market. GE wants to sell us electrical infrastructure. Global warming is a massive industry that has taken on a life of its own, so it's no wonder that all its beneficiaries want to keep the meltdown rhetoric on center stage.

     

    So who are the "industry stooges" in this debate? Answer: the ones in the global warming industry with the most to lose from acknowledging that global warming is a religious belief that is contradicted by the available scientific evidence.
    23 Jul 2009, 01:48 AM Reply Like
  • You're Kidding
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    This all presents us with an rather interesting dilemma. Who do we believe? The people who say there is a warming trend that is dependent on humans, and we must change this or else, or, those who say human caused warming is a fallacy, or even if it isn't, there's no way to prove it.

     

    Now, lets consider what it would honestly take for the vast majority of us, who are not experts, to figure out which side is right: well, lots and lots of time reading scientific journals trying to get at the truth. This would mean looking at the data directly and analyzing it so we would know what we are talking about, by direct experience, rather than accepting the opinions of others. Unfortunately, this is impossible for those that don't understand higher math, and have the other scientific skills necessary. So just about all of us are out of luck knowing what the truth really is, by direct, intellectual experience. (And this even assumes that there is a truth to know, which is beyond doubt, which there may not even be!)

     

    This leads us, if for some reason we actually need to have an opinion on the subject, to accept the opinions of whomever we consider "reliable experts." Now keep in mind that this judgment cannot be validated. It is ONLY A MATTER OF BELIEF that any particular person is a better expert than any other, when we, ourselves, can't judge them on the merits, because we don't have the scientific understanding to do so. So then, what is the criteria by which we pick our experts?

     

    This is the real, relevant issue here, and quickly brings into focus how susceptible we are to manipulation, our own biases, and outright brainwashing. Think of all the people on both sides of this issue who actually think they know what they are talking about, when in actuality, they don't know much of anything, but think they do, merely because they believe what their acceptable "experts" are saying!

     

    Well, this is every single person out there, INCLUDING YOU, unless you are a professional, scientific expert with the degrees and experience to prove it. Not you? Then take a look in the mirror and learn an invaluable lesson from life: as a human being you are severely limited in what you ACTUALLY KNOW. Get to understand these limits and become a happier, healthier, and more confident individual. Leave the screaming matches to the poor fools who don't understand their own limitations, but help them to see more clearly if you can, because there is enough suffering in the world as it is, and helping to cool down that kind of "warming" is something that is really worth your time.
    23 Jul 2009, 04:03 AM Reply Like
  • Brad Arnold
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    I continually amazes me how detached from reality global warming deniers are:

     

    www.telegraph.co.uk/ea...

     

    Last decade is the warmest on record, scientists say
    The last decade has been the warmest on record because of man-made climate change, according to scientists.

     

    " Global warming has pushed the world's temperature up by more than 1.26F (0.7C), said the Met Office, as they unveiled figures that show the dramatic effect human influence has had on the Earth's climate.

     

    They predict that this year will be the tenth warmest worldwide since records began in 1850, with a global mean temperature of 58F (14.3C).

     

    This would have been "exceptionally unusual" just a few years ago, but is now "quite normal," say climate scientists.

     

    Dr Peter Stott from the Met Office said: "Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years.

     

    "Comparing observations with the expected response to man-made and natural drivers of climate change it is shown that global temperature is now over 0.7 degrees C warmer than if humans were not altering the climate."...

     

    Today's figures show that in the last eight years alone, the global temperature has risen by 0.36F (0.2C), compared to the average for the previous decade.

     

    They confirm the past decade was the warmest ever recorded. In addition the ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the eleven years since 1997. The warmest, in 2005 was an average of 59F (14.8C).

     

    This year's average global temperature of 58F (14.3C) was 0.56F (0.31C) above the 1961-90 average.

     

    Dr Stott said: "As a result of climate change, what would once have been an exceptionally unusual year has now become quite normal. Without human influence on climate change we would be more than 50 times less likely of seeing a year as warm as 2008."
    23 Jul 2009, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (7891) | Send Message
     
    There used to be 1 mile thick glaciers where I live now. They left over 10,000 years ago. Global warming started then, not now. So the cavemans cars started this. This is a cycle we are in and it too will end and we will go back to another ice age. When the next ice age starts what tax will our govt give us. Cap and sweater?

     

    On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:

     

    > You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier
    > disappearance, atmospheric CO2 trends and sea level rise to get the
    > true picture.
    >
    > To hail a cold (or warm) winter or summer as indicative of cooling
    > (or warming) simply doesn't work. Likewise, personalities on both
    > sides of the issue should all be viewed with skepticism.
    >
    > Most glaciers around the world have been retreating over the last
    > several decades. The Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic's ice sheet,
    > and northern hemisphere polar ice are all shrinking. Those are
    > facts guys, even if you don't like em. The build up in CO2, a green
    > house gas, is well documented. So yes, I see global warming at this
    > point.
    >
    > Could this change? Sure, if the facts change I will change my opinion.
    > However, I will have to see a reversal of the above trends to believe
    > it.
    23 Jul 2009, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    BV:

     

    With all respect to your view, you are simply repeating what you've heard Al Snore and Company say over and over. In fact, the polar ice caps are back to where they were before 1979 when a slight warming period began. In 1998, a cooling period began and is still going strong.

     

    Those who study sunspot activity trends say this cooling will continue through 2013. Of course, Snore and Company ignore sunspot activity because they don't fit their computer models --- which by the way have yet to be right about anything.

     

    You say one cool summer doesn't prove anything. Well, how about three straight winters that have set cold records all over the world?

     

    We can't possibly have global warming and global cooling at the same time. Well, that is, sane people can't anyway.

     

    In respect to the evil C02, we put more in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1979 than any other time and the planet was slightly cooling during that time. That's when the kooks who are today claiming warming were writing books saying the planet was going into another ice age.

     

    These are the facts.

     

    But I've found that no amount of proof, reason, or truth will change the Left's mind of anything once it's set.

     

    Besides, Al Snore was in Europe a few weeks ago and as much as admitted that global warming legislation was "more about global governance" than saving the planet. It's a move toward the one-world supranational government that the Left has been dreaming of since the teens of the last century.

     

    No doubt they'll have a shot at getting it with the hoard of leftists running the US today and the millions of troops they have mimicking their cries --- all brainwashed by fear spead by the Marxist media and a government lusting for even more power over its citizens.

     

    On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:

     

    > You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier
    .
    23 Jul 2009, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Very good points Nuc! Thank you for them.

     

    On Jul 22 08:47 PM NucEngineer wrote:

     

    > When the DOT-COM bust happened 11 years ago, a lot of people lost....
    23 Jul 2009, 07:31 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    You are dead right, Wisdom. This is about the biggest power-grab the Left has ever attempted; it has nothing to do with the climate or the environment.

     

    Oh certainly there are numerous brainwashed eco-maniacs on the side of global warming, but these cynics believe the negative side of everything. There is chaos everywhere in their eyes.

     

    I have a neighbor in Fl who's been telling me for years that Fl is going under water. So, back in the 90s her husband and I marked a water line on their property and mine. The average is actually down --- not up!

     

    What has she done now? She's jumped to the fish dying in the seas and coral reefs dying, the latter of which has recently been proven a hoax.

     

    Does she question the source of her original scare that Fl is going under water? No! She simply jumps to the next negative. Poor thing sees chaos everywhere and the only way to put things in order is to give the government more power over evil humans.

     

    It's definitely a frontal lobe deformity. No way to change it.

     

    Just watching Gore walk toward a podium and then speak, with those glazed over eyes, you have to know he's either drugged up or his brain chemicals are malfunctioning --- perhaps both!

     

    Thank you for your excellent comment!

     

    On Jul 22 05:31 PM Wisdom vs. Information wrote:

     

    > climatologists are global weathermen, not scientist. geologists have...
    23 Jul 2009, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Perfect comment and so right, Leftfield!! Thank you for it!

     

    On Jul 22 09:10 PM Leftfield wrote:

     

    > NucEngineer: You assume far too much rationality in our leaders...
    23 Jul 2009, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Derryl:

     

    Yours is the most informative and best reasoned article I've seen on the warming subject.

     

    Very good work! Please keep it up! Thank you!

     

    A Nordic cousin, AD.

     

    On Jul 23 01:48 AM derryl wrote:

     

    > Over the past 2.5 to 3 million years (the Pleistocene Era) this planet. . .
    .
    23 Jul 2009, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Brad Arnold:

     

    You are stepping of into an uninformed abyss quoting claims that this year will be one of the warmest on record.

     

    Man, don't you know that April, May, and June have set cooling records all over the world --- with July headed on the same path to new records.

     

    Being "detached from reality" my friend is still hanging on to a belief when the claims for that view don't come true.

     

    Go back and read the original global warming books of the late 1980s when the Coolers recognized the planet was coming out of a cooling period and into a warming one, after which they became Warmers.

     

    They claimed horrible tragedies would occur before 2000; seas overflowing, islands disappearing, massive soil erosion, much of the East Coast of the US under water, the UK under water, and Florida gone!

     

    None of these dire predictions have happened, but you still hang on --- that's being detached from reality.

     

    The sad thing is nothing can pull those back into reality who are still persisting at this point.

     

    On Jul 23 04:04 AM Brad Arnold wrote:

     

    > I continually amazes me how detached from reality global warming
    > deniers are:
    >
    > www.telegraph.co.uk/ea...
    >
    >
    > Last decade is the warmest on record, scientists say
    > The last decade has been the warmest on record because of man-made
    > climate change, according to scientists.
    >
    > " Global warming has pushed the world's temperature up by more than
    > 1.26F (0.7C), said the Met Office, as they unveiled figures that
    > show the dramatic effect human influence has had on the Earth's climate.
    >
    >
    > They predict that this year will be the tenth warmest worldwide since
    > records began in 1850, with a global mean temperature of 58F (14.3C).
    >
    >
    > This would have been "exceptionally unusual" just a few years ago,
    > but is now "quite normal," say climate scientists.
    >
    > Dr Peter Stott from the Met Office said: "Human influence, particularly
    > emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of
    > having such warm years.
    >
    > "Comparing observations with the expected response to man-made and
    > natural drivers of climate change it is shown that global temperature
    > is now over 0.7 degrees C warmer than if humans were not altering
    > the climate."...
    >
    > Today's figures show that in the last eight years alone, the global
    > temperature has risen by 0.36F (0.2C), compared to the average for
    > the previous decade.
    >
    > They confirm the past decade was the warmest ever recorded. In addition
    > the ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the eleven years
    > since 1997. The warmest, in 2005 was an average of 59F (14.8C).<br/>
    >
    > This year's average global temperature of 58F (14.3C) was 0.56F (0.31C)
    > above the 1961-90 average.
    >
    > Dr Stott said: "As a result of climate change, what would once have
    > been an exceptionally unusual year has now become quite normal. Without
    > human influence on climate change we would be more than 50 times
    > less likely of seeing a year as warm as 2008."
    23 Jul 2009, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • Oan
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Ok. So what if there is no global warming. What are the goals set out to make our world cleaner? Renewable energy, decreased pollution, and less crop loss due to pollution. These goals need to be addressed whether there is global warming or not.

     

    So if all those scientists around the world are wrong we still end up ahead of the game. We still leave a brighter future to our children and grandchildren.

     

    What if YOU are the ones that wrong. What future are you preparing to give the next generation?
    23 Jul 2009, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • James Quinn
    , contributor
    Comments (1016) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » We plan to leave them $56 trillion of unfunded liabilities, a National Debt of $20 trillion, and no energy supplies.

     

    On Jul 23 08:39 AM Oan wrote:

     

    > Ok. So what if there is no global warming. What are the goals set
    > out to make our world cleaner? Renewable energy, decreased pollution,
    > and less crop loss due to pollution. These goals need to be addressed
    > whether there is global warming or not.
    >
    > So if all those scientists around the world are wrong we still end
    > up ahead of the game. We still leave a brighter future to our children
    > and grandchildren.
    >
    > What if YOU are the ones that wrong. What future are you preparing
    > to give the next generation?
    23 Jul 2009, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • doubleguns
    , contributor
    Comments (7891) | Send Message
     
    Obviously you dont remember when so many houses where heated by coal. Smog was horrible, acid rain, tons of co2 belching out everywhere.

     

    WE HAVE REDUCED POLLUTION.

     

    We will continue. BUT DO NOT FEED ME THE BULLSHIT THAT WE NEED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR FAKE GLOBAL WARMING.

     

    On Jul 23 08:39 AM Oan wrote:

     

    > Ok. So what if there is no global warming. What are the goals set
    > out to make our world cleaner? Renewable energy, decreased pollution,
    > and less crop loss due to pollution. These goals need to be addressed
    > whether there is global warming or not.
    >
    > So if all those scientists around the world are wrong we still end
    > up ahead of the game. We still leave a brighter future to our children
    > and grandchildren.
    >
    > What if YOU are the ones that wrong. What future are you preparing
    > to give the next generation?
    23 Jul 2009, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Whippet
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
     
    You Holocaust Denier! I've seen pictures of Starving Polar Bears! And what about Hurricane Katrina?! It was 90 degrees in April for two whole days! Stop eating Flatulent Flesh! Better yet, Stop Breathing! I'll take Katie Couric's word over the Real Data any day! ;)

     

    You're completely correct. Not a single scientist has even proven (nor will ever prove) CAUSATION versus mere CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature levels. If you heat up the Earth, ceteris paribus, you get MORE CO2 formation (metabolism increase > photosynthetic increase). This is because the largest CO2 producers are MICROBES.

     

    The premise that humans have created AGW is nothing more than a grandiose display of Liberal Progressive Elite arrogance. The "science" used follows no sound principles- every piece of data is interpreted through a tinted, cracked lens. I read Nature and Science for job-related reasons- the journals have bent over and grabbed their ankles for the Oxford/Sorbonne/Cambri... Eggheads that pay their bills. Be careful what you read- Science has been sacrificed to Global Elitism. Algore is their Pope, and Immelt is their Minister of Technology.

     

    On Jul 22 05:31 PM Wisdom vs. Information wrote:

     

    > climatologists are global weathermen, not scientist. geologists have
    > been saying man-made global warming is a hoax since 2004, and the
    > upper atmosphere temperature studies that finished in 2007 put the
    > nail in the coffin of the man-made theory-- yet the administration
    > and pirates like Immelt (long GE, sorry) call it a closed subject.
    > Obama wants to control your industrial capital and Immelt wants your
    > money. bottom line, if you believe in global warming, you wearing
    > the dunce hat because you are ignorant, and you are supporting the
    > richest most powerful people become more rich and powerful. freedom
    > comes from knowledge, get educated on the subject or you will remain
    > Obama and Immelt's slave.
    23 Jul 2009, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Swashbuckler
    , contributor
    Comments (715) | Send Message
     
    Waste of time trying to show the light to a blind person. Once the Kool-Aid has been sipped it is addictive. I agree with Leftfield's comment posted above. If there is incontrovertible proof discovered that CO2 is the cause of global cooling, it will be ignored by the global warming alarmists. They already have far too much invested in the cause to give it up now. It intrigues me how Al Gore is considered by his deluded followers to be the energy conservation leader. All the while he jets his fat a$$ first class all over the world to talk about energy conservation, while burning huge amounts of energy in route. But I forgot, he pays for credits to offset his earlier energy usage. So his usage therefore never occurred. What a crock of sh#t.
    23 Jul 2009, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • Wisdom vs. Information
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    my point above is that if florida does go underwater, it is not man's fault, not that i think florida will go underwater. oan, giving bureaucrats control of capital just to make the world less polluted has not worked here in the 70's nor europe the last twenty years. kyoto has not and will not reduce carbon emissions, it just gives governemnt control of industrial capital, which increases inflation, consumption and stifles innovation
    23 Jul 2009, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Oan:

     

    You are assuming that C02 is a pollutant; it is not. It is a sham! Don't you understand? A pure sham.

     

    If you're bought into it, then suppress your ego and sell out.

     

    And when you speak of all those scientists around the world, you have obviously bought the package, because many of those who initially believed in Warming do not now.

     

    And over 30,000 have signed a petition which says global warming is not happening and that if it were C02 is not causing it.

     

    See here: www.petitionproject.org/

     

    Here is a great article by a scientist who was a former Warmer informing you how the Obamsa Ad is lying about global warming.

     

    See here: www.cornwallalliance.o...

     

    On Jul 23 08:39 AM Oan wrote:

     

    > Ok. So what if there is no global warming. What are the goals set. . .
    23 Jul 2009, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Whippet
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
     
    You would get great enjoyment out of an illustration in Glenn Beck's "An Incovenient Book." It's a map of Florida, according to Algore, with the present boundary superimposed over seawater. On this map are icons denoting the recently built homes of notable Hollywood Liberal Activists... all under the New Gulf of Mexico.

     

    Even if the alarmists are correct, and we all understand how big of an "if" that is, their own projections damn the idea that we can reverse the inevitable.
    Cap and Trade = Statist Control of your Energy.
    Healthcare Reform = Statist Control over your Lifestyle.
    Progressive Taxation = Statist Control of your Ambitions.
    Public Education = Statist Control of your Reason.
    Liberal Public Universities = Statist Control of your Paradigms.
    What's next?

     

    On Jul 23 10:45 AM Wisdom vs. Information wrote:

     

    > my point above is that if florida does go underwater, it is not man's
    > fault, not that i think florida will go underwater. oan, giving bureaucrats
    > control of capital just to make the world less polluted has not worked
    > here in the 70's nor europe the last twenty years. kyoto has not
    > and will not reduce carbon emissions, it just gives governemnt control
    > of industrial capital, which increases inflation, consumption and
    > stifles innovation
    23 Jul 2009, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Whippet
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
     
    One scientific FACT is that CO2 is the only substrate nature utilizes to build higher forms of organic compounds; i.e., LIFE. Another scientific FACT is that photosynthetic efficiency and rates INCREASE with carbon dioxide concentrations.
    Pollutants are defined by their ability to DESTROY or lower the vigor of life.
    Hmmmmm...

     

    On Jul 23 12:45 PM ArtfulDodger wrote:

     

    > Oan:
    >
    > You are assuming that C02 is a pollutant; it is not. It is a sham!
    > Don't you understand? A pure sham.
    >
    > If you're bought into it, then suppress your ego and sell out.<br/>
    >
    > And when you speak of all those scientists around the world, you
    > have obviously bought the package, because many of those who initially
    > believed in Warming do not now.
    >
    > And over 30,000 have signed a petition which says global warming
    > is not happening and that if it were C02 is not causing it.
    >
    > See here: www.petitionproject.org/
    >
    > Here is a great article by a scientist who was a former Warmer informing
    > you how the Obamsa Ad is lying about global warming.
    >
    > See here: www.cornwallalliance.o...;utm_source=email%20ne...
    >
    23 Jul 2009, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Willie McDonald
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The True Reasons for Global Warming
    Earth’s Orbit around The Sun is Decaying

     

    Global warming can be reversed, if action is taken in time. If its not reversed in time the sun’s heat will dominate this planet’s weather, and generate unusual weather patterns to the point where the only thing left to eat will be other people. The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is decaying, in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun.

     

    The earth is a planet that functions like a machine. Like cars, trucks, aircrafts, or rockets. The earth has a fuel system (crude oil/ methane gas wells), an engine system (the core), exhaust system (volcanoes), and a cooling system (the oceans). A car’s engine system generates torque, an aircraft’s engine systems generates thrust, and the earth’s engine system generates a powerful magnetic field, and the earth’s magnetic field protects all life on the surface of this planet, and beneath the oceans.

     

    The earth’s magnetic field keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun, and the core is the earth’s engine. The earth’s fuel system is referred to as oil wells/ crude oil reservoirs. They are actually self pressurizing fuel cells. Like any machine, if you were to shut off fuel to the engine, the engine will stop operating. The oil company’s crude oil extraction process compromises the earth’s fuel system, and shut off fuel to the earth’s engine (the core), by releasing pressure out of the earth’s fuel system (oil wells). Normally the pressure in a crude oil well/ reservoir is tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch.

     

    Under normal circumstance the core (the engine) stays at a constant 5000 to 7000 degrees celsius, and that’s hot enough to melt steel, and the pressure in the core is tens of thousands to hundreds of pounds per square inch. The oil is ignited long before it reaches the core, and enters the core as flames, and/ or heat. Crude oil, and its components are called hydrocarbons, and are capable of generating the temperatures, and pressures found in the core, and mantle, and in oil wells. Hydrocarbons are used to melt, and manufacture steel. The higher the temperature in the core, and the stronger the earth’s magnetic field. The cooler the temperature in the core, and the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The earth’s engine is being fuel starved, and it is slowly cooling. As the core cools the earth’s magnetic field weakens, and the earth is being pulled closer to the sun.

     

    Global warming has nothing to do with green house gases (Co2), holes in the ozone, CFC, R-12 refrigerant, the sun going nova, aerosol propellant, and methane gases, etc. Hydrocarbons such as coal are safe to use, its crude oil/ methane gas that should be left alone. If Co2 gases are responsible for global warming, why are there no reports of a spike in global temperature in the early twentieth century, during the industrial revaluation in America, and Europe? WARNING: Ridding the air of green house gases will not reverse global warming.

     

    1 of 2
    The only way to reverse global warming is for the oil companies to re-pressurize the earth’s fuel systems (crude oil/ methane gas wells). One way this can be accomplished, by igniting the methane gas in the fuel cell (oil/ gas well). The ignited gas will expand, and create the pressure need to force the remaining crude oil (fuel) into the core. This is the real cause for global warming, and the only way it can be reversed.

     

    Volcanoes, the earth’s exhaust system are designed to rid the core (the earth’s engine) of spent fuel, debris, and they regulate the /pressure in the core, which is generated by the combustion of crude oil / methane gas. The pressure that’s release from volcanoes are provided by dioxide, nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the facts are these are all hydrocarbon by-product, including the pressure.
    These gases, and the pressure proves beyond a shadow of doubt, hydrocarbons are being burned in the core of this planet, and lots of it. The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the earth’s core.Volcanic eruptions in the pass are stronger, than present day eruptions. This is due to the core of this planet cooling. The more hydrocarbons that are burned in the core, the higher the core’s temperature, and the stronger volcanic eruptions will occur. Green house gases are not responsible for global warming, it goes beyond green house gases. Something is going wrong with the earth itself, and its obit around the sun is changing, and not for the better.

     

    The earth is moving away from the moon at 4 centimeters each year. A total of 24 leap seconds have been added to the atomic clock over the decades, because the earth’s rotation is slowing down. Many scientists believe the hours of the day will increase from 24 to 25 hours in a day. 12 noon use to be the hottest part of the day, now it 3 o’clock in the after noon, due to the earth shifting on it’s axis by 26degrees, and the earth is wobbling on it axis. Many astrophysicists believe the earth will eventually flip upside down. NASA scientists have discovered that the earth has developed a breach in its magnetic field.

     

    The winters are getting sunny, and warmer from the equator (latitude- zero) to (latitude 29-N, and S) in winter. Both polar ice caps are being melted, one at a time, and the oceans are rising. Floods, and tornadoes are developing in winter, from (latitude 35.0 –N) to (latitude 42- and there shouldn’t be enough sun rays, and heat for the green house gas theory to be applicable. The same weather is occurring in the southern hemisphere from (latitude- zero to 42-S) in winter. It’s getting noticeably hotter every 15 to 20 years. Look at the facts, and due diligence! Most of what I’ve written in the last two paragraphs, was written by scientist, geophysicists, geologists, astrophysicists, and can be found on the internet. I warn you global warming, and the apocalypse are one in the same. The decay, and global warming are in the beginning stages, the worse has yet to come. I prey you take this report seriously, you must listen to me!

     

    Written by: Willie McDonald (July-1983)
    cdnld30@gmail.com:
    thetruuereasonsforglob...
    2 of 2

     

    23 Jul 2009, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Eveable
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    That is incorrect. Many glaciers are advancing. The sea ice anomoly is positive meaning there is more Antarctic Ice each year than is lost in Arctic Ice. You do indeed have to look at long term trends. Such as the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now, the warming at the end of the 1800's followed by cooling, the warming in the 20's, 30's and 40's when there was no added Co2, followed by the cooling in the 50's, 60's and 70's when there was added Co2 and then the cooling now evern though C02 levels continue to rise. The pattern of warming and cooling since industialization negates the hypothesis of man-mad global warming.

     

    On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:

     

    > You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier
    > disappearance, atmospheric CO2 trends and sea level rise to get the
    > true picture.
    >
    > To hail a cold (or warm) winter or summer as indicative of cooling
    > (or warming) simply doesn't work. Likewise, personalities on both
    > sides of the issue should all be viewed with skepticism.
    >
    > Most glaciers around the world have been retreating over the last
    > several decades. The Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic's ice sheet,
    > and northern hemisphere polar ice are all shrinking. Those are facts
    > guys, even if you don't like em. The build up in CO2, a green house
    > gas, is well documented. So yes, I see global warming at this point.
    >
    >
    > Could this change? Sure, if the facts change I will change my opinion.
    > However, I will have to see a reversal of the above trends to believe
    > it.
    23 Jul 2009, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • ArtfulDodger
    , contributor
    Comments (2177) | Send Message
     
    Whippet:

     

    Perfect! Exactly what most people learned in about the 7th grade.

     

    Thanks for the info and comment!

     

    On Jul 23 02:52 PM Whippet wrote:

     

    > One scientific FACT is that CO2 is the only substrate nature utilizes
    > to build higher forms of organic compounds; i.e., LIFE. Another scientific
    > FACT is that photosynthetic efficiency and rates INCREASE with carbon
    > dioxide concentrations.
    > Pollutants are defined by their ability to DESTROY or lower the vigor
    > of life.
    > Hmmmmm...
    23 Jul 2009, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • insurance policy
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Rednecks beware.
    what if you are wrong?

     

    There are many explanations as to why the earth's average temperatures are increasing. Maybe it can be explained by sunspot activity. Maybe we are entering into another natural ice age (or would be)
    However to discount the influence of Man and his ability to generate excessive amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 50 years would be plain stupid.

     

    My research suggests that recent colder temperatures in some places has as much to do with the La Nino weather phenonemon as anything else. However over the last 50 years the trend is undeniable. Average sub tropical water temperatures have risen by at least .5c. This may not sound like much, yet it is unprecendented in recent history. And averages do not paint the full picture. The last serious 'El Nino' peak in 1998 was a whopping 2.5c increase from the long term average. What will the next El Nino peak be?
    23 Jul 2009, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • yellowhoard
    , contributor
    Comments (1507) | Send Message
     
    So, people that disagree with enlightened people such as yourself are Rednecks?

     

    I guess PHD Climatologists from MIT just don't understand your sophisticated arguement.

     

    I'm not an MIT PHD, but I did learn in high school that solar activity effects the Earth's temperature from time to time.
    23 Jul 2009, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • insurance policy
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Warning!!!
    At first glance this entire article is hardly worthy of comment. At best it could be seen as an outrageous attempt at slander. I would suggest any person that would write such things was either uneducated or prone to repeating false rumours and innuendo. There are a lot of them about unfortunately.
    Then again, maybe this is how lobby groups work today for the rich and powerful.

     

    On Jul 23 07:27 AM ArtfulDodger wrote:

     

    > BV:
    >
    > With all respect to your view, you are simply repeating what you've
    > heard Al Snore and Company say over and over. In fact, the polar
    > ice caps are back to where they were before 1979 when a slight warming
    > period began. In 1998, a cooling period began and is still going
    > strong.
    >
    > Those who study sunspot activity trends say this cooling will continue
    > through 2013. Of course, Snore and Company ignore sunspot activity
    > because they don't fit their computer models --- which by the way
    > have yet to be right about anything.
    >
    > You say one cool summer doesn't prove anything. Well, how about three
    > straight winters that have set cold records all over the world?<br/>
    >
    > We can't possibly have global warming and global cooling at the same
    > time. Well, that is, sane people can't anyway.
    >
    > In respect to the evil C02, we put more in the atmosphere from 1961
    > to 1979 than any other time and the planet was slightly cooling during
    > that time. That's when the kooks who are today claiming warming were
    > writing books saying the planet was going into another ice age.<br/>
    >
    > These are the facts.
    >
    > But I've found that no amount of proof, reason, or truth will change
    > the Left's mind of anything once it's set.
    >
    > Besides, Al Snore was in Europe a few weeks ago and as much as admitted
    > that global warming legislation was "more about global governance"
    > than saving the planet. It's a move toward the one-world supranational
    > government that the Left has been dreaming of since the teens of
    > the last century.
    >
    > No doubt they'll have a shot at getting it with the hoard of leftists
    > running the US today and the millions of troops they have mimicking
    > their cries --- all brainwashed by fear spead by the Marxist media
    > and a government lusting for even more power over its citizens.<br/>
    >
    > On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:
    23 Jul 2009, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Wisdom vs. Information
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
     
    all the academics i know believe in global warming, all the practicing scientists do not. pretty simple, one group has some theories, one group knows the facts. the world is a better place when people try out new theories, but treating those theories as fact destroys total utility through economic dislocation, dumb-- that is why you do not "just try something"
    23 Jul 2009, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • SSS in Tucson
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    FrankLive:
    You win the Blogosphere Nobel Prize by labeling ANY views of Barack Obama as right wing. Are you still under the influence of Earth's gravity?

     

    On Jul 23 12:10 AM FrankLive wrote:

     

    > It is impossible to discuss science with nonscientists....they just
    > don't get what it is about. This is a group of investors and dealing
    > with global warming is seen as eating into profit. Obama and his
    > crew are way to right wing to deal with the situation as it is in
    > our country. His right wing views are a terrible dissappointment.
    24 Jul 2009, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • James Quinn
    , contributor
    Comments (1016) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » You said it. "RECENT HISTORY". 50 years is a split second in the history of earth. We don't control climate, it controls us. It is going to get warmer and then colder and then warmer again. You can't do anything about it.

     

    On Jul 23 08:47 PM insurance policy wrote:

     

    > Rednecks beware.
    > what if you are wrong?
    >
    > There are many explanations as to why the earth's average temperatures
    > are increasing. Maybe it can be explained by sunspot activity. Maybe
    > we are entering into another natural ice age (or would be)
    > However to discount the influence of Man and his ability to generate
    > excessive amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 50 years would
    > be plain stupid.
    >
    > My research suggests that recent colder temperatures in some places
    > has as much to do with the La Nino weather phenonemon as anything
    > else. However over the last 50 years the trend is undeniable. Average
    > sub tropical water temperatures have risen by at least .5c. This
    > may not sound like much, yet it is unprecendented in recent history.
    > And averages do not paint the full picture. The last serious 'El
    > Nino' peak in 1998 was a whopping 2.5c increase from the long term
    > average. What will the next El Nino peak be?
    24 Jul 2009, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • insurance policy
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    It can be a red herring to overstate the case that any warming or cooling that is taking place is a natural/cyclic event of which nothing can be done. This is no longer true. For example: man is getting better and better at predicting the weather. The reason is simple. Man now as the advantaged of advanced technology and many centuries of accumulated data and research. (and a lot of dedicated professionals) Reason could suggest that Man has evolved to the point where he is now has the potential to defy nature.

     

    Now say for example, the reverse was true and the UN predicted an average global cooling of 2c, but it could get over 4c by the end of the century.
    In this scenario, the solution would be simple. The world has vast stocks of methane gas that could be released into the atmosphere in a relatively short time frame. This would certainly put paid to any cooling effect in a hurry!
    25 Jul 2009, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • Sober Realist
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    I have a spiffy computer model that tells me you may contract cancer in the future. Maybe twenty or 100 years from now. Who knows? Forget the measurable fact that you have no symptoms now; my program predicts your demise — your temperature may rise to least 110 and all of your fingers may fall off. And your dog may die with you.

     

    Therefore, the only logical thing to do to avert your pending demise is to administer chemotherapy to you, starting today. You will get terribly sick from this preventative medicine, you’ll suffer serious side-effects, and you could easily die from it. Many doctors have objected to my course of action, advising a more cautious approach, but they are deniers. My intentions are good and my models are flawless, reviewed by my like-minded friends. Who are these doctors to question me?

     

    Take your medicine. It’s for your own good. Trust me.

     

    — Dr. Agore
    25 Jul 2009, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • SSS in Tucson
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Your comments smack of elitism. There IS a method of examining a particular issue and arriving at a reasonably truthful decision, even if you're not an "expert." It's called research, something you dismiss as beyond the ability of the average human being. In today's wired world, I respectfully disagee. The average human being can understand the rather complex issue of global warming, but s/he must put forth some personal effort in doing so. Here's the basic problem that pervades our society: intellectual laziness.

     

    On Jul 23 04:03 AM You're Kidding wrote:

     

    > This all presents us with an rather interesting dilemma. Who do we
    > believe? The people who say there is a warming trend that is dependent
    > on humans, and we must change this or else, or, those who say human
    > caused warming is a fallacy, or even if it isn't, there's no way
    > to prove it.
    >
    > Now, lets consider what it would honestly take for the vast majority
    > of us, who are not experts, to figure out which side is right: well,
    > lots and lots of time reading scientific journals trying to get at
    > the truth. This would mean looking at the data directly and analyzing
    > it so we would know what we are talking about, by direct experience,
    > rather than accepting the opinions of others. Unfortunately, this
    > is impossible for those that don't understand higher math, and have
    > the other scientific skills necessary. So just about all of us are
    > out of luck knowing what the truth really is, by direct, intellectual
    > experience. (And this even assumes that there is a truth to know,
    > which is beyond doubt, which there may not even be!)
    >
    > This leads us, if for some reason we actually need to have an opinion
    > on the subject, to accept the opinions of whomever we consider "reliable
    > experts." Now keep in mind that this judgment cannot be validated.
    > It is ONLY A MATTER OF BELIEF that any particular person is a better
    > expert than any other, when we, ourselves, can't judge them on the
    > merits, because we don't have the scientific understanding to do
    > so. So then, what is the criteria by which we pick our experts?<br/>
    >
    > This is the real, relevant issue here, and quickly brings into focus
    > how susceptible we are to manipulation, our own biases, and outright
    > brainwashing. Think of all the people on both sides of this issue
    > who actually think they know what they are talking about, when in
    > actuality, they don't know much of anything, but think they do, merely
    > because they believe what their acceptable "experts" are saying!
    >
    >
    > Well, this is every single person out there, INCLUDING YOU, unless
    > you are a professional, scientific expert with the degrees and experience
    > to prove it. Not you? Then take a look in the mirror and learn an
    > invaluable lesson from life: as a human being you are severely limited
    > in what you ACTUALLY KNOW. Get to understand these limits and become
    > a happier, healthier, and more confident individual. Leave the screaming
    > matches to the poor fools who don't understand their own limitations,
    > but help them to see more clearly if you can, because there is enough
    > suffering in the world as it is, and helping to cool down that kind
    > of "warming" is something that is really worth your time.
    26 Jul 2009, 12:02 AM Reply Like
  • PragmaticOne
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    People,

     

    For all the haggling you all display, the problem here is basic.

     

    Everyone is focussing on where the positions DIFFER instead of where they COINCIDE.

     

    It doesn´t matter if global warming (actually "climate change" is the better term) has been happing for millenia, or what or who has/is causing it.

     

    Fact is, it is bound to have economic consequences one way or another.

     

    So, what are we going to do about it?

     

    Furthermore, lest we forget the whole "environmental" (and dare I say "long term economic sustainability) agenda is not just about climate change.

     

    There is a whole portfolio of green/sustainability issues that man needs to somehow contend with as the "most intelligent" creature on this planet.

     

    Check out this basic but telling video:
    www.storyofstuff.com/i...

     

    Good luck with all your wrangling.

     

    The Pragmatic One.
    28 Jul 2009, 05:57 AM Reply Like
  • john s. gordon
    , contributor
    Comments (14117) | Send Message
     
    whippet -
    it is true that increased CO2 concentration in the air increases rate of absorption of CO2 by green plants.
    pretty soon you run into other limiting factors: water, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, magnesium, boron, molybdenum, etc.
    look @ the label on your bottle of miracle-gro; they are all there.
    > jack
    31 Jul 2009, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • joeflynn
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Who cares who is right. As an investor my job is to bet on the companies that will profit the most from it and reap some reward myself. So, which companies will profit the most from it and how can I make some money?
    5 Aug 2009, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • SSS in Tucson
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Thanks, Freya. Your pictures said many thousands of words.

     

    SSS

     

    On Aug 03 03:15 AM Freya wrote:

     

    > This was a great instablog. I actually read it (after scanning it,
    > of course).
    >
    > I'm leaving a link which may interest you. It is in keeping with
    > your apparent stance on Global Warming:
    >
    > minnesotansforglobalwa...
    7 Aug 2009, 12:58 AM Reply Like
  • Ardeeo
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    this is a group of thinkers dealing with blind faith, TRUE BELIEVERS.

     

    Obama, way too right wing????

     

    On Jul 23 12:10 AM FrankLive wrote:

     

    > It is impossible to discuss science with nonscientists....they just
    > don't get what it is about. This is a group of investors and dealing
    > with global warming is seen as eating into profit. Obama and his
    > crew are way to right wing to deal with the situation as it is in
    > our country. His right wing views are a terrible dissappointment.
    11 Aug 2009, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2705) | Send Message
     
    On Jul 22 07:59 PM Bruce Vanderveen wrote:
    >>>> You need to look at major long term trends such as worldwide glacier disappearance, atmospheric CO2 trends and sea level rise to get the true picture.<<<&l...

     

    Hey Numbnuts, eleven thousand years ago there was a mile of ice covering Buffalo, NY. Of course there are climate changes but look to the SUN for the power to change climate. It's 93 million miles from the earth and it will burn your skin. AND . . . the power is inversely proportional to the distance. Slight variations in distance have amazing effects on everything.
    14 Aug 2009, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • realitybiter
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    Glaciers are one part of it. Just a mere 12,000 years ago, a fraction of a geological second, there was a mile of ice across the upper half of North America. 5,000 plus feet. And we are wringing our hands because a simple, puny glacier on some insignificant mountain grows or contracts? That is not science friend. That is emotion.
    As a side note, in the unintended consequence department, it was that glacial coverage which allowed nomads (Chinese I suppose) to migrate across the Pacific Aleutian Islands (frozen together) and populate America. Those folks became our native Americans... and then the glaciers contracted and they had it to themselves for 13,000 years!

     

    On Jul 22 09:48 PM James Quinn wrote:

     

    > Haven't the ice sheets expanded and contracted throughout history?
    > What caused it to contract 1 million years ago?
    24 Aug 2009, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • realitybiter
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    The BIG problem with the global warming know-it-all's-therefor... -quit-thinking strategy is as follows:

     

    You identify a non-problem and solve something which needs no solving. You spend your money and you are left with less than what you had before. There is a problem and the problem peak oil. We aren't running out, we just are running out of the easy stuff and it will only get harder and harder. Wind and solar are feel good solutions, but they will never scale and people won't quit using energy. The answer my friend, is not blowing in the wind, the answer is giving the atom a twin.
    24 Aug 2009, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • mbs1960
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The G.W. hype is a way to advance the cause of Collectivism. They take what is a natural event (Global warming & cooling cycles) and claim that it's being caused by mankind, then they foment hysteria by over-blowing the conclusions. The expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished). I would also note that the Polar Bears survived these changes in Earth's climate just fine.
    8 Sep 2009, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8362) | Send Message
     
    Is this still an issue? I thought when scientists discovered that there was global warming occurring on Mars and Venus and Mercury and Pluto too -- in fact in the whole solar system -- that would be the end of this non-issue. Global warming is on Mars is NOT caused by us driving SUV's on Earth. Let it go. We have other real issues here to deal with. If the Earth decides to throw us off, then its her privilege. Afterall, She is evolving us more than we are evolving her.

     

    Cycles are a part of everything. When the economy gets war, it expands; or, when it expands, it gets warm. I never remember which causes which. Then it contracts. The Earth gets very warm; then there is an Ice Age. This is how the earth obeys the Laws of Nature. Humans, relative to Earth, are like some of the cells in the body of humans. They don't know as much as they think they do. Their consciousness is limited to the size of their bubble, their cell structure, inside of which they do their job, reproduce themselves, shout out their opinions, and vanish when the bubble pops.
    10 Sep 2009, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • kertch
    , contributor
    Comments (1325) | Send Message
     
    Insurance policy,

     

    Clearly you are niether a scientist nor an intellectual. If you were either, you would would also have considered the question "what if I am wrong". The proposed "solutions" to global warming are not without consequenses. If you cannot be 100% certain that athropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming than you cannot be certain that the it's removal will have the desired cooling effect. If temperatures continue to rise, or if they fall too far will you be proposing to "correct" the climate further? Even "micro-manage" the the climate? Don't laugh. We have many people around today who beliave that can can micro-manage a nation's economy even it has been demonstrated mathematically to be false. And at what cost? If I my doctor diagnosed me with cancer but was not 100% sure, I would not immediately start chemotherapy just as an "insurance polilcy". My point is that the proposed solution to global warming is extremely expensive with it's own unforseen consequenses so we had better be DAMN SURE it's accurate before we impose something like that on the world.

     

    On Jul 23 11:19 PM insurance policy wrote:

     

    > Warning!!!
    > At first glance this entire article is hardly worthy of comment.
    > At best it could be seen as an outrageous attempt at slander. I would
    > suggest any person that would write such things was either uneducated
    > or prone to repeating false rumours and innuendo. There are a lot
    > of them about unfortunately.
    > Then again, maybe this is how lobby groups work today for the rich
    > and powerful.
    >
    1 Dec 2009, 02:13 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.