The UK Telegraph reported Sunday that the United Nations will significantly reduce its global warming assessment in a document set to be published in February (emphasis mine):
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent. […]
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
One such skeptic, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), has already responded:
“We are all skeptics now. It appears that the UN is now acknowledging what an increasing number of scientists who study the climate have come to realize: Predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming are simply unsustainable,” Senator Inhofe said.
As anyone who has been following the Senator's well-documented position on this issue would expect, Inhofe certainly didn't end there:
The upcoming UN IPCC assessment is reported to ‘halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100,’ according to the Telegraph article. The UN’s lowering of mankind’s impact on the climate is reportedly because of “a refinement due to better data on how climate works.”
“It is remarkable that sea level rise upper estimates have been cut nearly in half since the last IPCC assessment in 2001, because of scientific ‘refinement due to better data.’ Climate science is always going through these ‘refinements.’ The erroneous prediction of a coming ice age in the 1970’s also faded away due to ‘a refinement due to better data,’” Senator Inhofe said. “As I detailed in my Senate floor speech on September 25, the media has alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895. Each climate scare eventually faded away due to similar ‘refinements due to better data.’”
“Even the UN appears to now be sobering up and dousing much needed cold water on the global warming alarmism promoted by much of the mainstream media, Hollywood, NASA scientist James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore. News that global warming alarmism is more hype than fact should not surprise those who viewed my committee’s “Climate Change and the Media” hearing last week or read the EPW’s new publicly released ‘Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism,’” Senator Inhofe added. (For more info on ‘Skeptic’s Guide’ go to: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711 )
“As Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, I have given over 10 climate change speeches and held four full committee hearings examining the global warming issue since 2003. After several decades of climate hype, the UN appears to finally be conceding that previous estimates of climatic doom have been over-hyped and the science was simply not there to project these frightening ‘extreme scenarios,’” Senator Inhofe added.
“Eventually, even the peddlars of climate alarmism will have to concede that the hoopla over manmade catastrophic global warming and the proposed solutions like the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol, will prove to be one of the history's most misguided concerns-- joining the 1970's coming ice age fears, overpopulation and famines scares -- to name just a few.
This news from the UN will not be greeted warmly by advocates of climatic doom. One can almost imagine the grieving faces of the Hollywood celebrities and environmentalists as they hear the new UN climate assessment and realize that they are way outside the ‘consensus’ on manmade global warming. With the continued scientific demise of manmade catastrophic global warming fears, the environmentalists and publicity and grant seeking scientists and many in the media, may now have to find another dubious environmental doomsday cause to scare the public and policy makers,” Senator Inhofe concluded.
Will anyone besides Inhofe notice this new assessment? Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Solar warming
December 11, 2006 - 10:18 ET by TheTruthGlobal warming (solar warming) the LIBERALS pathway to global government and global TAX.
Mark --too late
December 11, 2006 - 10:24 ET by misterbillMark --too late - I sold my oceanfront property to the "Al Gore Real Estate Corp" for 5 cents on the dollar last week.
Do you suppose the the misguided Al Gore believes what he is selling or just trying to stay in the limelight?
media
December 11, 2006 - 10:30 ET by iveseenitallWill anyone notice? Will any Rino speak out? Will the MSM propaganda machine admit its lies?---- Is the Pope Jewish?
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I heard the Clown God named Global Warming is...
December 11, 2006 - 10:53 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThe Clown God called Global Warming by its worshippers and followers apparently has sent its Messiah, the man called Al Gore, into hiding after the refinement and better data report weakened its status as divine and worthy of worship. The Messiah for the Clown God named Global Warming, Al Gore, is said to be still on the potty calling for mommy to come wipe his butt after pooping his britches upon learning of the current report, as well he is angry at the cow population for stealing what he believes is his thunder. More of the story as "anonymous" sources provide greater information. Moooo.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
LMAO!
December 11, 2006 - 11:01 ET by misterbillLMAO! Pooping his britches?? Haven't heard that since grade school. Good one!
Just in... Earth in Ice Age, only burning carbon fuels saving it
December 11, 2006 - 11:21 ET by acaiguanaJust in... Earth in Ice Age, only burning carbon fuels saving it.
Scientists discovered today that the Earth is actually in the middle of an Ice Age and that the burning of carbon fuels and bovine flatulence is the only fence against being frozen all the way to Florida.
As this Winter is showing, without the increased CO2 emmissions of SUV's; mankind would be up the old creek without a paddle.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
No, Al's not worried. He's ju
December 11, 2006 - 11:42 ET by Conservative in the ArtsNo, Al's not worried. He's just busy writting his new speech thanking all of his followers for helping him save the planet. He's going to take credit for this, not run and hide.
Its a scam by United Plunde
December 11, 2006 - 11:29 ET by james789Its a scam by United Plunder and Loot, er the United Nations, I have the proof right here where yesterday they stopped attacking a group who was willing to fight back and instead focused their evil, wicked scheme on a group that can not fight back, cows.
http://news.independ...
Now in a new 400 page report, the Unethical Nuckleheads are saying this;
" A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to
the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of
other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien
species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans,
from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs."
So, do your part to help, JOIN PETA, thats People Eating Tasty Animals and invite all your friends and neighbors over this weekend to a Bar-B-Que, and grill as much beef as you can, over a propane grill of course. Of course don't discriminate, be sure to cook plenty of spare ribs as well.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
17" increased level in t
December 11, 2006 - 11:30 ET by dscott17" increased level in the world's oceans not 34"? Well, I'm not a scientist, but just reading the scientific observations of the Medieval Warming, the ocean was 18" higher than it was now. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that history repeats itself and climate is cyclical. Now if only the UN IPCC will acknowledge the Little Ice age and the ocean levels were 18" lower than they were now, we just might have something rational to talk about and find ways to adapt.
btw- apparently contrary to the alarmism of the Global Warming advocates with the computer projections, the oceans around the world have actually fallen by a couple of millimeters. Hey, but who's counting on reality anyway? Now that the Hockey Stick has been discredited and the oceans aren't rising I have to wonder what it will take to get the IPCC to drop the whole Global Warming nonsense?
“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
Aw hell, didn't we have consensus last month??
December 11, 2006 - 11:32 ET by acaiguanaAw hell, didn't we have consensus last month??
I quit thinking about Global Warming then. Is that stuff still around?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
...
December 11, 2006 - 13:38 ET by MalcorYou're RIGHT! I remember someone, last week, trying to tell us over and over that a consensus had been reached.
Gee, I wonder what that guy thinks now. That "consensus" is just getting better and better.
Why do you think 17" is
December 11, 2006 - 13:39 ET by NL207Why do you think 17" is any more accurate than 34"? The people you are quoting for these numbers are shameless alarmists. The original estimates in teh NAS 2005 and 2006 reports was 0.1-0.9 meters. These UN people are now quoting something on the low side of middle of that range [0.45 meter] instead of the maximum as the likely outcome.
Remember we've been told 20 f
December 11, 2006 - 14:17 ET by danboRemember we've been told 20 feet and more. So the alarmist can't get their numbers straight.
As the seas have been rising since the end of the plistocene, 17 is high. And will come down more. I live a mile from the bay. At this rate I'll have to move farther inland in 2000-6000 years.
The end of the world has been postoned till after the taxes are collected.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The argument that since scien
December 11, 2006 - 11:59 ET by sphigelThe argument that since science incorrectly predicted climate change in the past means they cannot accurately do so today is ludicrous. It is contrary to the natural progression of knowledge in all fields of study. That said I don't buy into the current alarmism over global warming. I think that humans do, however, contribute to observed warming but I don't think we are the most significant contributors. I think that solar cycles and other less understood phenomena account for the majority of warming. I don't think that Senator Inhofe brings any intelligence to the debate but rather makes it all too easy for liberals to deride conservatives as anti-science. He and people like him are the reason I consider myself a libertarian and not a conservative.
Inhoffe like most politicians
December 11, 2006 - 12:29 ET by dscottInhoffe like most politicians have a legal background and thus all issues follow a line of reasoning. The Global Warming argument is rhetorical not factual, so there is no point in injecting facts when the whole issue is about an agenda. Any reasonable dispassionate observation of the data indicates the earth's climate goes in cycles, i.e. the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 1500 yr climate cycle. To make claims that Man is the primary cause or even moderately so for a .6 C temperature rise since 1850 is just silliness when one acknowledges standard thermometer error rates (3 to 5 C). This is like claiming the world is going to flood because it rained 1" on Tuesday, pure hyperbole.
“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
Well according to the UN, t
December 11, 2006 - 12:34 ET by james789Well according to the UN, the very same people who were blaming man for most of global warming just last month, they are now saying and I quote their new 400 page report, undoubtedly printed on recycled paper;
http://news.independ...
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing
herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and
wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes,
from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing
deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and
drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation,
entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by
sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's
1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18
per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than
cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
So where do they go from here? What will be the cause next month? Listen as Al Gore talks his audience into giving up their hopes and dreams. Tune in next time, same bat time, same bat place for Global Warming, the continuing saga of how the lie turns.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
I understand your point about
December 11, 2006 - 12:40 ET by RunningBeerI understand your point about comparing scientist from 100 yrs ago to today, we should be getting smarter as time goes on ("refinement due to better data" ??) and predict more reliably with better knowledge of the earth.
But I believe Inhofe's point however is directed more at exposing the climate alarmists over the last century. It's not that these scientists found clear evidence of climate change and tried to warn us, but rather they created the data needed to further their cause whether it be for attention, grants or whatever, just as we have seen with our most recent scare... GLOBAL WARMING (ooooooh).
I wonder where Throatwobbler
December 11, 2006 - 13:35 ET by NL207I wonder where Throatwobbler is? It is hard to imagine he has nothing to say about this.
NL -- He froze to death, I
December 11, 2006 - 13:50 ET by Jack BauerNL -- He froze to death, I heard.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
No "consensus" Jack
December 11, 2006 - 15:18 ET by acumenI heard throatwobbler was just badly beaten with some kind of broken hockey stick Jack. I'm currently in the process of fabricating a "scientific consensus" to support that claim......
Jack....Did throatwobbler fre
December 11, 2006 - 15:23 ET by Clear thinkerJack....
Did throatwobbler freeze to death due to GW?
Thanks for the concern. Glad
December 12, 2006 - 16:23 ET byThanks for the concern. Glad to know I'm missed :)
As for the Telegraph article, well the reporter makes a mistake. He confuses the prediction for 2100 with the prediction for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The numbers have not been revised.
Don't know about sea level. Could be revised or not, but I'd want another source besides this guy.
You guys know that none of this really changes anything, right? Right? Nevermind.
I'm curious, is there any sin
December 12, 2006 - 17:04 ET by dscottI'm curious, is there any single thing that could happen to convince you that the entire idea of Global Warming was not human induced?
Al Gore freezing to death in Tennessee????
“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
Yes, it's called scientific e
December 12, 2006 - 17:14 ET byYes, it's called scientific evidence.
Even if true, how would this story change the scientific conclusion that humans are warming the planet?
There is no scientific conclu
December 12, 2006 - 17:46 ET by bassndudeThere is no scientific conclusion that humans are warming the planet. There is no conclusive evidence of this. Only supposition.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I've shown you a lot of evide
December 12, 2006 - 21:30 ET by NL207I've shown you a lot of evidence that the alarmist claims of these so-called climat scientists are off base. That has'nt budged you one bit.
Let me now attack one of your paragons of scientific truth. Let's go after Michael Mann. Are you familiar with either of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers of 1998 or 1999? You should be, since the IPCC accepted their conclusions as fact. True confesions time. Have you read the actual original papers in their entirety, and I don't mean the 4-page summaries published in Nature.
Tell me what these were all about. In particular, what assumptions did Mann, et. al. make when they inferred tempurature from tree ring density?
You should know by now, he wo
December 13, 2006 - 10:27 ET by danboYou should know by now, he won't debate the facts. he runs in calls everyone stupid. Tosses in his talking points then runs. And avoids a the serious questions.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
He's right, we're ALL cloak
December 13, 2006 - 10:29 ET by sarcasmoHe's right, we're ALL cloaked today!
JMR
Other quotes from this Telegraph piece
December 11, 2006 - 15:31 ET by mmediaOther quotes from this Telegraph piece
- The IPCC report concludes “there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet.”
- The report says that carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating and “temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.”
- The IPCC “lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.” The new estimate was “a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.”
Are those who read the whole article similarly skeptical of global warming? When NewsBusters only provides a set of quotes that skew the view of the reader (as compared to a reader who's read the original article), are they serving us as well as we'd like?
I'm at work right now and I read blogs because I don't always have time to go hunting around for news. Not to get a skewed version of a story that I then have to fact check! But thanks for alerting us to the story, in general.
If the U.N downgraded (as the
December 11, 2006 - 15:45 ET by NazarethIf the U.N downgraded (as they SHOULD have long ago) then steele yourselves for an onslaught of unrelenting leftist media articles citing 'the majority of scientists' (a BLATANT lie) as being in favor of the Global Warming model! Can't wait for the incessant whining by leftists who insist we must all apologize for our existence!
http://sacredscoop.com
The link was provided to the
December 11, 2006 - 15:51 ET by dscottThe link was provided to the article if you really wanted to consume the full verbal excriment, reprinting the entire article is unnecessary when commenting on only a portion of it.
“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
If you guys are seeking to e
December 11, 2006 - 15:58 ET by mmediaIf you guys are seeking to excuse Newsbusters for providing three quotes that misrepresent the gist of a report which reaffirmed the existence of global warming, you may want to try a little harder than that.
No one here with any scientif
December 11, 2006 - 16:37 ET by NL207No one here with any scientific training claims the earth has not warmed slightly in the last century. What many DO claim is:
There has been argument on th
December 11, 2006 - 19:14 ET by danboThere has been argument on the actuality of warming or it's degree. I believe Dr Vincent Grey was one who did so. It's almost impossible to compare climate readings of today with 1900. Which makes the records of the 30's look even more impressive.
There are problems with the locations of reading. Often done now, at airports. In 1900? In the 80's a large number of weather stations were closed. Most of them in isolated locations. If you compare remote locations with urban areas. Urban areas show warming. Remote or isolated locations do not. If this is well, "global"; all locations should show an increase. Urban "and" remote locations. There has been added changes as the increased use of remote sensors which could account for much of the so called increase.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Translation: I have a lot of
December 12, 2006 - 16:25 ET byTranslation: I have a lot of excuses not to believe in science!
Very wrong. I believe NL does
December 12, 2006 - 20:31 ET by danboVery wrong. I believe NL does believe in science. That's why he isn't impressed by the hype.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The actual science says this
December 12, 2006 - 23:01 ET by NL207The actual science says this warming is no big deal. What did the NAS report say? 0.3 degrees C of anthropogenic warming in the last 35 years and at most 0.6 in the last century? This is trivial. Natural causes can and have in recent geologic time produced an order of magnitude greater effect.
NL207, No refs?Oh wait, we
December 12, 2006 - 23:12 ET by hydrodynDMNL207,
No refs?
Oh wait, we don't buy into "refs". You know, them jack book brown shirt science types.
Long time, no see.I was looki
December 12, 2006 - 23:24 ET by NL207Long time, no see.
I was looking to have a little discussion with throatwobbler about Michael Mann, his hockey stick, and carbon dioxide fertilization of plant growth. I was going through MBH98 and concluded the results are highly questionable, not only on the grounds McIntyre and McKitrick challenged the paper on, but also, based on the assumptions Mann, et. al. made to compute their results and the obvious discrepancies between the MBH98 temperature graph of the last 400 hundred years and the even more obvious discrepencies of the later thousand year temperature graph from Mann. Mann essentially claims there was no actual medieval warm period nor was there a mini ice age coincident with the solar Maunder Minimum.
Add to this the fact that Mann's work has not been repeatable by other researchers because Mann has not fully disclosed the software he usd to massage his tree ring data. On this ground alone, MBH98 cannot be caled science because it has not been demonstrated to be repeatable by third parties using the published methods of the researcher. That both the IPCC and the NAS would accept such work as fact without independent validation is shocking.
NL207,So what is true?
December 12, 2006 - 23:42 ET by hydrodynDMNL207,
So what is true?
I take it you mean more than
December 13, 2006 - 00:06 ET by danboI take it you mean more than what Willie Soon described as inaccuratecies with his discussions of Lamb's work.
Do you have a link to his (Mann's) full work. I for one would like to read it. (Other than a pay for view. That is.)
Oh. Unsane. Greenland. New clue. They also found the remains of root structures frozen in the perma frost. Being perma frost is a barrier to root formation. How did it develope down there??? For that matter. How did those wooley mammoths wind up frozen in the perma frost?
Kind of like tree stumps above timberline. And trees trunks being periodically ejected from glaciers, or finding peat bogs dating to the medieval warm period under the retreating glaciers. Strange being these glaciers never retreated before.
The end of the world has been postponed till after "all" the taxes have been collected!
Pay your carbon tax. And you too can have the fun of destroying the planet!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Such a shame I missed all thi
December 13, 2006 - 00:12 ET by UnsaneSuch a shame I missed all this. I was busy burning hydrocarbons and contributing to GW the past few days. :-) I love my truck, and I'll be damned if some mealy-mouthed guilt-ridden Leftists will get between it and me. (Cue the obligatory Deep Purple song you ALL know and love...)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Wahl and Amman replicated Man
December 13, 2006 - 08:42 ET byWahl and Amman replicated Mann's study and came to the same conclusion:
Summary of Wahl and Amman
Sorry.Wahl and Ammann 2006 r
December 13, 2006 - 09:38 ET by danboSorry.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I'll trust the NAS over McInt
December 13, 2006 - 09:41 ET byI'll trust the NAS over McIntyre. Notice he hasn't published this, not even in journals where the editors have a politcal bias.
Lose again. "Whoever un
December 13, 2006 - 10:09 ET by danboLose again.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I've got to run. have to add
December 13, 2006 - 10:40 ET by danboI've got to run. have to add CO2 to the environment.
I'll leave you with something interesting. A graph of Jukes individual proxies.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-images/juckes9.gif
Of the 18 proxies. 5 maybe 7 show an unusual warming trend to the end of the century. 4 sideways. The rest cooling.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
McIntyre again? Your only cit
December 13, 2006 - 11:48 ET byMcIntyre again? Your only cite is one guy posting on a blog.
Mine is the NAS.
You know better than that. I
December 13, 2006 - 14:44 ET by danboYou know better than that. I use all kinds of people. McIntyre does however have a web site with a lot of good data.
And of course you don't like him as he gives data rather then spin.
And is also someone who NAS agreed with. They agreed with Mann. They agreed with McIntyre's critique of Mann. A neat trick.
Being this is your expertise. Maybe you can help me. I'm looking for graphs of the world maximums and minimum temps. All I seem to be finding is the mean. Something Hanson said has me thinking. (land temps.) The annual mean of the daily maximums and the mean of daily minimums.
To be honest I'm one of those people, who think CRU and means etc are a joke. the data now and the data from 1950 and 1900 aren't the same data sets. So I take it was a big grain of salt. So when someone says this is the 6th hottest august. I see it as the 6th in 20 years But I think there is something interesting in the maximums and minimums. I've noticed it in the individual site records and am curious if it's also in the global temp. Douglas Hoyt alludes to it.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
I think what we have here is
December 11, 2006 - 16:40 ET by RunningBeerI think what we have here is a failure to communicate. You see, most of us have already done our research and found this garbage regarding GW was mostly alarmist hype. Compound that with the liberal media blitz rushing to condemn mankind for his very existance and then demanding the US pay out 13 hundred trillion dollars to "fix" the problem... well, you get skeptics. A lot of skeptics.
The majority of info on this subject is bunk and when people try to feed me a lie this big it insults my intelligence (assuming I have some). Just glad I'm not one of the sheeple praying to Allah Gore for relief from this manmade hype.
you just don't get it!
December 11, 2006 - 16:44 ET by misterbillyou just don't get it! What makes you so want to believe in the Gore goop that you continue to spout the scare tactics even in the face of a rising tide of proof that it IS a scare tactic???? I am tired of worn out fools like you. Go to Greenland and make your own observations. Of course there is some warming, Everyone agrees with that. And of course there were some temperature decreases back when fools like you spouted the new ice age. Get real, get a life and get lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are a hell of a lot more bad things happening on earth!
And to think people (liberals
December 11, 2006 - 16:57 ET by RunningBeerAnd to think people (liberals, media, etc...) are convinced that all the hype regarding Iraq and terrorism is just Bush's scare tactics. Yet they believe the blatant GW scare tactics without question.
Geeeezsh!
Your analogy is invalid. No
December 11, 2006 - 17:13 ET by NL207Your analogy is invalid. No one can show me a wall of water 20 feet tall that is the result of anthropogenic global warming. No one can show me that teperature means have increased 5.4 degrees Celsius as a result of anthropogenic global warming. Lots of people have already shown me a film of WTC 1 & 2 collapsing with the loss of about 2700 lives as a result of Islamofascist attack.
Morons who cannot distinguish between a palpable, demonstrated threat and a hypothetical scare scenario that continue to plague this nation.
Wise up, chowderhead. There are 12,00 Al Qaeda on the ground in Iraq according to Al qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Al Masri. Al Qaeda, as in 9-11 hijackers.
That's the point I was tryin
December 11, 2006 - 17:19 ET by RunningBeerThat's the point I was trying to make. Gore and the bunch are using blatant scare tactics and nobody questions it. They actually buy into it. But with terrorism they claim Bush is the one lying about it. Go figure???
My apologies for not getting
December 11, 2006 - 17:25 ET by NL207My apologies for not getting your meaning here.
Looks like you eat your chowder. not wear it.
Fortunate for me I do like a
December 11, 2006 - 17:51 ET by RunningBeerFortunate for me I do like a good chowder!
What is NEWS here. They had
December 11, 2006 - 19:01 ET by danboWhat is NEWS here. They had to eat crow. They've been screaming the end of the world for so long. As has been pointed out. the hype has been addressed before.
The end of the world has been postponed till after the taxes are collected.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Eating Crow
December 11, 2006 - 19:14 ET by BlondeOh come on danbo,
You know revenge is a dish best served cold! Particularly to the warmers.
They may have to postpone the end of the world for a while longer yet.
Laughing.
It is a lot of fun. Worth sit
December 11, 2006 - 19:28 ET by danboIt is a lot of fun. Worth sitting back and watching them with egg on their faces.
There's no way in h---, they're going to get CO2 emissions down very much. Evidence is mounting that we're going into a cooling cycle again.
I'll enjoy watching them scream the end is near. Like the schizophrenics with cardboard signs standing next to the road at the on ramp or exit of the interstate.
The end is near. The consensus and Al Gore and Ted Kennedy told me so.
I love it.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Yes, it is rather delicious.U
December 11, 2006 - 19:37 ET by BlondeYes, it is rather delicious.
Unfortunately, the myth will persist. It's been trumpeted for so long, and so far and wide....that most people actually believe in Global Warming. As we well know, the press won't do much to dispell the myth, either.
But thanks to you, others here who've provided all kinds of wonderful links, I think I may just start my own little information campaign.
Print off a couple of the more easily understood articles (along with citations for several more on the bottom of each page)....then bring up the topic in conversation. When I get the typical brain-washed Al Gore blather about Global Warming....hand out copies and invite a response after a suitable period of study.
Leaving out the tax thing, though, for now.
welcome to the club. There's
December 11, 2006 - 20:00 ET by danbowelcome to the club. There's way too much mis-information tossed out. I try to pass on what I know. But it's been drilled into peoples minds.
You might appreciat this one.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
mmedia
December 12, 2006 - 00:08 ET by Noel Sheppardmmedia,
Did you notice that the paragraphs included represented three of the first five in the article? One of the five I ignored because it was somewhat redundant given my introduction. However, for your edification, this was the lead paragraph:
In case you weren't aware, most writers put what they consider to be the major point they're trying to make in their articles in what's called the lede. Furthermore, the headline of the piece was, "UN downgrades man's impact on the climate."
Still think I was cherry picking, or skewed the point the author was trying to make? After all, given his headline, his lede, and the points made in four of the first five paragraphs, it quite seems the author also felt such issues to be more important than what was buried inside. However, if you still have a problem with this, won't don't you complain to him?
Finally, there were other parts of this article that were directly quoted in the Senator's posting. As such, I didn't want to be redundant. ns
Thank you for your reply. I u
December 12, 2006 - 10:21 ET by mmediaThank you for your reply. I understand that the change in the UN IPCC assessment is important news. Also important is that it is a very credible organization which still offers an analysis of climate change that should concern us, even if it may vary from year to year. Despite this fact, yesterday's news is framed by you (and apparently Inhofe) to cast doubt in the public about the validity of any claims about climate change. In a headline, you have tipped your hat toward a man who said that human-caused global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Are you endorsing this view, or simply pointing out the news that he was the only politician to comment?
In view of the discredited ho
December 12, 2006 - 10:43 ET by dscottIn view of the discredited hockey stick graph by Mann, continuing to claim Global Warming for the purposes of obtaining government funds is a fraud. It was Inhoffe's demands for transparency that helped expose Mann's chart as hoax, you do remember Mann refusing to share the codes so other scientists to properly peer review his work? Of course, I can see why you don't like Inhoffe, he espouses something you don't like. Government funds are finite, those funds could have been better spent on doing something showing results instead of wasting it studying a problem that doesn't exist. How many millions of tax dollars have been wasted on this? All that money could have subsidized processes for ethanol production that minimized the use of oil. But no, it was wasted on creating paper, cutting down trees in the process. The sheer irony of it.
btw- without Mann's hockey stick discounting the existance of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming, everyone looking at the temperature data would properly conclude earth's climate is dynamic and cyclical and not static. Mann attempted to deceive the public, he was caught and now your upset, oh boo hoo.
Without the hockey stick, you can't infer anything with CO2 levels. So the whole theory falls apart and what we have is a theory chasing (casting about for) facts to justify continued government grants to study it.
“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
God, will the right wing myth
December 12, 2006 - 17:02 ET byGod, will the right wing myths never die? Care to quote something that shows that the hockey stick is a fraud or has been proven wrong. No, not something from a partisan site. Not Inhofe's speech. Something from a scientific body. The NAS pointed out minor statistical flaws in the analysis that did not contradict the results. You can't keep saying the hockey stick is broken when the Naitonal Academies of Science concluded that they have confidence in Mann's findings.
That would be denial.
NAS also stated that McIntyre
December 12, 2006 - 20:28 ET by danboNAS also stated that McIntyre was correct in his annalysis of Mann's hockey stick You mislead again.
Easy one.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060214/20060214_14.html
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf
Do you want more?
David's paper isn't really hockey stick, just deals with IPCC.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
Right wing sources. Here's wh
December 13, 2006 - 08:57 ET byRight wing sources. Here's what the NAS said:
"The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then."
Notice they say it is the lack of early porxies that leads to any uncertainty. Not fraud or deception.
Further:
"None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added."
So, there is uncertainty, but no reconstructions show the MWP warmer than today. So McI. was correct, but it doesn't matter at all.
Care to give us your left win
December 13, 2006 - 10:06 ET by danboCare to give us your left wing source. NAS was not a resounding victory for Mann except in his own mind. And your's.
Yep no reconstructions show a warmer period.
Excrept McIntyre, Lamb, Willie Soon and Ballunas, Mudelsee et al (2001) indicated a lag of 800-1500 years between temperature and CO2. Dr David Deming states there are about 100 studies that show warmer periods which have been avoided.
Even Crowley and Lowery of the Royal Swedish Academy od Science. A friend of warmers states that these reconstructs can not prove that the present is warmer than the past.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
The NAS Report: my "left wing
December 13, 2006 - 11:51 ET byThe NAS Report: my "left wing" source
Oh. I'm so in aww. We might a
December 13, 2006 - 14:13 ET by danboOh. I'm so in aww. We might as well all give up. You found somthing written by, "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council", whoever they are. (not like they have an agenda.) And published by the National academy press. Though they tossed John Christy's name in it. I don't think he's a big advocate for you here.
Nice try.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein
"The National Research Counci
December 13, 2006 - 15:56 ET by"The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine."
Really, you should know this. I'm quoting the NAS report. That is the NAS report. You should read it instead of the rightwing summaries of it.
"Nice Try."
Your responses are becoming increasingly nonsensical.
Agenda, no agenda
December 13, 2006 - 16:06 ET by dagdaThe real question is, do they have an agenda. Science is very interesting. They have dissed the scientists who advocated that prehistoric Americans pre-dated the Clovis people. They practically drove them from the field. They drove the founder of the theory of Pangea to his early grave. They have claimed that things cannot exist when they clearly do. They cheat on data and plagarize their peers. Peer reviewed articles are a joke. They write the articles for each other. They have warned of a warming period, then a cooling period, then a warming period, then a cooling period, now a warming period. All in the last 100 years.
They all have an agenda, the question is what is the agenda.
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
Well, if you think science is
December 13, 2006 - 16:21 ET byWell, if you think science is corrupt, then there's nothing I can say to convince you.
Corrupt scientists
December 13, 2006 - 16:28 ET by dagdaEven scientists think other scientists are corrupt. If a scientist works for a multi-national, they are automatically corrupt. If a scientist works for a university they are corrupted by the politics of the institution and the need to get grants and publish or perish. If they work for themselves, they are corrupt because they are in it for the money. If they work for the government they are corrupt because either the system corrupts them or the government suppresses them. Take your pick. To my mind, scientist rate slightly lower than newspaper people right now.
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
you're joking right? you co
December 13, 2006 - 16:31 ET byyou're joking right? you completely ignore the fact that science is based on raw, empirical data. It's objective. People like you are the reason our country is slowy slipping from world power status. Every year we get dumber and dumber. Thank you NB and conservative christians.
see he was right--you prove it!!!
December 13, 2006 - 16:34 ET by misterbillGo play with your calculator!
zing
December 13, 2006 - 16:35 ET byzing
raw data?
December 13, 2006 - 16:40 ET by dagdaLet's look at all that "raw" data that was massaged to get the answers that they want. We know that the "hockey stick" "raw data" is crap. It was very poor stati