Global Warming

[Dr. Jet]

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

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

[sjslhill]

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

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

[sjslhill]

this image is funny

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

[Jeepers]

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

YEP!

[sci-flyer]

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

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

I tried it, and it sucked! ")

[Dr. Jet]

Remember that guy who used to eat pine trees?

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

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

[J Solinger]

Just something to read:

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

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

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

God willing, may science prevail!

[sjslhill]

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

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

[sjslhill]

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

[Dr. Jet]

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

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

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

How sad.

[sjslhill]

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



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

bunch of morons

[Dr. Jet]

More evidence that there is no anthropogenic global warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[sjslhill]

Please tell me that this is incorrect...

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

[Dr. Jet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...nd-its-issues/

[Dr. Jet]

http://www.kusi.com/home