Despite the more hysterical predictions we've heard of late, the evidence continues to mount that if the earth was warming, it stopped quite some time ago.
Of course, don't expect this fact to be widely reported, if it indeed even makes it into any U.S. newspapers or television broadcasts.
Read the entire interview from The Australian, but a couple of admissions are quite striking:
Catastrophic predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Al Gore? Any reaction? Hello? Anyone home? <!--break-->
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
Wishful thinking, perhaps. More like they'll just change the subject. One thing about proponents of the global warming scam is they'll never admit they were wrong. They would never be able to regain any credibility, so don't wait around for them to admit they were incorrect.
I wonder what those who called the truth-tellers deniers will have to say?
How about those who characterized skeptics as being on par with Holocaust deniers?
What will they have to say?
Likely nothing. In fact, we'll still see apocalyptic stories of impending doom, with reports how global warming is hastening the arrival of spring, despite cool temperatures across much of the United States.
If a basic tenet of media responsibility is to report the facts as they are, we would see an even-handed debate citing global warming proponents and skeptics. Yet the overwhelming amount of reportage we see leans decidedly to the side of the proponents, while skeptics are dismissed.
The shame is the public is being misled and the media will lose more credibility if their doomsday scenarios don't pan out. In fact, I'd suggest the hysteria will be getting worse over time, what with one report even suggesting now that global warming may be responsible for earthquakes.
The cost to the public may be even greater as a result of legislation forcing overly ambitious controls over carbon dioxide emissions which in the end may do little or nothing.
—James Murray is a New Jersey-based blogger



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I can't resist.
March 22, 2008 - 13:24 ET by JWFMaybe if Sen. Obama gave another speech with about 2 or 3 more flags behind him (than the 8 already there), he could get us in a dialogue between the Gorebal Warming Dupes and teh Evil Deniers.
The sky is falling!!
March 22, 2008 - 13:29 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIf the cooling continues, the alarmists will still blame it on man (America) and demand penance.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Nothing Changes
March 22, 2008 - 13:42 ET by planetrepublicanIt's a con game and a religion, all bundled up together. The intent is to change our Western civilization toward Maxism, also a failed policy. These Global Boloney Artists are not going to change stripes. Expect more Algoreisms.
To funny.. Usually this
March 22, 2008 - 13:53 ET by GForceTo funny..
Usually this time of year, Easter, we get all dressed up in our favorite Spring attire, go to church and enjoy a nice meal with family members.
This year is a little different.
I woke up to 4" of snow and 32 degree temps.
I told my wife that thank GOD we colored the eggs or else the kids would never find them in the snow.
They will be all bundled up, miserable and cold for the traditional Spring Easter Egg Hunt.
Al Gore! Where is our Global Warming??
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle
Fear not -- it's not the onset of the next Ice Age
March 23, 2008 - 14:12 ET by lotr"The date of Easter, from which the date of all movable feasts is determined, is fixed according to the Jewish method and may vary between March 22 and April 25."
-- The Roman Missal (1962)
So, this year we happen to have a very early Easter. For more info, check out:
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/easter/earlyeaster.asp
Exerpt:
"This year is the earliest Easter any of us will ever see the rest of our lives! And only the most elderly of our population have ever seen it this early (95 years of above!). And none of us have ever, or will ever, see it a day earlier!"
Somewhat interesting is the
March 22, 2008 - 14:16 ET by RESTLESS 1Somewhat interesting is the end of the piece in the Australian link. Apparently there was an article in the Age that left out a paragraph in regards to Ian McEwan stating that idealogues will have a hard time accepting these "inconvenient facts". Nice post Noel.
global warming
March 22, 2008 - 14:33 ET by DFLowerLiving here in Minnesota, I wake up every morning and give a quick prayer for Global warming. What do I cre about florida? I just want a decent winter.
Ditto New Hampshire
March 22, 2008 - 15:29 ET by planetrepublicanSame here in Hew Hampshire. This is the coldest winter I have ever experienced, with more snow than ever. I still have about 2 - 3 FEET of snow around my house.
Only 2-3 feet?
March 22, 2008 - 20:21 ET by ThisnThatYou must be in the warm part of NH. My total is still a bit above that.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Deliberately ignored data
March 22, 2008 - 14:35 ET by SeptemberAdd to this a major network report about spring arriving earlier---a whole eight hours earlier. But AGW was not mentioned which surprised me--are they beginning to see the light?
Three thousand little Argo ocean robots also back up the argument that there has been no significant warming. The contradictory evidence continues to pile up but I keep getting scary "the Earth is doomed" letters from Robert Kennedy, Jr. and the NRDC begging me to help save the polar bears.
Fascinating.
HERESY! Burn her at the
March 22, 2008 - 15:32 ET by RaHERESY! Burn her at the stake! She's a Witch!
The sun is not set by a thermostat.....
This is so laughable
March 22, 2008 - 16:09 ET by chuckoLook, I highly value this site. But not on days and articles like this. You Global Warming deniers will scour the globe to find this crap. Now you believe and hyperventilate over some misinformers cited in an Australian newspaper and wonder if the media in this country is going to report this BS? Give me a break! I can see Drudge promoting it for sure - that's the only way the US media will report this junk.
Anyone who thinks Earth is cooling or has "plateaued" after 2002 is wrong and misinformed.
Here's some proof that Global Warming/Climate Change (whatever you want to call it) is happening and how to be educated on it:
From Bush's chief science advisor Professor John Marburger
Also, Debunking global warming skeptics.
And most importantly, for this Newsbusters article is proof that Marohasy had no clue what she's talking about: "The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA
scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006."
One more thing: Notice how I don't even mention Al Gore. Why? Not only because he's not the most accurate representative of GW issues as GW skeptics and others have rightly pointed out over the last year or so, but because this issue is much bigger than him. GW is NOT a partisan issue and if you (meaning GW skeptics) keep thinking that way, you're never going to get it, never going to listen to reason and never going to be part of the solution to this very serious and real issue that will not go away any time soon.
I guess by "scouring" you
March 22, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberI guess by "scouring" you mean spending 30 seconds on The Drudge Report?
At least you are not letting your agenda get in the way of the facts.
drudge
March 22, 2008 - 16:37 ET by chuckoAnd Drudge doesn't have an agenda (against GW), right? Come on, Roger. You can do better than that.
Am I being too complicated
March 22, 2008 - 17:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberAm I being too complicated for you? you said "scour", I showed you that you were wrong. You are just pissed off that the truth is not being smothered, and that the global warming hoax that you treat as a religion is being shown to be a fraud on almost a daily basis. Don't blame me for your shortcomings, Chachi.
RtS
March 22, 2008 - 17:28 ET byChucko Little is just upset that we don't all run around like panic monkees with him
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
botg,
March 22, 2008 - 18:06 ET by R D HelmLOL-That was funny.
Wonder which one is Chucky and which one is Giles?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
I think Giles is the one
March 22, 2008 - 18:10 ET by dboI think Giles is the one with the longer tail.
between this and the other
March 22, 2008 - 18:19 ET bybetween this and the other guy who bases US foreign policy on Star Treks Prime Directive, there must be a full moon
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Now that's funny
March 22, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Jack BauerNow that's funny dude.
You will comply. Resistance is futile. Make it so.
Full moon
March 22, 2008 - 20:07 ET by nkviking75As a matter of fact, the full moon was last night.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I thought Drudge's agenda
March 22, 2008 - 18:02 ET by Jack BauerI thought Drudge's agenda was to make himself rich and famous?
I guess there's no getting through to some people, like the abofementioned Warm Earther from Cloud Chucko Land.
GW
March 22, 2008 - 19:22 ET by chuckoRoger, fetching some article from The Australian is pretty far-reaching, just to get an opinion from some biologist about GW. You and others here are so biased it's actually kind of sad. You buy everything Newsbusters writers sell you about GW-related issues without question, don't you? You and others here probably think NASA is a lefty group now because of their Y2K correction, don't you? That's just juvenile and pathetic. It is non-partisan and my link to their numbers stands unchallenged and accurate as it relates to the hottest years "globally" in Earth's history. But you're going to believe what and who you want to believe, and choose to NOT believe anyone who doesn't agree with your politics and position on GW.
I go on forums like these on the right and a couple on the left to call out their BS from time to time.
That's why I'm here now. And so anyone who says GW is a hoax is sadly mistaken. You don't have to believe in the doomsday scenario that some on the left believe we are in for to believe in GW and do something about it. Even John MCain believes that (but call it "climate change"). And no, not all of it is man-made, but we should all be trying to reduce our energy output, carbon footprint, etc. I know I am. What about you?
More Nonsense
March 22, 2008 - 19:37 ET by PopularTechWhether or not certain Scientists at NASA who work for James Hansen are leftists is something that has yet to be "officially" determined but should. Obvious assumptions can easily be made regardless.
Your link is challenged:
The Graph of Temperature vs. Number of Stations (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics)
GHCN Air Temperature Station Locations 1950-1996 (Animation) (University of Delaware)
FYI John McCain graduated 894th out of 899 in his class.
I get my opinion from scientists:
Skeptical Scientists:
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alfred (Al) H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Specializing in Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Canada
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc., Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, University of Chicago, USA
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
H. Michael (Mike) Mogil, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology Penn State, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, University of Leningrad, Russia
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, USA
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Macquarie University, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D.
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, University of Oxford, UK
Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
R.
W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology,
University of Hawaii, USA
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Marine & Atmospheric Physics, M.Sc., Ph.D. Engineering, California Coast University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography - Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, University of Miami, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Auckland University, Australia
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, University of Texas, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William (Bill) Bauman, B.S., Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William
J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Briggs, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, Cornell University, USA
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nice try
March 22, 2008 - 21:45 ET by chuckoNice try, pal. Those links you provided don't question the top 5 warmest years on Earth.
Nice try pal. Nothing you
March 22, 2008 - 22:07 ET by NL207Nice try pal. Nothing you have said is relevant to the questions: "Is human activity causing global climate variability outside the natural range and of dangerous magnitude?" In fact, nothing you have thus far posted has addressed EITHER of those questions.
Loss of logic
March 22, 2008 - 22:40 ET by PopularTechMy bad, obviously links showing the loss of land based stations worldwide and the corresponding increase in temperature in no way would question the top 5 warmest years on Earth. What was I thinking?
The Graph of Temperature vs. Number of Stations (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics)
GHCN Air Temperature Station Locations 1950-1996 (Animation) (University of Delaware)
Historical Station Distribution (Climate Audit)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The causation behind the correlation is obvious:
March 23, 2008 - 10:21 ET by DarkCurrentThe dramatic temperature increase from 1990 on is clearly overheating and destroying the weather stations
Bollocks
March 22, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Jack BauerBollocks. Earth's "history" started 4 billion years ago give or take a few minutes.
And not when mankind started recording air temperatures, which, as it happens was not so long ago.
But if you know the "global" temperature (whatever the frack that means) in the year 678,456 BC, and how that compares to 2007, do let me know.
Jack
March 22, 2008 - 22:17 ET by RESTLESS 1They have modeled it, so ... no they don't know.
chucky
March 22, 2008 - 23:23 ET by RESTLESS 1I know, I know, you don't like these scientists either.
We got "called out"
March 23, 2008 - 00:53 ET by PopularTechI mean Chucko you really gave it to us, I mean yeah... you called us out with your ramblings and original use of the word "denier". I hope you don't stick around because I don't want to get "called out" again - that was really embarrassing for you... I mean us, the "deniers".
Maybe if you repeat some more nonsensical statements over and over it will become true.
What about me? I am trying to INCREASE my carbon footprint so I can help trees grow, since I like trees.
Carbon Dioxide Helps Some Plants Survive Cold Weather, Cornell Researchers Find (Science Daily)
Duke Study Shows Carbon Dioxide Boosts Pine Tree Reproduction (Science Daily)
Elevated Carbon Dioxide Changes Soil Microbe Mix Below Plants, May Help Plants Grow (Science Daily)
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert (Science Daily)
High Carbon Dioxide Levels Spur Southern Pines To Grow More Needles (Science Daily)
High On Carbon Dioxide, Crops Of Tomorrow May Yield More Grain (Science Daily)
Increasing Carbon Dioxide Relieves Drought Stress In Corn, Researchers Say (Science Daily)
More Carbon Dioxide May Help Some Trees Weather Ice Storms (Science Daily)
New Satellite Study Shows Vegetation Increases In North America (Science Daily)
Open-Air Experiment Shows High CO2 Boosts Tree Growth (Science Daily)
Report: High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Duke Forest Growth By 25 Percent (Science Daily)
Study Shows Forests Thrive With Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels (Science Daily)
Oh and yeah I use as much energy as I want, whenever I want and there is nothing you can do about it.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
March 27, 2008 - 20:16 ET by RESTLESS 1I just have to laugh when one of these idiots comes in here with their "sky if falling, you are deniers" routine. Between you and NL207, and others, they have no chance. This chucky idiot seems to be the greenest, no pun intended, yet.
BTW, I wonder what chucky has against the coral reefs.
Seems we have finally found the cure to the common cold.
But alas, it seems there is no global warming anymore. Careful, two links for the price of one here.
Chucky, most here consider the term 'denier' to be derogatory.
March 22, 2008 - 16:27 ET by R D HelmGW is NOT a partisan issue...
Sorry, but it is a partisan issue, and will become even more of one as time goes on.
The overwhelming majority of those who buy into the AGW fraud are mostly disgruntled socialists who hate free market economies, particularly our American free market economy. They are participating in the promotion of this scam in an effort to scare half-thinking and half-reading Americans into going along with their plans.
And your assertion that NASA is an objective source in all this is ridiculous, as many of their questionable assertions have been thoroughly de-bunked on this site numerous times.
I have ceased participation in the AGW threads around here, as I am now pretty much out of patience with those who continue to buy in to this obvious scam.
As we say where I am from, stupid is forever, but ignorance can be fixed. Given the large amount of scientific evidence that directly contradicts the assertions of the climate alarmists, I now put them all in the former group.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
again, it's laughable
March 22, 2008 - 17:05 ET by chuckoUm, explain to me the difference between someone who says GW is a "scam" and someone who is a "denier" of it? Oh, wait, forget it. There's no getting through to people like you. [You can't even admit NASA is right about the 5 hottest years on Earth]
Chucky, are you and Giles perchance joined at the hip?
March 22, 2008 - 17:53 ET by R D HelmThe veracity of NASA's climate data is, gee, how shall I put this politely, somewhat questionable.
As you can see, their analytical errors have been explored here rather completely.
We have also covered the "denier" term, as well.
Sorry, Chucky, but you is decidedly bush league material 'round here.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
One is computer literate the other does not exist
March 22, 2008 - 19:26 ET by PopularTechNasa has a proven track record of getting it wrong:
1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Life likes it hot
March 23, 2008 - 14:51 ET by CobraManI hate to burst your bubble, but those scientists are wrong.
Geological data and fossil records show that the "hottest" years happened over 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. That was when the Sahara desert was, on average, 3 to 4 degrees Celsius HOTTER that today yet it was, at the time, a thriving temperate forest due to those hotter temperatures. This is because the higher temperatures changed the natural evaporative/rainfall cycle, which lead to more rainfall and the growth of the forests. It was only after the mean global temperatures began to cool, between 12,000 and 11,000 years ago, that the Sahara desert became an actual desert due to the vast decrease in rainfall. This all happened thousands of years BEFORE our so-called man made global warming came along.
Also, the global temperatures during the medieval warming period, called the Climate Optimum, were higher than today. That period saw the largest increases in human civilization since the end of the last ice age. It was a period when Greenland was actually green, when Europe produced the large, abundant crops of grain and fruits which allowed the large population growths that occurred during that period That was also a period when famine was largely unknown across most of the world, including Asia, America (both north and south) and Africa.
It looks like life on this planet, including human life, flourish when the global temperatures are higher than today. An increase in global temperatures would actual BENNETT us, while a decrease would cause wide spread famine, just as it has in the past. Just how does THAT fit into your gloom and doom scenario?
chucko little
March 22, 2008 - 16:34 ET byYou Global Warming deniers will scour the globe to find this crap.
the sky ain't falling
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
No clue what WHO's talking about?
March 22, 2008 - 17:16 ET by dboChucko...no offense but I can tell you're a real rookie. Your link to the 5 warmest years on record is dated Feb/07. In case you didn't know, in Aug/07 GISS/James Hansen's credibility took yet another blow when the now famous Y2K error was found. In Hansen's own words it was "no big deal" but admitted the mistake and now has downgraded all temps after the year 2000 by 0.15 degrees making 1934 the warmest year on record.
Ouch. Tough night for the
March 22, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberOuch.
Tough night for the rookie as he goes back to the bench.
YOU'RE THE ROOKIES
March 22, 2008 - 18:52 ET by chuckoWrong, rookies. The 1934 temperature correction applied to UNITED STATES temperature, NOT global temperature. Have a nice long night.
well you're shouting
March 22, 2008 - 19:03 ET bygot your fingers in your ears too?
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
Pipe down, Chucky. No one here is deaf.
March 22, 2008 - 19:15 ET by R D HelmThe problem is, you have landed in what are essentially the trenches of the ongoing AGW debate. AGW is one of the most explored and discussed topics here at NB. It has been since shortly after the site was started.
Believe me when I tell you, there is nothing that you are going to come in here and tell us that hasn't been previously examined forty-seven different ways here.
We have people here who are very competent members of the scientific community, and are highly knowledgeable in this area.
Do a site search if you don't believe me.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Care to debate the science
March 22, 2008 - 19:22 ET by NL207Care to debate the science behind this nonsense?
An obvious expert like you should have no trouble showing me where I am wrong.
The Worldwide Temperature Record is not accurate
March 22, 2008 - 19:23 ET by PopularTechThe Graph of Temperature vs. Number of Stations (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics)
GHCN Air Temperature Station Locations 1950-1996 (Animation) (University of Delaware)
The US is supposed to be the gold standard for temperature records:
How not to measure temperature (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist)
Odd USHCN Weather Stations (Surface Stations)
If we cannot get it right how accurate do you think the temperature records are in a third world country?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Where did Siberia go?
March 22, 2008 - 19:50 ET by dboThe 1934 temperature correction applied to UNITED STATES temperature, NOT global temperature.
Easy to make that claim when you can manipulate the data. The United States is 2% of the worlds land mass but accounts for 50% of global stations.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711
Notice a difference between 1985 and 2005?
And now we know that those
March 22, 2008 - 20:32 ET by Clear thinkerAnd now we know that those weather stations were set up in lousy data collecting locations. So we have no idea if the readings are truly accurate or representative of global temps.
Crappy data will give us crappy info every single time. Unless you are a liberal, then crappy data is a way of life.
"Abstain from McCain"
Double ouch. Once again
March 22, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Roger the ShrubberDouble ouch. Once again proven to be unworthy of Newsbusters, another naive liberal crashes and burns.
Computer Illiterates are so common
March 22, 2008 - 19:18 ET by PopularTechLook I had no idea there were so many computer illiterates. Anyone who doubts the earth is cooling can simply look at the facts:
Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times)
Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily)
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech)
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada)
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech)
As for anyone who thinks it is warming they too can look at the Facts.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
There is nothing to
March 22, 2008 - 20:45 ET by NL207There is nothing to solve. Your team has no argument. This is why:
(1) The current measured impact of aggregate human activity on the global climate since the dawn of the industrial revolution cannot exceed 0.8 degree C, and this assumes that ALL climate change witnessed since then is human in origin, an impossibility.
(2) The present global climate is not outside the range of recent [last 500,000 years] natural climate variability as established by ice core proxy and by a wide margin, something on the order of 5 degrees C.
(3) There is no evidence that the aggregate effects of any warming we have measured in the last 150 years have been in net, harmful. Nor has it been demonstrated that warming up to the limit of the natural range mentioned above would be net harmful to the biosphere of this planet. Indeed, there is significant evidence derived from the historical records of the Maunder Minimum that any global cooling will have significant deleterious effects on humans.
Until all three of the above conditions are shown to be false, there is no reason to pay any serious heed to any of the AGW alarmists including you.
chucko
March 23, 2008 - 14:45 ET by lotrI couldn't agree more -- I value this sight for providing me valuable information about media bias (joined over two years ago), only to be disappointed with blogs such as this. I just don't understand where the alarmist attitude comes from. Fact: Climate does change, and it can have impacts upon humanity. Finally, an excerpt from one of the so-called AGW skeptics:
"Even climatic fluctuations that appear to be small in size can be significant economicallly. Our research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison shows that an increase of 1 deg C in the summer temperatures in the northern plains can reduce the gross dollar income of the spring wheat farmers by $131 million... Climatic variation, like death and taxes, is certain. We know of no century with constant climate."
-- Reid Bryson, Climates of Hunger (1977)
AGW is a prediction -- folks are free to take it or leave it.
Disappointed with this site?
March 23, 2008 - 15:13 ET by CobraMan"I value this sight for providing me valuable information about media
bias (joined over two years ago), only to be disappointed with blogs
such as this."
I've seen you make statements like this before and I don't understand why you're complaining. You claim that you look for bias in the media and use this site as a means of providing research, but when the posters here discount the apparent bias in the media, and disagree with the statements that’s presented in the media, you get DISAPPOINTED? Just what ARE you looking for? Total acceptance and agreement with biased opinions and reporting?
BTW, I don't think that the people here think that the climate is unchanging. I think it’s just the opposite. Most here agree that the climate DOES change just has it has throughout history, we just disagree that it will be as catastrophic as the media portrays.
Cobra
March 23, 2008 - 17:20 ET by RESTLESS 1Agreed, only I would add that we also don't believe that man is the cause of climate change.
Had To Share
March 22, 2008 - 18:16 ET by JoelCTI just had to share this with you. My sister fell in love with a guy in Wisconsin and moved up there a few years ago. She always hated the muggy 100+ degree summers in Houston, and would send us e-mails about how nice the summers are up there. Heh heh, this year, the e-mails from Madison are a little different. I got this one Friday:
"Today, we are in a Winter Storm Warning until midnight. There is a possibility of 10 inches or more between now, at 9am and midnight. The wind is between 15-25 mph, and even though the temp is 29, it feels like 14. It takes 45 minutes to cover the entire balcony with snow after I sweep it off. *sigh* Spring is here????"
Al Gore, call your office.
calling common sense
March 22, 2008 - 18:46 ET by chuckoUm, Joel. You do understand that Global Warming means "Global," not U.S.A. warming, don't you? You do understand that it's common for snow storms to happen in March in northern U.S. cities, right? And that these storms have nothing in the way of proving or disproving a GW track? Just checking.
Don't go there
March 22, 2008 - 20:38 ET by ThisnThatChucko, you're treading in dangerous territory with your argument, here. Let's turn the argument around for a moment.
Um, Chucko. You do understand that the term Global Warming means man-made global warming to Liberals, not natural GW caused by forces of nature, don't you? You do understand that it's common for sunspot activity to vary in intensity, completely outside our control, right? And you know that the Earth has gone thru rapid global warming and cooling periods in the past, spanning periods of tens and thousands of years, thereby proving that mankind is not, and can not be, the cause of any current Global Warming or cooling, thereby discounting all the man-made GW hysterical fools out there like you, right? Just checking.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TnT -- he lives in Cloud
March 22, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Jack BauerTnT -- he lives in Cloud Chucko Land, where fairy dust and pixies cause the air temperature to rise.
His arguments just show how
March 22, 2008 - 20:51 ET by ThisnThatHis arguments just show how easily fooled some people are. Those that can't think for themselves create a vacuum which the unscrupulous will fill -- and we have plenty of unscrupulous people across the world that will take advantage of this to try to make us change our standard of living, and dig into our wallets.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
You do understand that it's
March 22, 2008 - 20:40 ET by Jack BauerYou do understand that it's common for heat waves to happen in August in northern U.S. cities, right? And that these waves of heat have nothing in the way of proving or disproving a manmade GW track? Just checking.
Heh, the summer equals the return of the Hysteria
March 22, 2008 - 21:04 ET by PopularTechOh how I cannot wait for the summer and the return of the hysteria. Heat wave in July? Obviously caused by man-made CO2!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Chucko Okay-o
March 22, 2008 - 22:23 ET by JoelCTUm, Chucko. I do understand that there are about a half-dozen theories to explain the .7 degree Celcius rise of the Earth's temperature since the beginning of the last century. I also understand that there are certain people, and a few of them are actually scientists of some type or another, who have latched on to the theory that somehow the puny humans on this planet have been the cause of it. These are people who have such hugely inflated egos that they believe that humans' tiny effect of exhaling and driving cars overrides the effect of the sun's heating and the Earth's natural cyclic temperature variations (not to mention volcanic activity and ocean currents). These people are able to add their egos to the equation, and come up with the calculation that the .7 degree rise in 108 years is somehow going to "catch fire" and accelerate into New York City being underwater by 2030. You do realize that your people "have nothing in the way of proving or disproving" that, when my body adds a carbon atom to the two oxygen atoms and expels it from my lungs, that this causes the Earth to get warmer? My theory on that is that, when I expel that C-O-O molecule, that the plants around me get a little happier, because they then take that 'C' atom and give me back the 'O-O' atoms, so I can do it again! Just checking.
Console Your Sister With Some History :o)
March 22, 2008 - 19:55 ET by CGattonJoel, you can always tell your sister, when next you speak to her, that if they get the 10 inches expected by midnight, they will have exceded the previous record of 76.1 inches from 1978-'79 by 25.9 inches. Yes, you read that correctly. Global warming has caused a 33% increase in snowfall in balmy 'most liberal city in the USA' Madison, Wisconsin. The corollary is, of course, that if they don't get the 10 inches, they still have shattered the existing record, but only by a measly 20%.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Thanks
March 22, 2008 - 22:06 ET by JoelCTYes, thanks. I also noticed that Green Bay got 80 inches of snow in a season for the first time EVER. I thought they got like 80 inches of snow a week from September to April (all us Texans think that way), but it turns out this has been a historic winter for just about everyone north of Dallas. ;)
I think it is because of all the carbon being used at Château Gore.
Globally warming
March 22, 2008 - 18:38 ET by jaywlThere is no doubt about rising temperatures, the only question is what we are going to do about it. You doubters have ignored facts long enough. My point of reference here in Virginia shows the temperature yesterday was 58F, today it has climbed to 61F. The log term trend this spring is upward. Give it up, actual data cannot be ignored. As to what to do about it, my car is filthy and I will waste water, drain detergents full of nitrogen into the watershed, and spray polycarbonate aerosols of Mequires into the atomosphere.
But it is getting colder in
March 22, 2008 - 18:44 ET by NL207But it is getting colder in Buenos Aries right now, so how could it be getting globally warmer?
NL
March 22, 2008 - 18:50 ET byi just got the 'trendings' for San Diego yesterday
4pm 76
7pm 66
10pm 56
in 30 hours it will be -50 and we'll all be dead
"what part of cycle don't you understand"
How do you get up each
March 22, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberHow do you get up each morning? I hope you are on the proper medication.
jaywl, is it possible that you are being sarcastic here?
March 22, 2008 - 21:35 ET by R D HelmI certainly hope so.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Do you realize what this
March 22, 2008 - 18:43 ET by MidAmericaDo you realize what this means!!?
WE are now the proponents (of global cooling and the science is on our side) and they are now the deniers!
Ban them! Ban the unbelievers!
: )
Connecting the dots
March 22, 2008 - 19:32 ET by yruymiYou may be interested to know that global warming appears to be a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s. A graph of the approximate pirate population versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years clearly illustrates a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
I’ve been giving this some thought today. Its obvious that we need more pirates. Its the only rational solution. I think government pirate subsidies are in order. And we must immediately begin offering degree programs in Pirate Studies at any universities receiving federal funds. Personally, I’ve been looking for a cause, something I can stand behind and use my voice to make a difference, and I think this pirate/climatology theory is just the thing. I shall begin wearing an eye-patch this very day in a show of my support. Al Gore missed the most inconvenient of truths when he missed the Pirate Connection.
OF
March 23, 2008 - 10:50 ET by red_dragon311OF COURSE!!!!!!
and that's why why have been getting cooler in recent yeras because of the Pirate's movies......See with a little help we can save the Earth
YES WE CAN!!!!
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Now find an actual climate change expert
March 22, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistSo let's see: Marohasy, is a biologist, working for a an Australian think tank that is identified (see link below) as "a vocal supporter of nuclear power, uranium mining and the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Australia." That scientific speciality and that institutional association gives her credibility on matters relating to global warming how, exactly???
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs/The_IPA's_pro-nuclear_advocacy
Just Say No To Consensus Science
March 22, 2008 - 20:06 ET by CGatton"That scientific speciality and that institutional association gives her credibility on matters relating to global warming how, exactly??? "
I would say that it clearly establishes her as one who can think independently of public opinion, who does not expect to make easy money on lawsuits because of her opinions, and one who is level headed and won't be swept up with the crowd. All of those characteristics give her far more credibility than Gorephiles, and those who believe in consensus science.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Define a 'climate change
March 22, 2008 - 20:07 ET by NL207Define a 'climate change expert'.
I will postulate this definition: "One who correctly predicts climate change." I guess that excuses Dr. James E. Hansen and most of the other AGW Alarmists, now doesn't it?
This is what was measured: The top graph is the one you want, the combined land + sea graph.
This is what Hansen Predicted. "Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.
At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."
That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C."
Sourcewatch the far-left Smear Site
March 22, 2008 - 20:47 ET by PopularTechwww.Sourcewatch.org
$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy
- Sourcewatch.org (Discover the Networks)
"SourceWatch seeks to expose what it calls the “propaganda activities of public relations firms” and the activities of organizations working “on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.” These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users.
...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources." Says SourceWatch: “You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” [...]
- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
"An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".
In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]
CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.
The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."
An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
- Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)
"The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate
PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Leon has tried to use that
March 22, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberLeon has tried to use that site as "verification" before, too.
He gets all pissy when the money trail leads back to the usual sources...
PT
March 22, 2008 - 23:52 ET by RESTLESS 1"CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation."
Run from their basement, no doubt.
"Mom, the newsbusters are picking on me again!!!"
"That scientific speciality
March 22, 2008 - 23:15 ET by ckc1227"That scientific speciality and that institutional association gives her
credibility on matters relating to global warming how, exactly???"
Well, Marohasy is no failed politician turned propagandist or Hollywood movie star, I'll give you that, lol.
The REAL reason for AGW
March 22, 2008 - 20:07 ET by GForceReputable scientists will tell you the propoganda that global warming is man made,, it's just that man made propoganda.
Are there any logical minds anywhere on the global warming debate?
I am not a scientist, but I have have as much and better logical proof that global waming is caused by socks than scientists have that it's caused by green house gases.
Socks have increased dramatically since I was a child. I now have tons of socks in my dresser drawer so many I can't count. We have more people all over the world, all of them wearing socks more. I had a couple of pair when I was a child. And in the early 1970's, the media, was frightening us with front page magazine headlines that we were going into another ice age, caused by greenhouse gases.
Now your greenhouse gas advocates have no explanation for that cooling. The reason we were cooling down was because it was the hippie era. We were wearing sandals and no socks.
It makes more since. ;^)
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle
Talking of Socks... check
March 22, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Jack BauerTalking of Socks... check out the campaign video! Socks4President08
Everybody sing along with Elmo and Kermit
March 22, 2008 - 20:12 ET by dboSomething funny about this graph:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MonthlyCO2vsTemps.jpg
One of these lines is not like the others,
One of these lines just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which line is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which line was not like the others?
Did you guess which line just doesn't belong?
If you guessed the green line is not like the others,
Then you're CO2 theory is wrong!
chucky
March 23, 2008 - 02:34 ET by RESTLESS 1Down here dummy.
This is just too much fun. AGW is a myth. Invented for no other reason than to redistribute wealth (mostly into algore's wallet).
As you can see here, climate models are crap. Bullsh!t in, bullsh!t out.
To top it off, you can't even trust the modelers to be honest.
Your ass has officially been handed to you on this thread. Do the honorable thing and slink off like the brain dead robot you are.
If a basic tenet of media
March 23, 2008 - 02:46 ET by cleverpigIf a basic tenet of media responsibility is to report the facts as they
are, we would see an even-handed debate citing global warming
proponents and skeptics. Yet the overwhelming amount of reportage we
see leans decidedly to the side of the proponents, while skeptics are
dismissed.
This fallacy is so annoying! Presenting two arguments equally is only responsible reporting if the evidence for the two arguments is equal. If, hypothetically (I said hypothetically! I don't want to count papers with you guys again. I'm talking about a principle of truth and journalism), there is an issue with 100 reputable scientific papers on one side, and one reputable paper on the other, then presenting one quote from each side and making them sound equivalent is misleading and irresponsible!
There are two reasons why reportage might lean towards proponents of AGW instead of skeptics. One is that the media is biased and has an agenda. The other is that the preponderance of evidence supports AGW and the media is reflecting that truth in their reporting. You guys should at least countenance the possibility that there is a good and valid reason for this "skewed" reporting. Skeptics should never be ignored, because they often have important light to shed on a subject, but they should not be automatically given equal weight in the debate simply because they exist.
Yes they should. The
March 23, 2008 - 08:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberYes they should.
The media is biased and has an agenda. So do you.
The debate is over.
I therefore demand liberal
March 23, 2008 - 23:03 ET by JerI therefore demand liberal dissenting views be given more weight at NB. Accordingly, all of our comments shall hereinafter be posted in triplicate. <sarc>
Jer
Seconded!
March 27, 2008 - 19:11 ET by cleverpigSeconded!
»→ No triplicates, please
March 27, 2008 - 19:23 ET by Cool ArrowNot surprisingly, Jer's idea is The Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell.
♣ a seal
Silly pig!
March 23, 2008 - 09:05 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSilly pig! First you say 'Presenting two arguments equally is only responsible reporting if the evidence for the two arguments is equal. ', then you diametrically oppose your own statement with 'Skeptics should never be ignored, because they often have important light to shed on a subject'. Perhaps your meds aren't working.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
You don't ignore them, but
March 27, 2008 - 19:09 ET by cleverpigYou don't ignore them, but you also don't give them equal weight if they don't merit it. Is there something confusing about this statement? Weighing evidence is not a binary exercise. It is not Yes/No, On/Off, 1/0. In no way did my two statements "diametrically oppose" one another!
If you look at pig's
March 23, 2008 - 09:46 ET by ApacheIf you look at pig's argument rather than his conclusion, he is saying that Skeptics should get more press than warmers who increasingly look like the ones who are in denial. The press has bought the hype which is largely political and don't look to the media for help because investigative journalism is dead. Else they may look into why the models the IPCC used have been debunked in peer reviewed papers. They seem to look for any ad hominem attack to dismiss a skeptics argument rather than to take on the actual argument. Alarmists believe the public is too stupid to notice this but this practice actually creates more skeptics.
Apache
March 23, 2008 - 23:20 ET bycleverpig is a female, other than that i agree with you
Sweet 16 sign-ups here
The preponderance of
March 23, 2008 - 10:17 ET by NL207The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that human influence over the climate is negligible in comparison to natural factors. Moreover, the amount of effect humans have had on the climate, in addition to being insignificant in comparison to naturally occurring variations, has also not been shown to be harmful to the aggregate biosphere of this planet.
These facts are so obvious that any school boy could discern them. It takes a Phd with too much time and government money on his hands to blow the situation so out of proportion using suspect methodology and predictive mechanisms as to give the "journalists" in the Jurassic Media a sensational story line.
If critical thinking and investigative journalism were not extinct in the Jurassic Media, this would be obvious even to them.
CP: One is that the media
March 27, 2008 - 19:34 ET by tracheostomyCP: One is that the media is biased and has an agenda. The other is that the preponderance of evidence supports AGW and the media is reflecting that truth in their reporting. <--- Hellooo consensus science!
This is the same poster that didn't know Michael Crichton was a real scientist.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ Trake
March 27, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Cool ArrowI know you're just answering CP's premise that it's one of two reasons.
Doesn't it also behoove the scientific community (short run) to prostitute themselves toward a predetermined but financially lucrative hypothesis? Selling the media on the idea is a must to pull off such a scam.
That's why I've never believed there are just two sides to any given story.
♣ a seal
What the scientists are saying....
March 23, 2008 - 14:28 ET by lotrBecause it is Easter, I wanted to abstain from this, celebrating the glorious risen Lord, but I just can't help myelf.
American Meteorological Society State of the Climate 2006
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88, June 2007.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/bams-2006.html
Abstract (emphasis mine throughout)
The State of the Climate in 2006 report summarizes the year's weather and climate conditions, both globally and regionally. In addition, the year is placed into a long-term climatological context. Furthermore, notable events are also discussed.
Overall global temperatures were fifth or sixth warmest on record, depending on the dataset, continuing an upward trend in temperatures. Many countries and regions experienced their record warmest year (or tied for warmest), including Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and China, as well as parts of Australia and Canada. In many regions, the warmth in 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from the record warmth in 1998. However, 1998 was influenced by the unprecedented warming associated with the record 1997/98 El Niño, whereas 2006 was marked by a 2005/06 La Niña that transitioned into a weak-to-moderate 2006/07 El Niño.
Consistent with the warming, sea ice extent in both polar regions reached record or near-record minima. In addition, Antarctic ozone concentrations reached an all-time minimum. Also, carbon dioxide measurements increased in the atmosphere by 2.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2006 to reach a global average of 381.1 ppm.
In the global oceans, sea levels were above average for ~80% of the ocean. The global mean sea level anomaly change of +6 mm from 2005 was the highest increase since the altimeter record began in 1993. Relative sea level change was also the highest ever recorded. Significant heat flux and current anomalies were observed in the regions of the 2006 El Niño and Indian Ocean dipole mode event.
Despite the warmth around the globe, tropical cyclone counts were near average. However, Tropical Cyclone Larry made landfall in northern Australia as one of the most intense storms in decades. Following the record Atlantic hurricane season of 2005, the 2006 season was very quiet.
Tell me, does this data
March 23, 2008 - 22:49 ET by NL207Tell me, does this data demonstrate that climate has exceeded the range of geologically recent natural variation?
Essentially, what you've said is that it is now as warm as it was 5 or 10 years ago. That represents no change, up or down over the last decade, doesn't it?
Didn't that hack, James Hansen, predict there'd be something like .30 degree per decade warming over the 21st century? Where is our .3 degree? He went so far as to predict there wouldn't be less than .17 degree per decade didn't he? This last decade is 0 according to you.
And we have seen, according to IPCC, about 0.75 degree K warming since 1900, yes? This paper says about half of that was due to solar variation. That leaves at most, about 0.41 for all other causes. Let's see now, according to the black body radiator model of earth, about 33 degrees K is the total atmospheric greenhouse contribution to the mean near surface temperature of the earth. Assuming humans are 100% responsible for all warming the sun did not cause, aggregate human activity for the 20th century caused a 1.25 % increase in the greenhouse effect. That's a fart in gale.
You can't seriously be suggesting there is a crisis here.
Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe According To NOAA Data
March 24, 2008 - 08:50 ET by PopularTech2007, Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily)
"The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring. [...]
During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.
Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.
Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource