
As NewsBusters reported Monday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) was quoted in an Orange County Register article as saying about a recent trip by Senators to investigate Greenland's glaciers, "I think everyone who has seen this is changed."
On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported:
"There is absolutely no disagreement that the greenhouse gas emissions are adding to climate change and global warming," [Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland)] said. "No one disagrees that it would be a healthy thing for our world to have less greenhouse gas."
Sadly, neither of these articles chose to get opinions from the two Republican senators on the trip. If they had, another picture might have been presented, as reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis added):
Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia traveled to Greenland over the weekend to get a firsthand glimpse at the effects of global warming.
The first-term Republican said the trip reinforced his belief that the United States should gradually move away from fossil fuels like oil and coal. But it didn't convince him that more urgent steps are needed.
Isakson said he remains unconvinced that the current warming is a departure from long-term natural cycles.
E&E News offered more of Isakson's views Monday (emphasis added, subscription required):
"Senator Isakson believes it's premature to start talking about any carbon cap proposal since we have not fully addressed the development of all renewable resources, especially nuclear and cellulose-based ethanol," Isakson spokeswoman Joan Kirchner said today. Isakson's office also released a statement that noted climate change "is natural and has occurred before."
Isakson added, "The question is: To what extent is carbon accelerating the changes? The answer to that question is: No one knows for sure."
Understand why the Post and the Register chose not to quote Isakson?
Not interviewing Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), the other Republican on the trip, was also a wise decision (also from E&E News):
"We're digging in to understand this issue in great detail so that we can play a meaningful role as it is debated," Corker said. "We don't want to react impulsively and enact something that we can't reverse in the future if there are unintended negative consequences or our understanding of this issue evolves."
The Shelbyville Times-Gazette published more of Corker's skeptical views Tuesday that the Post and the Register certainly wouldn't have been interested in (emphasis added):
Getting an energy policy in place "that is right" regardless of the impact climate change has is a goal that Sen. Bob Corker expressed upon returning from a trip to Greenland this past weekend.
But while they viewed glaciers and ice sheets that make up 10 percent of the world's fresh water, nothing he saw surprised him, saying instead it was the scientists that were the most informative.
"I am at the same place [opinion] when returning from the trip than I was going on the trip," Corker said.
That certainly wouldn't have supported Boxer's "I think everyone who has seen this is changed" claim highlighted by the Register, would it? Nor would the following:
"I don't think there's any question that our climate is changing, but that's been going on for thousands of years," Corker explained. He also reminded reporters that the country was first called Greenland by Viking explorers who farmed there.
Yes, the global warming alarmists all seem to conveniently forget that fact, don't they?
But, that's not the only thing ignored in this discussion, for in her press release concerning this trip, Boxer stated the following (emphasis added):
Here it is, straight from Arkalo Abelsen, the Greenlandic Minister of the Environment, who spoke to us on Saturday morning:
"Looking back at my own life, I can only confirm that the climate in Greenland today is very different from the time when I was a child. I was born and raised in the southern part of Disko Bay. The sea ice closed the bay... from December until the end of May. The hunters went on the sea ice with their dog teams to catch food. These days the sea ice is formed in March, and disappears just a few weeks later. Some years it is not possible to go by dog team on the ice at all.""Until 15 years ago, the hunters in the Thule region could hunt walrus on the sea ice during a period of 6 months each year - today if they are lucky they can hunt on the sea ice for just 2 months. [W]e have had to give permission to kill polar bears, and polar bears with cubs, because they have wandered into towns and villages to seek food, because they cannot hunt on the sea ice."
Nothing like the views of locals that have been alive for about 60 years to impact a debate about centuries of climate data, wouldn't you agree? After all, according to the Greenland government's website, Abelsen was born in 1946.
Maybe Boxer would have gotten a better perspective of climate change in Greenland if she spoke to Abelsen's father and grandfather, assuming they're still alive.
After all, not knowing when Abelsen started working for the federal government, which is located in Nuuk, the average temperature in that part of Greenland - as seen in the following chart of readings from the GISS's Godthab Nuuk station - are still not as high as they were in the mid-1970s, the early 1940s before he was born, as well as parts of the '20s and '30s:
Of course, global warming alarmists such as Boxer never like looking at temperature records this far in the past, for they just don't support the hysteria they're trying to elicit.
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, there aren't any GISS stations close to Disko Bay where Abelsen grew up to give us a true picture of how temperatures have varied in that region. The following chart is from Jacobshavn, but that apparently was shut down in 1980:

As for the Thule region that Abelsen referred to, there used to be a weather station there, but it was closed in 1981:
However, nobody is arguing the point that the globe experiences warming and cooling periods. In fact, Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Oklahoma) communications director Marc Morano made this point in his article on the Greenland trip Monday (emphasis added):
Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
One such study was done specifically in the area that Abelsen grew up in. As reported by Agence France-Presse in August 2006 (emphasis added):
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published on Monday, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.
Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.
"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.
Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.
Not something Boxer and her global warming alarmists care to address, for to them, the only thing that matters is what's happened in the past twenty years or so as this current warming phase has reached temperatures that aid the hysteria.
This brings up another issue: if Congressional delegations had been sent to Greenland to examine glacial melts in the '20s, '30s, and '40s when temperatures at Godthab Nuuk were higher than today, what kind of recommendations might have been made to counter what appears to be a natural event?
Might tighter restrictions have been placed on a variety of industries seventy and eighty years ago - from coal to automobiles to electric utilities and railroads - that would likely have made our economy and our lives much less advanced than they are today?
How many more people would be living in poverty in America if Senators were sent to Greenland during America's Dust Bowl period to examine how "global warming" was impacting glaciers? Might we all still be driving horse-drawn carriages if climate hysteria back then had destroyed the automotive industry?
Interesting questions the alarmists don't want to address as they consider legislative changes that could be equally devastating to our children and grandchildren seventy and eighty years from now.
Just a thought.
Finally, kudos are due for ABCNews.com, as an article published Monday on this Senate trip gave a fairer picture of the events than any other media account so far, including quotes from Corker and Morano.
I highly recommend it as an example of what journalism should be.
Special thanks go out to NB member "danbo" who assisted me with researching the GISS weather stations. Keep up the great work, Dan!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Former Government Successes
July 31, 2007 - 17:28 ET by motherbeltIn the 70's, when my boys were small, government required that all pajamas had to be made of flame-retardant material. Later it was discovered that the chemical they used to treat the materials was carcinogenic.
Government-mandated airbags. Supposedly a lifesaver, now cars are required to post warnings that they can kill children and babies, and we are advised to keep our kids away from them, in the back seat.
Now "government" says the global warming thing is "settled". Everyone shut up and do what you're told. Who knows what the result of this latest meddling will be in a few years? Do they even care?
I guess when something is
July 31, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Chris NormanI guess when something is "settled fact", any voices of disagreement are irrelevant in the minds of the MSM and just a nuisance to the story...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Greenland
July 31, 2007 - 17:57 ET byso called by Vikings who farmed there
No doubt before the SUV ban of 792AD
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I asked Helen Thomas . .
July 31, 2007 - 18:29 ET by FastEdand she said it was actually 799, when the Super Utter Viking ban when into effect. Asked how did she remember the exact date, she replied that is was two less then the hotel room she stayed in with Eric the Red, outside of Uummannaq fjord.
The ban was in response to the CO2 output of the 40 or so vikings on the then everyday long boat. Shipbuilders had to adjust their building of big ships to accomodate the new regulations, and make 16 bench semi-long boats. This not only reduced the number of men, and hence their CO2 output, per boat, but an unintended consequence was the out of work seamen, and the reduced man power needed for shipbuilding. With the additional displaced workers, Greenland and Norway signed a pact, allowing workers to travel freely between the two countries, and again the result was a disgrunteled populace in Norway, due to the rapid influx of out of work sailors, who spent their time in grog houses, eating abundent amounts of beef, whose herds were increased due to extra demand, and resulting in the added CO2 output.
The moral - be careful what you wish for.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Can I just ask a question,
July 31, 2007 - 18:31 ET byCan I just ask a question, because I genuinely don't know.
Is it actually a Republican thing (like, is it official) that Global Warming is fiction?
I read the blogs on here all the time, and the subject of climate change is largely laughed off, but surely there are Republicans and/or Conservatives who believe in it, just as there would be Dems/Libs who don't?
I'm curious.
eye... Think RINO's like
July 31, 2007 - 18:42 ET by bigtimereye...
Think RINO's like McCain.
One perfect example...throw in some others we conservatives love like Snowe and Collins...
Hope that answered some of your questions for now.
Btw...all up for re-election too.
As an aside Infofe is da' man as far as I am concerned when it comes to reality about AGW.
Not "fiction" at all, just
July 31, 2007 - 18:42 ET by sarcasmoNot "fiction" at all, just unproven as far as the "it's human caused so let's ignore the Sun's effect on other planets" goes & therefore political.
JMR
Eyecare
July 31, 2007 - 18:43 ET byDon't know about official, but many here have looked at the scientific evidence of the past climate cycles and have seen the continual warming and cooling cycles. So Global Warming is NOT the debate, the debate is the Antropomorphic part.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
If you read the posts here all the time, eyecare
July 31, 2007 - 18:52 ET by RJIf you read the posts here all the time, eyecare, you'd be aware that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" has been thoroughly debunked over and over again with facts and figures. Given that, most here believe AGW has not been proven.
Well Read Conservatives
July 31, 2007 - 18:54 ET by dagdaBecause Conservatives are better read than Liberals, we are aware that GW might exist however, it seems to have ended about 1990. Our problem is that some seem to think that it is continuing and that we can do something about it. Since there is great scientific doubt that man caused it and that changes could make a difference, we are against spending money on a lost cause.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
And we're also against
July 31, 2007 - 19:45 ET by HypocriteHaterAnd we're also against people like Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crowe who want to tell us to change our lifestyles, but continue to fly their private jets around the world and organize wasteful rock concerts all in the name of AGW that is NOT settled science, by the way.
EC - consider what everyone else has said . .
July 31, 2007 - 19:46 ET by FastEdand if really concerns you, don't rely on the msm to give the "facts", as if you read enough around here, they are a little shy of facts. Anyway, if you need to speak with someone who REALLY thinks there is GW, caused by humans, and you want to find out if THEY know what they really know, ask one question of them - How many glaicers are there in California? If they look at you strangely, or give a low number, then you know they like kool aid.
(ans = about 500)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
.....Media
July 31, 2007 - 18:28 ET by bigtimer.....Media Misrepresents...
'Nuff said.
Nothing new.
What a waste of taxpayer
July 31, 2007 - 18:32 ET by ckc1227What a waste of taxpayer money. As if Boxer and her posse hadn't already made up their mind on this issue. They could have discovered a Greenland newly covered in 50 feet of ice, and they would still sing the same old song. I bet the press releases were written before they ever set foot there.
Agreed. These constant
July 31, 2007 - 18:36 ET by sarcasmoAgreed. These constant junkets are part of the problem with big government, and the news media loves 'em.
JMR
Hey, you forgot -
July 31, 2007 - 19:47 ET by FastEdTheir kool aid was cold, even with the reduced ice.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I for one think more of
July 31, 2007 - 21:38 ET by Clear thinkerI for one think more of these junkets are in order. The longer we can keep some of these people out of DC the better off we all will be. Yes, I would definately pay to keep them from governing.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Clear
July 31, 2007 - 21:47 ET byI agree a junket to the south pole to compare glaciers from now until the sun comes up!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Amen! Get Email updates
July 31, 2007 - 21:49 ET by Clear thinkerAmen!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I am so proud to see my
July 31, 2007 - 18:41 ET by msh1973I am so proud to see my Senator (Nelson) in the photo op, all smiles...on my dime. (tongue in cheek)
It's no wonder
July 31, 2007 - 19:00 ET by 10ksnookerNo one wants to talk about the current ending of the 'modern maxima'. Yes, that's what today's period of sunspot activity is called. For the last 50 years or so, it has been working up to a peak. Now the sun has decided to change course. See spaceweather.com for daily sunspot activity ... it's been real quite now for many many months.
The Earth experiences ice ages, which last an average of 100,000 years, and interglacial periods which last about 11,000 years. The current interglacial period is now 10-15000 years old, depending on how you count the end of the last ice age.
The sun is brighter now than anytime in the past 8-10000 years, but the increase in solar output was not calculated to be sufficient to cause all of the past century’s modest warming. The missing amplifier was discovered in 2002 with scientific papers from Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svendsmark of the Danish National Space Agency.
All these scientists have proved that the sun’s protective solar wind, generated from sunspots, blows away the deep space cosmic rays, forming a protective shield around the Earth. With fewer sunspots there is less solar wind, more cosmic rays, and more cloud formation from those cosmic rays. More cloud formation means more cooling effect on the planet, more precipitation everywhere.
If future sunspot predictions prove true, you are going to want global warming, RSN.
In Science classes, we were
July 31, 2007 - 19:12 ET byIn Science classes, we were taught that nothing is "proven", and it is more correct to say that "evidence supports" etc.
I happen to believe in Global Warming, but I can't prove it, and I know that it will take a few hundred years to see a pattern, and I won't be here. At the moment, we only know that the world has warmed for the past century.
I'd be careful too, 10ksnooker, about talking about "100,000 years". Some people think the Earth is only 6000 years old!
I'll go and look up Modern Maxima though. Cheers.
This comment is by a
July 31, 2007 - 20:19 ET by dahliatraversThis comment is by a heathen so your little remark about the age of the earth falls on deaf ears.
No one disputes that global warming is occurring. The earth's average temperature rose a whole .77 of a degree fahrenheit over the last century. The question is, what role does the six percent of greenhouse gases (94% being created by nature) contributed by man play in this trend?
Further, the premise of your original question is erroneous. The issue cannot be cast as either Democrat or Republican but rather in the framework of science. Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming have abandoned the scientific method (except the media, which never employed science in this matter but simply parroted the same poorly researched story as everyone else - monkey see, monkey do) now that most of the new evidence contradicts their theory. Those who are skeptical arrived at their skepticism because of science.
See, it's the reverse of what you might have thought ...
Oh come on, it's a harmless
July 31, 2007 - 20:53 ET byOh come on, it's a harmless joke and a fair one. Creationists aren't likely to be left wing are they?
Besides, I'd only just finished reading about park rangers at the Grand Canyon, and how they are officially not allowed to tell visitors the actual age of the geological formations any more. They have to say "many years old" or something like that.
Eyecare... I hope you are
July 31, 2007 - 21:32 ET by Clear thinkerEyecare...
I hope you are kidding about the park rangers!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
No, not kidding. Google it.
July 31, 2007 - 21:36 ET byNo, not kidding. Google it. It's official Bush Policy, I believe.
Having said that, I've just
July 31, 2007 - 21:40 ET byHaving said that, I've just found another article; Peer; debunking it.
You lost my interest when
July 31, 2007 - 21:40 ET by Clear thinkerYou lost my interest when you said "official Bush policy".
I smell something fishy!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
It's called BS. Whoever
July 31, 2007 - 21:48 ET by danboIt's called BS.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
Potential Troll Alert
July 31, 2007 - 23:19 ET by stratmanEyecare has been a member 1 week, 2 days and already fomenting trouble.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Grand Canyon NPS
July 31, 2007 - 23:45 ET by dagdaThe official park website has dates going back many millions of years. It if were official Bush policy it would be in there, too.
http://www.nps.gov/g...
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
"Eyecare...
July 31, 2007 - 21:55 ET by ckc1227"Eyecare...I hope you are kidding about the park rangers! "
Not only is he kidding, he's doing exactly what liberals usually do: making things up. Either that or he got snookered along with so many others. I suspect it's a little of both.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
Kudos to these guys for following up on this nonsensical story and for issuing a correction.
One of my disappointments
July 31, 2007 - 22:16 ET by danboOne of my disappointments with Bush. I wanted him to push out some of the political correctness mafia from government. Including NPS, Smithsonian, NASA, NOAA, state, NFS, etc. Unfortunately he disappointed me.
But we're being told he's telling rangers what to say about the age of the Grand Canyon.
Part of lying is telling something believable. And hope no one checks. That isn't even believeable.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
At least eSkeptic owned up
July 31, 2007 - 23:34 ET by RESTLESS 1At least eSkeptic owned up to their error, but how does ANYONE take the word of a group like PEER and not fact check? They didn't even call National Parks Services or the Rangers at the Grand Canyon to uphold or refute PEER's claims. That is as bad as the alphabet networks.
Global Warble
July 31, 2007 - 21:26 ET by stratmanWell said DT.
I sent a friend of mine an email today with links to a variety of articles concerning the non-science (nonsense) of AGW. He's a physician and you'd think he would understand the derailment of scientific methodologies utilized to obtain the false conclusions of AGW. I have a feeling he will discount or ignore my email as he's already said he isn't interested in the topic since nothing of (his) concern has occured yet. When it begins to affect his investments I'll bet he'll take notice. Else he already is an AGW cultist.
I would recommend to all interested in learning more about the myth(s) of AGW check out Free Stinkers page of links at http://newsbusters.org/node/13656#comment-384093. ) As good a place to start as any due to its brevity and breadth of topics covered: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777.
Also good reads are "NEW! More Dissent: Financial Times - Models trump measurements" as well as Soloman's other 27 articles under the heading "Now THIS is dissent! Financial Post series by Lawrence Solomon". The articles are to the point, brief and expose a different myth that comprise the mythology of AGW.
For the person wanting a bit of entertainment with their knowledge then have a look at the speeches Michael Crichton has given on the topic (transcriptions provided) on his website at http://www.michaelcrichton.net/. As an added bonus, Crichton skewers the media to their faces at the National Press Club in the speech entitled "Mediasaurus: The Decline of Conventional Media".
And Eyecare, some questions to ask yourself:
Why isn't the Earth continuing to heat up as AGW predicts?
Where are all the storms AGW'ers predicted last year and this year so far?
Why can't TV Weathermen give accurate weather reports for 1-2 weeks in advance but AGW'ers can predict what will happen in dozens to hundreds of years from now?
Why do AGW'ers shout down or flat out exclude dissenting views?
Why do AGW'ers outright ignore contradictory yet factual evidence whilst clinging to refuted data?
Why are there cold snaps in the Southern Hemisphere despite AGW's forecasting the opposite?
Why doesn't the IPCC climate model account for Water Vapor, which makes up >90 of all greenhouse gases? (clue - the computer models are not able to)
Why did AGW'ers change the name from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? (historically known as "the weather"?) (clue - because of all of the above and more)
Enquiring minds would want to know.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Request
July 31, 2007 - 21:29 ET by stratmanCan someone please direct me to where in the IPCC report they preface the entire report as based on flawed modeling software and/or incomplete data. I recall somewhere on NB this was discussed and/or linked.
Thanks.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Is this what you were
July 31, 2007 - 21:58 ET by dahliatraversIs this what you were looking for, stratman?
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
Thank you DT. That does
July 31, 2007 - 23:36 ET by stratmanThank you DT. That does detail false and incomplete data being used to make incorrect assumptions.
Unfortunately it was not what I am looking for. I recall a discussion on NB where the IPCC report prefaced itself with a caveat about its own conclusions as a result of immature computer modeling or incomplete data sets. In essence, the IPCC folks were stating that their report was conjecture containing some imperfections. Then they went on to explaining/justifying their multiple projections of the future, all bad of course.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
I have a feeling he will
July 31, 2007 - 22:09 ET by dahliatraversI have a feeling he will discount or ignore my email as he's already said he isn't interested in the topic since nothing of (his) concern has occured yet. When it begins to affect his investments I'll bet he'll take notice.
That's the problem. Potential "anti-global warming" legislation could be passed and its damage would affect us sooner than climate can take a decisive direction and/or scientists like your friend start paying attention to the (weak) case for AGW.
Gore Gone Wild - Show Us Your Prius!
July 31, 2007 - 23:56 ET by stratmanAGW'ers are playing hardball using intimidation (both career and financial), oppression of dissent ("it's settled science!") and appeals to the middle class to get on board the new "feel good" train (evil corporations versus smart, progressive, caring, everyday people) in combination with attempting to secure legislative protectionisms for their non-science cult in lightning fashion (legislative oversight commitees and mandates to industry and private citizens). It is a bliztkrieg approach to cultural totalitarianism.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Stratman, I fear if your
July 31, 2007 - 23:37 ET by RESTLESS 1Stratman, I fear if your friend waits until AGW hits his investments, it will be too late. He had better pay attention NOW. And we must be ever vigilant as well.
Hope Springs Eternal... So Far
August 1, 2007 - 00:22 ET by stratmanThat's why I am trying to inform him.
While he is fairly analytical, he is intellectually lazy about certain topics, as we all can be, and AGW is one of his blind spots. At least I hope he hasn't already joined the Gore Unicorn Brigade.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Wow, great job on this
July 31, 2007 - 19:43 ET by DaMavWow, great job on this article! Thanks.
Corker
July 31, 2007 - 20:14 ET by dervishProud as I am of my man Bob and his common sense, how did he get on this junket? Do they draw straws, or what? Corker was elected to the Senate more recently than Boxer's last Botox treatment.
Why is it . .
July 31, 2007 - 20:30 ET by FastEdThat the tax spenders get to go on junkets, while the taxpayers get junk?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Thank You Barbara Boxer
July 31, 2007 - 22:35 ET by PopularTechThank you, Barbara Boxer for without your ridiculous comments like "The Debate is over" I would have never felt like researching your lies.
Greenland - ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
QUOTE (ESA)
Researchers have utilized more than a decade's worth of data from radar altimeters on ESA's ERS satellites to produce the most detailed picture yet of
thickness changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet. A Norwegian-led team used
the ERS data to measure elevation changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet
from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in the interior sections estimated at around six centimeters per year during the study period.
Greenland - Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (University of Aarhus, Denmark)
Greenland - Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing (CO2 Science)
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Well now I do beleive in
July 31, 2007 - 23:30 ET by mlongWell now I do believe in Global Warming ....because all that hot air coming out of Boxer and company just has to have some affect on increased temperatures around the globe.
*Sheehan-vs-Pelosi*
"This could get ugly"
My whole political
August 1, 2007 - 02:35 ET by fitzfongMy whole political philosophy can be summed up this way: "Whatever Barbara Boxer is for, I'm against. And vice versa". The woman is less intelligent than a cut toe nail (not to mention less ethical than a pimp), yet she holds the gavel for this committee and is given glowing praise for a string of intellectually vacant opinions. Why have we never been able to run a decent Republican against her since '92? She's such an easy target, breathtakingly stupid and blindly partisan at the same time. I'd even vote for that lame excuse for a Governor, Arnold Shriver against that bimbo, and he's in the man-made global warming tank. Geez, I'd even vote for Gray Davis over Boxer!
}}}----> Like, Wow
August 1, 2007 - 02:50 ET by Cool ArrowLike wow, man, me and these other like, Congress dudes, and some girls too, went over to Greenland this summer and, you know what? Like, the ice was frikken melting! I mean it. It was turning to water right there in front of us.
Sheesh
yeah dude
August 1, 2007 - 06:57 ET by Full MonteYeah dude, I bet if we come back in the winter, we can actually watch it freeze again - cooool!
"I really can't stay (but
August 1, 2007 - 09:29 ET by Rackie"I really can't stay
(but baby it's cold outside)
I've got to go 'way
(but baby it's cold outside)
this evening has been so very nice
(I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)..."
Thanks Bing.
what's magic about 1880... think end of little ice age
August 1, 2007 - 11:07 ET by wizardjrThat's the dirty little secret that the alarmists keep trying to hide. Around 1850 the Little Ice Age ended. Well... let's see... the opposite of an Ice Age is... wait... wait... OH YEAH! a warm period!! And... we are still below the peak temperature of the Middle Ages Warm Period that preceded it - one of the most bountiful time periods in history for Europe and North America.
In addition, the glaciers at upper altitudes are actually increasing in thickness and size, but I guess they forgot to tell you that. Ooops.
"Good Grief, Charlie Brown!" Lucy