Weather Channel Founder Decries Global Warming Fraud

[SN]

Old time Chicago residents may remember John Coleman. Good guy in my book. I agree with him too, Global Warming is crap.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.

Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

There is an argument that can be made against global warming.

But I'm not sure John Coleman is the best expert on the subject.
How up to date is he on the latest scientific studies?
How much new research is he personally involved with?

More importantly he has a serious axe to grind with the Weather Channel.
A lot of his antiglobal warming rhetoric centers around attacking the Weather Channel's motives and tactics.

Speaking of motives...
Yes, John Coleman founded the Weather Channel, but he was also forced out and had the Weather Channel taken away from him by the board.

[SN]

There is an argument that can be made against global warming.

But I'm not sure John Coleman is the best expert on the subject.
How up to date is he on the latest scientific studies?
How much new research is he personally involved with?

More importantly he has a serious axe to grind with the Weather Channel.
A lot of his antiglobal warming rhetoric centers around attacking the Weather Channel's motives and tactics.

Speaking of motives...
Yes, John Coleman founded the Weather Channel, but he was also forced out and had the Weather Channel taken away from him by the board.

The majority of the profesionals in my field believe Global Warming is crap. meteorologists, climatologists, and oceanographers.

I 'll put their credentials against Al Gore's on any day.

[SN]

Here is an opposing view:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

[Jong]

Here is an opposing view:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

Do you have a link to that? I would like to piss some people off.

[Mjolnir]

Here is an opposing view:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing. There are so many different theories on this that im not buying into anything until I see it or people come out and say, hey its legit and can present PROOF. Not some Al Gore power point crock of shit. The speculation is interesting and fun at times, but I will continue to enjoy big trucks and fast cars until further notice... haha

[SN]

Here is a link to my article:

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

A second article, with graphs:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

and a Russian article:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

[Bravo Five Romeo]

The majority of the profesionals in my field believe Global Warming is crap. meteorologists, climatologists, and oceanographers.

I 'll put their credentials against Al Gore's on any day.
Right. As I said, there is an argument against global warming.
I'm not saying there isn't.
I'm just saying John Coleman isn't the most credible opponent.

[T-Rock]

What happens on Mars stays on Mars...or does it....:D

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

[Zealot]

My professor has been talking all semester about Global Warming and this carbon credit thing in his Global Environment class. I just sent him an email with links to those articles to see his opinion on them.

I will let you all know his response. Hopefully he will be academically constructive.

[slowfood]

and then there is this

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm



i also think that GW is crap. or better, is a very clever attempt of the commies to disturb capitalism, and an almost successful attempt of technocrats to take control of the world through energy policies.

most of the anti-clobal-warming policies are simply nuts.

some of you might have seen this.

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

i have greatly enjoyed it :-)

[Tracy]

Hot off the press:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

I had the pleasure of attending one of Dr. John Christy's briefing on the lack of any climate temperature model that matches actual observed data. Mr. Gore's uniformed campaign to panic people about the environment now has foreign presidents claiming the USA is responsible for flooding in their country because we didn't sign the Kyoto Accords. Thanks Al, I owe you one...

BTW, Dr. Christy is regarded as a "Flat Earther" by Mr. Gore.

[SOTB]

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere....Right on, I introduced the family to the joys of snow-skiiing this winter -- looks like all that high-priced ski clothing I had to buy them (women -- no new activities to be attempted without a new wardrobe) won't sit in the closet afterall....

[P38]

When I went to high school in the early 70's we were being taught that pollution was bringing on another ice age and the world as we knew it was about to end. Now it's the exact opposite story. People just aren't happy unless they think the world is ending through some sort of devastating event.

Michigan has had a much heavier than normal snowfall this winter and we're expecting another hit tonight. My wife is dead on my rear to finally go out and buy a snowblower and I'm actually thinking about it to prevent a personal calamity. This global warming is hell!

On the other hand, I clearly recall when a normal winter brought snow up to my chest. Over the years it receeded to waist high. Now it's rarely above my knees. Something has changed a bit.

[RGR.Montcalm]

Hot off the press:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

Mr. Gore's uniformed campaign to panic people about the environment now has foreign presidents claiming the USA is responsible for flooding in their country because we didn't sign the Kyoto Accords. Thanks Al, I owe you one...

BTW, Dr. Christy is regarded as a "Flat Earther" by Mr. Gore.

Did you mean uninformed:D ?

Hey will they take back the Nobel Prize and make him give back the money when this is proven? That would be :D

[RGR.Montcalm]

When I went to high school in the early 70's we were being taught that pollution was bringing on another ice age and the world as we knew it was about to end. Now it's the exact opposite story. People just aren't happy unless they think the world is ending through some sort of devastating event.

Michigan has had a much heavier than normal snowfall this winter and we're expecting another hit tonight. My wife is dead on my rear to finally go out and buy a snowblower and I'm actually thinking about it to prevent a personal calamity. This global warming is hell!

On the other hand, I clearly recall when a normal winter brought snow up to my chest. Over the years it receeded to waist high. Now it's rarely above my knees. Something has changed a bit.

Well, there used to be a place in Florida called "Frostproof" for a reason- until the freeze of 1978 killed all the citrus trees in Florida to a point about 20 miles SOUTH of Frostproof- I wonder if they renamed "Dunno?":rolleyes:

[Jong]

I really have no idea what to believe, but I do know this. If you go up to Alaska the glaciers up there are melting. You would be amazed at how much ice has melted, but it hasn't just started. You can go up and visit a glacier that has been melting for the last hundred years at least and also notice that it hasn't really melted any faster in the last 20 years.

[Whitebean54]

Well, there used to be a place in Florida called "Frostproof" for a reason- until the freeze of 1978 killed all the citrus trees in Florida to a point about 20 miles SOUTH of Frostproof- I wonder if they renamed "Dunno?":rolleyes:

They renamed it "Ah shit":D

[morelocks]

Long term climate (thousand year) is a product of the Milankovitch Cycle.
Short trend climate (hundred year) is a product of solar cycles.
Urban areas can see some significant modification due to the Heat Island effect.

Here is an excellent article that concisely ties it together and includes pictures for those 0311's (Pickpocket) that need it. (Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html)) Yeah I was an 0351.

Since a very large portion of the data used to support the claim of global warming is SKEWED by the inclusion of monitoring stations impacted by the heat island effect, the data is CRAP. The theory is CRAP. There is little to no evidence of "human induced" global warming anywhere. Solar data from the end of the Maunder Minimum directly follows the trend for temperature to date. (Link (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html)& NASA (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/)) The spike in temperature in the last 20 years that Global Warming proponents point to is a direct result of the Heat Island effect and the inclusion of skewed data. If you only take measurements at NBA events your average human would be 6’8”.

The only factor left out of discussions is volcanic events and others that can cause a widespread disruption of solar energy from reaching the Earth’s surface.

Still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t clean up the place and get off the oil dependence from the ME. Give people a monetary motivation and the alternative energy sources will bloom.

[CV]

I am so ignorant on this subject that it hurts. But am I naive thinking that the Earth will have more impact on itself than we as humans will contribute?

I am not against a Cleaner Earth, I am very Pro-Environment and responsibility. But the Global Warming phenomenon seems a bit out of our own league.

[KidA]

You can't judge global warming by how cold your winter is. Doesn't work that way. It doesn't really affect winter since the "warming" is only a couple of degrees overall.

There was a really good article on what it WOULD do IF it were happening and I'll try to find it - had a hell of a lot to do with Gulf Stream and other weather patterns bringing colder water to some places and warmer to others coupled with the melting of polar ice which would/could cause flooding.

Over the very long term temperatures would be raised overall but as far as making it hot in Michigan during January - that just ain't how it works. In fact it would likely get colder in many places even though the earth overall is warmer - again, due to shifting gulf streams and whatever that main underwater river is in the Atlantic.

I mean hell, usually in DC we get a few snowfalls a year, some years with 15 inches at once. This year there has been little snow to speak of and it was 70 for a few days in January/February (when it's normally 20) and on Christmas day I was in a t-shirt.

Which is why you can't say it is or isn't happening based on your local weather.

[AngryBob]

Its been cold before and its been warm before, so I can expect some cold and some warm. Weather patterns are constantly in flux. This must be related to the Ohio voting right now! Currently, it has been wet over here. Not sure what caused it and darn sure I don't know what will fix it. Again, the problem is probably caused by China, Mars, the industrialization of Montana, and the potential for pandemic influenza. I do not think any side of the argument has a clear and winning position. The news pretty much supports Al on this one, but he has been wrong before. Plus he is fat....

[Matchanu]

Michigan has had a much heavier than normal snowfall this winter and we're expecting another hit tonight.
.


No shit. I just got back from Benton Harbor after being there for 2 weeks.

Sucked.

[Massgrunt]

On the other hand, I clearly recall when a normal winter brought snow up to my chest. Over the years it receeded to waist high. Now it's rarely above my knees. Something has changed a bit.Oh shit, same here...

[Matchanu]

Oh shit, same here...


On the same note, we had a record snowfall last year.

[ET1/ss nuke]

If the world actually got a whole lot warmer, the permafrost that prevents cultivation of Siberia and Canada might melt, which could improve the world's food supply.

If the entire Arctic Ocean icecap thawed out, sea levels worldwide would not change one millimeter. Put an ice cube into a glass of water and measure the water level. Check the water level again once the ice melts, and the only possible change in level will be a slight change downward due to evaporation.

Of all the water on earth, 97% is seawater, including the Arctic ice cap. Of the remaining 3%, half is locked up in ice, primarily in Antarctica, Greenland, glaciers, permafrost, and living cells. A little over 1% of the earth's water is fresh water in the cycle of evaporation and precipitation. Therefore, if all the glaciers and the whole Antarctic ice cap melted, worldwide sea levels would not be very different than they are now, and the increase in warm weather and rainfall could make the world a more productive place even if a few coastal cities here and there looked a little more like Venice. Maybe the coastal effects wouldn't be even that severe, because sea level is already different depending on where you go, which is why sea level at one end of the Panama Canal is different than at the other end.

There is proof all around us that earth used to be warmer than it is now. Fossilized cold-blooded animals and tropical plants have been found on every continent including Antarctica, but nowhere have fossils of cold-weather plants and animals ever been found, suggesting that they are a relatively recent development. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that the earth will cool off over the long haul. If human pollution of the atmosphere could actually cause global warming (a proposition for which I have yet to see any convincing evidence), then the best thing we could do for our planet would be to build more coal burning power plants to stave off the eventual ice age.

Back in the 1950s, Albert Einstein claimed that the weight of an expanded Antarctic ice cap plus the torque applied by the earth's rotation could cause the earth's crust to suddenly slip over the still spinning mantle like a flat tire not keeping up with wheel it was attached to (I don't have an internet link, but look up Crustal Displacement Theory). He envisioned that the entire continent of Antarctica could slide as much as 20 degrees in latitude or more, resulting in the sudden and catastrophic melting of the entire ice cap, the immediate alteration of weather patterns and ocean currents worldwide, and an immediate increase in the rate of continental drift combined with a wobble in the earth's axial rotation due to unequal distribution of mass around the planet's circumference, resulting in earth-shattering seismic and volcanic activity as well as disturbances in earth's electromagnetic field with resultant increases in exposure to solar radiation. In other words, we could experience a sudden world-wide catastrophe with no warning if the Antarctic ice cap continues to build. While I am not an alarmist, I tend to put a little more weight on the assertions of Albert Einstein than on the ravings of Albert Gore.

Do us all a favor - cook tonight's dinner over charcoal! If we are lucky, that idiot Al Gore might be right and the world might get a little warmer.

Edited to provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific journal describing Einstein's support for crustal displacement theory here: http://tierra.rediris.es/publipapers/Einstein_Earth_Sciences.pdf

[Spinner]

Al Gore also stands to make a lot of dough if his partnership with some of the companies touting green related "remedies" takes off.

Interesting recipe for success. Whip everybody into a frenzy about global warming and the dire threat it poses to the human race, start touting carbon offsets and other "green" initiatives, and then start investing in companies that provide the cure for those same problems.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

As for John Coleman, he was a decent meteorologist who is remembered more in Chicago for his crazy on air antics than his weather forecasting. He's no Tom Skilling.

[longrange1947]

I am really getting sick and tired of all the crap about the polar cap, note cap not caps because the southern polar cap has been getting bigger.

There is no doubt that the earth has gotten warmer and it was predictable. It has now gotten cooler, and again, predictable.

Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who, as just pointed out, will make big bucks if he can con everyone into this dance.

There was a counter movie made to Al's little crap flick, that won honors only because it was a jab at President Bush, that has been largely ignored even though it is truly an "Inconvenient Truth". There was a push to make it mandatory in Britain just as Uncle Al, the idiots pal, and his movie was made mandatory in British schools.

This whole thing is a crock and so many climatologists have tried to get the truth out but are being ignored by the alarmist MSM.

Believe what you wish but I find it interesting that now global warmi9ng will cause run away green house burn up the earth OR will cause another ice age. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. That is just like saying that there is 50% chance of friggin rain.

My useless 2 cents.

[P38]

The earths climate has been changing one way or another throughout unrecorded and recorded history so there is no doubt in my mind that it's changing now, one way or another. Humankind is adaptable and will survive just as they always have.

This morning I'm voting for a new ice age as the 4-foot piles of snow on either side of my driveway became 5-foot piles of snow after the addition of another 6 inches of the white stuff during the night. I'm watching closely for those mini ice mountains to begin to move.

People seem to love to worry about impending, life ending disasters. Asteroids, earthquakes, volcano's, tidal waves, rampant disease, etc. Big Al has chosen warming. Personally, I've decided that I'll worry about the next and impending shift of the New Madrid fault that's going to uterly devestate the center of the US. That or my 401K and home values. :)

[Bravo Five Romeo]

Put an ice cube into a glass of water and measure the water level. Check the water level again once the ice melts, and the only possible change in level will be a slight change downward due to evaporation.Even if that were the case, and the water level lowered because the ice in your cup evaporated instead of melting.... that water is coming back down eventually, just not in that cup.
It's a little different when you're talking about the water level of the world.
What goes up must come down.
Even if the icecaps evaporated as opposed to melting, that moisture comes back down in the form of rain and the oceans rise.
Evaporated water isn't taking off into space.

[morelocks]

Even if that were the case, and the water level lowered because the ice in your cup evaporated instead of melting.... that water is coming back down eventually, just not in that cup.
It's a little different when you're talking about the water level of the world.
What goes up must come down.
Even if the icecaps evaporated as opposed to melting, that moisture comes back down in the form of rain and the oceans rise.
Evaporated water isn't taking off into space.

I believe his point is that water gains volumn and loses density when it is frozen. As a result when the ice cap and/ or glaciers melt they will barely effect the sea level. Frozen water makes up at most 2% of all water on Earth.

In other words, no need to start buying that ocean front property in Arizona.

[Spinner]

Evaporated water isn't taking off into space.

Not yet. :D

I sent Tom Skilling an email question in his "Ask Tom" sidebar of the Trib's weather page, inquiring how long it would take for all the water on earth to disappear if the evaporative cycle went haywire and no water returned to the surface in the form of precipitation.

As expected, he never printed a response in the paper. He's probably still shaking his head and rolling his eyes.

[KidA]

The majority of the world's glaciers (and Antarctic Ice Cap) are grounded (97 percent), not floating, so yes, they would flood if they all melted and the ocean levels would rise because the ice isn't part of the ocean levels. It's important to differentiate from floating (won't change the oceans) and grounded (would change the oceans like a motherfucker).

Of course it would take thousands of years (look how long it took the Ice Age to shrink back to where it is now).

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

The bigger issue would be rivers raging and flooding. See the Grand Canyon? Carved by a river fed by a former glacier at La Poudre Pass Lake (which is still feeding the Colorado River).

Now imagine one running from Canada through NYC and along the east coast. Bye bye East Coast.

"If all of (just) Greenland's ice were plopped into the ocean, sea level would rise a catastrophic 20 feet or more. " Time.com

That's because, again, Greenland's Ice isn't in the ocean at the moment.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

To try this at home, fill a glass full of ice and water to the top. Ice melts, water level won't rise.

Now fill an glass full of water to the top. Drop a cup of water (to simulate melted grounded ice) into the glass already full of water.

[JRB11]

If the arctic?Greenland ice melted, the world would change dramatically. Pretty much all scientists with any credibility agree on that. Even GWB agrees the worlds temperature is rising, he just doesn't agree it's because we drive SUV's. As for the panama canal, it is true the Pacific is 8 inches higher than the Atlantic, but only because of tides/currents. The Earths sea level is pretty much, well, level. My 2 cents

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_046.html

[longrange1947]

Of course there are those blips. :D

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

[FinsUp]

Link about the amount of snow cover in North America, and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=332289

[KidA]

Link about the amount of snow cover in North America, and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.


But doesn't do anything to prove or disprove Global Warming.

The Northern Hemisphere could get colder but the Southern get warmer.

[chokeu2]

But doesn't do anything to prove or disprove Global Warming.

The Northern Hemisphere could get colder but the Southern get warmer.


And London used to be wine country, Georgia used to be a desert, California used to be a jungle...

None of that is the scurge that the new communists would have us believe. It is climate change, but it is not human induced climate change. The real case should not be that we need to "disprove" global warming, it is the global warming cooks that need to prove their case. Their entire philosophy and "science" is faulty, and they are trying to go against actual, recorded meteorlogical weather history.

I think you guys are arguing for the sake of a arguing.

[KidA]

It is climate change, but it is not human induced climate change.

If you could prove that you'd be a billionaire. :D

[Linear]

Personally I hate being lied to and manipulated by people who want to use government power to raid my bank account and run my life. Yes we have global warming--it got really cold during the Little Ice Age and temperatures have apparently been headed back up. It got really cold during the Ice Age, too, and we've been having global warming ever since. Since nobody was using fossil fuels then and evil America didn't even exist, it is unlikely that global warming has much to do with carbon footprints, fossil fuels, or evil Americans. The Mars data, as we all know, are Bush's fault.

The data, as opposed to the modeling results, tell the tale. Good summaries for laymen abound. Take a look at the Cato Institute report at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf. One of the best data and academic paper summaries is at CO2Science.org. They got taken down in a hacker attack two weeks ago and are offering only limited access to the data base but it is still well worth a visit.

[JRB11]

Isnt using Cato as a source like useng the National Socialsts as a source to prove Jews are bad? This whole arguement is about who are you going to believe, the industry supported "scientific" community, who have hundreds of billions to lose (or gain if they work together to find a solution) or those "commie"-wtf?-scientists who seem to have the vast majority of scientists convinced that man has greatly accelerated the warming of the Earth. I always look for motives, and I'm not convinced that industry has my or my childrens best inyerests in hand.

[Carl Spackler]

Take a geology class. "Global Warming" is another earth cycle. We may make the extremes worse but are we creating it? NO. Its been going on for millions of years.

[KidA]

I always look for motives, and I'm not convinced that industry has my or my childrens best inyerests in hand.

Yep. Their motive to "disprove" it is so they can continue operating with higher profit margins, not because they genuinely believe that they are having zero effect on the earth's climate.

I don't know either way and regardless I'll be dead by the time we're in an Ice Age or 1000 year reign of 120 degree temperatures.

[slowfood]

the whole story over anthropogenic global warming is a giant scam
for example, even if really sea level increased, i cant imagine anyone sitting on the shore for half a century waiting to be submerged

climate might change and we will adapt. hell, we survive temp changes in the order of 50Celsius just across seasons or long distance flights, cant see how millions will die because average temp changes 1 degree celsius over dozens of years.

[Keganswar]

I agree that global warming is a gimmick. No one can say for sure if its true or not everyone has there own experts. The bottom line though is it does highlight the fact that we live on an island. Protecting the environment while having a healthy economy should be a priority. I am not advocating making everything spotted owl protected but having some sort of happy medium when it comes to capitalism and the environment would be a good thing imo. So as far as awareness goes maybe the global warming catch phrase will serve not as a truth per say but as a vehicle to get people involved and educated.

[chokeu2]

If you could prove that you'd be a billionaire. :D

Well... if it works, I'll cut ya in! :D

[chokeu2]

If the arctic?Greenland ice melted, the world would change dramatically. Pretty much all scientists with any credibility agree on that. Even GWB agrees the worlds temperature is rising, he just doesn't agree it's because we drive SUV's. As for the panama canal, it is true the Pacific is 8 inches higher than the Atlantic, but only because of tides/currents. The Earths sea level is pretty much, well, level. My 2 cents

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_046.html


Hell... Greenland used to be... Green... Remnants of civilizations have been found below the ice.

This is nothing more than a political movement trying to take advantage of Earth's climactic cycles.

[KidA]

This is nothing more than a political movement trying to take advantage of Earth's climactic cycles.

At the fringes, yes. I wholeheartedly agree. I also don't believe there are serious scientists out there who state that humans are solely responsible for any climate change going on, but I do believe there are serious scientists who are saying we could be exacerbating, quickening, helping along what could be a cyclical cycle.

I don't trust big business to say "it ain't happening" anymore than I'd believe Michael Vick if he said "dogs LOVE to fight that's why I let them do it"

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I mean we do know what causes acid raid - if there haven't been any volcanic eruptions then it is the pollution we're spewing (and we are spewing it).

And on that note if it takes "you're going to destroy the earth" to get more people to pay attention to the pollution aspect and come up with better ways to manufacture items without the pollution (and we have the technology to do this) and better vehicles that don't pollute as much and don't rely so much on oil, then, frankly, I'm all for it.

But on the other hand I know that if we limit or restrict businesses HERE in the US so that it costs more to manufacture things, meanwhile we allow free and open trade with another country that's polluting like a smoker with a 4-pack a day habit then we are just hurting ourselves.

[SN]

This whole arguement is about who are you going to believe, the industry supported "scientific" community, who have hundreds of billions to lose (or gain if they work together to find a solution) or those "commie"-wtf?-scientists who seem to have the vast majority of scientists convinced that man has greatly accelerated the warming of the Earth. I always look for motives, and I'm not convinced that industry has my or my childrens best inyerests in hand.

A- The majority of the scientist know GW is a fraud.
B- Do some research, guys like Bill Gray do not need industry to make a buck.
C- The GW industry are the people feeding at the trough.

Same crowd that whined about nuclear winter, remember that fraud.

[ET1/ss nuke]

Personally I hate being lied to and manipulated by people who want to use government power to run my life.

Sounds like military life.

[JRB11]

Sorry, but most scientists do agree the earth is warming at an unusually fast rate, and Bill Gray is hardly the expert on the subject. I can find scientists who work for the tobacco industry who probably still tell you that smoking does not cause cancer. Sure, the earth goes through cycles, this is just an unusual trend, based on many thousands of years, not one cold winter. One things for sure, no one here is an expert, especially this 1.07 GPA student. Like I said, I always look for motive, and it's plain as day that industry has more to win/lose than those commie scientists. But, who knows, I love warm weather, and maybe I'll get some drier winters out here in the NW.

[Purple36]

http://globalchange.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[Hot Mess]

Take a geology class. "Global Warming" is another earth cycle. We may make the extremes worse but are we creating it? NO. Its been going on for millions of years.


ding ding ding! What about the mini-ice age in the late 1700's (maybe 1800's)?

[SN]

Sorry, but most scientists do agree the earth is warming at an unusually fast rate, and Bill Gray is hardly the expert on the subject. I can find scientists who work for the tobacco industry who probably still tell you that smoking does not cause cancer. Sure, the earth goes through cycles, this is just an unusual trend, based on many thousands of years, not one cold winter. One things for sure, no one here is an expert, especially this 1.07 GPA student. Like I said, I always look for motive, and it's plain as day that industry has more to win/lose than those commie scientists. But, who knows, I love warm weather, and maybe I'll get some drier winters out here in the NW.

Define "Most" scientists, and tell me why they know more then meteoroligists, climatologists, and oceanographers?

Hard numbers, not something your pulling out yer 4th POC.

[SN]

ding ding ding! What about the mini-ice age in the late 1700's (maybe 1800's)?

The premise of the first article. Tied to sunspots, and not barbeque grills.

[Greenhat]

And on that note if it takes "you're going to destroy the earth" to get more people to pay attention to the pollution aspect and come up with better ways to manufacture items without the pollution (and we have the technology to do this) and better vehicles that don't pollute as much and don't rely so much on oil, then, frankly, I'm all for it.

I disagree. That sort of wildly exagerrated statement turns the focus from improving what we do into cleaner, better processes, vehicles, etc. to an argument about climate change.

And it is a wildly exagerrated statement. Even if human activity did cause another ice-age, or climate change that killed all of us off, the Earth would still survive.

I'm all for finding replacements for petroleum-based fuels, preferably ones that are cleaner. I'm all for reducing emissions into the atmosphere. But I'm for those things for health (anyone who suffers from respitory issues and has been to Shanghai, Mexico City or Bangkok knows what I mean) reasons and economic dependance reasons, not climatic change reasons.

As for what those other nations do? Anyone remember what Pittsburgh, Akron or Buffalo were like 40 years ago? They got cleaned up without any need for "Global Warming" hype. Bangkok is cleaner now than it was twenty years ago (and I assume Mexico City is as well). The same thing will happen with Shanghai.

The argument is unnecessary. It's just Gore and others getting rich off making it an issue.

[JRB11]

Hard numbers and facts?!! Why start down that road now!

[SN]

Hard numbers and facts?!! Why start down that road now!

Because YOU said most scientists believe in GW. So give some proof that most scientists believe in GW.

[Purple36]

http://globalchange.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html


NOAA and NASA folks for one acknowledge global warming...

[Longrifle]

NOAA and NASA folks for one acknowledge global warming...The first source listed on that NASA site is a link to "An Inconvenient Truth.":rolleyes:

So much for gubmint scientists . . .

[T-Rock]

So much for gubmint scientists . . .

“Hold Your Breath”….this will significantly decrease CO2 output….:D

I think that British documentary “The Global Warming Swindle” was posted here some time ago, nevertheless, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0hGxq5g0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsX_nHn_hM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwXt2iNiKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6CG7ermeHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZC4hD9MRc

[1026]

The first source listed on that NASA site is a link to "An Inconvenient Truth.":rolleyes:

So much for gubmint scientists . . .

NASA and NOAA fucked the whole argument up from the get-go. In NASA's case it was phony statistics showing 1998 as the hottest year since records were kept when it was really 1934. The brain surgeons at NOAA had their global warming monitoring stations located at such places as jet engine test cells or nestled among commercial air conditioning units atop buildings.

I wouldn't believe government on this issue because, as with so many others, it is about expanding their control over more of our lives.

[Tracy]

NOAA and NASA folks for one acknowledge global warming...

...and got it wrong. The NASA scientists at Huntsville, AL disagree on their own agency's assessment.

[SN]

...and got it wrong. The NASA scientists at Huntsville, AL disagree on their own agency's assessment.

NOAA isn't being truthful. They relocated a lot of weather stations in the US (consolidation) and repositioned the sensors.

Weather can change a lot in a short distance (compare Pope AAF to Simmons AAF), this change skewed the data. They also did a crappy job calibrating the sensors, one sensor in CO was off by over 300ft, they just moved shit, plugged it back in and presto! weather data. The visibility sensor at Lincoln NE was originally put in a ditch, any midwesterner can tell you ditches fog over in the springtime, guess what? We cancel sorties because the sensor says 100M in fog, actual vsby 7 plus miles, ahhh technology.

A sensor should be in-place 10 years to establish a baseline, and 30 years to be meaningful, we are just hitting the 20 year mark. Yet activists are using this data to claim incredible warming, on a global scale.

[24/7]

I wouldn't believe government on this issue because, as with so many others, it is about expanding their control over more of our lives.


Ding, Ding, Ding, This is my issue with the whole thing.

And if I might add, increased taxation of the US population with redistribution of that money around the world....

Man's role in this climate shift is a load of methane producing crap-In my most humble opinion.

[Slim]

The BBC counters the climate change skeptics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

I am solidly in the skeptic column. However, unlike many climate change believers I don't fear the debate, and thought the rebuttles were interesting.

Edited: To avoid sounding so uhhh... studious.

[Sharky]

I don't fear the debate, and found these retorts interesting topics for more study.




I find the whole subject rather boring............lol

[Greenhat]

The BBC counters the climate change skeptics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

I am solidly in the skeptic column. However, unlike many climate change believers I don't fear the debate, and thought the rebuttles were interesting.

Edited: To avoid sounding so uhhh... studious.

That "counter" is pretty weak. For example:

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today.

How do we know that none of those causes (or whatever cause there was) apply today?

We don't. Because we don't know what were the causes of those changes back then (only theories of what might have been the causes). We do know that there are clearly demonstrated cycles or swings in global temperatures.

[Sigi]

This can be a very confusing issue for me. I always have been a skeptic about what OUR contribution has been, and if in fact WE ARE accelerating the effects of GW. So when I read something like the following, I am unprepared to counter it:

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
L I N K (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)



I understand that people mught say we have no clue what happened 400K+ years ago or 20M years ago, but I do not know that.

[Greenhat]

I'd be very curious to know how anyone can claim to make the statements made in the statement quoted. I find it difficult to believe that science has come up with a way to measure what the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 500 years ago, never mind 420,000 years ago or 20 million years. My guess would be that such a statement is based on a variety of assumptions, and it would be appropriate that the claimant should note what the assumptions are.

It is striking that on one hand, the same link claims to have a good idea of what global CO2 atmosphere concentrations were dating back to 420,000 years ago, and on the other, claims that artic ice (and antartic ice) growth or reduction can only be measured back to 1979 (and while artic ice has decreased, antartic ice has increased).

Remember that the weather reports that many of us hear on our daily news or read in our papers are based on the very same sort of climate modeling that is used to demonstrate gobal warming. How often is your local weather report wrong? Or as my meteorology professor admitted under pressure - meteorology is educated guesswork.

[longrange1947]

This can be a very confusing issue for me. ........................................ So when I read something like the following, I am unprepared to counter it:

And that is exactly why they make those statements, most have not counter, it is called the big lie. Tell it enough and everyone will run to Al Gore, the man that invented the Internet and now Global Warming, for more Carbon Credits and lessen their "Carbon footprint".

It is, as my little red button on my desk declares, "That's not Bulls**t, that's Horsesh**t!" :D

[Sigi]

I have watched the videos:

I think that British documentary “The Global Warming Swindle” was posted here some time ago, nevertheless, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0hGxq5g0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsX_nHn_hM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwXt2iNiKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6CG7ermeHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZC4hD9MRc

Sounds to me like CO2 is not the catalyst to rising temps many once thought, but that rising temps contribute to rising CO2.

[Tracy]

...Sounds to me like CO2 is not the catalyst to rising temps many once thought, but that rising temps contribute to rising CO2.

Correct. This is, to me, a main fundamental flaw in Gore's Campaign: Saying that CO2 increase causes global warming; when in fact it's the opposite effect. Warming is causing a rise in CO2 levels.

Not one single climate model produced by the IPCC matches the data collected thus far.

"Consensus is not science." Michael Crichton.

[Greenhat]

I think that British documentary “The Global Warming Swindle” was posted here some time ago, nevertheless, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0hGxq5g0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsX_nHn_hM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwXt2iNiKg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6CG7ermeHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZC4hD9MRc

Interesting video. Thanks for the links.

[smp52]

Speaking of global warming and the environment, here's an interesting legal issue - Neighbors fight it out over solar panels vs trees (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZIt0WwhHKzl0Laajt0IeoaAQNgwD8UU86TG0). One guy has panels, but his neighbor's Redwood trees are blocking some of the light to his roof. Redwoods were planted before the panels came around (though shorter and not blocking light then).

Two of the eight redwoods are being cut down as there is a California law that protects the right of a homeowner ensuring access to sunlight for their property. Only in Cali....chopping a tree down to get solar energy:rolleyes:.

[JRB11]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html

Here's a rebuttal on "the Global Warming Swindle", from the same channel that first broadcast it. I watched the first moon landing on a B&W TV, foil on the rabbit ears and all, then recently saw a show purporting that the landings were false, and it seemed pretty persuasive. With the internet, you can find anything you want, pro or con. I don't know for sure about GW is real or not, I sure hope it's not, but I wouldn't count it out, especially just because Al Gore brought it to the fore front.

[KidA]

Interesting video. Thanks for the links.

As with everything, the other side....

Carl Wunsch

Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator. The production company denied that he had been misled and that correspondence to Wunsch had clearly stated the programme would 'examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2'. Filmmaker Durkin responded, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said." Wunsch has since said that Durkin "clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was trying to say"

Wunsch wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."


More on the controversy about the film here:

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

[Tracy]

...I don't know for sure about GW is real or not, I sure hope it's not, but I wouldn't count it out, especially just because Al Gore brought it to the fore front.

OK, so the Lettered Climatologists who say that Global Warming as described by a professional politician is false, inaccurate and alarmist are wrong?

One senator from Tennessee, and the Untied Nations, holds more sway over your opinion than men and women who dedicate their life to studying this phenomena?

I'm an engineer by trade; and my money is on the numbers. Not politicians.

[Sigi]

As with everything, the other side....

More on the controversy about the film here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
If you read that link, the IPCC also had the same thing happening with their scientists:

[edit] Disputing the global warming consensus
The film argues that the perceived consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist.

Status of IPCC contributors. The programme asserts that it is falsely stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s reports on the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.
Accuracy of representation of IPCC contributors. The film argues that IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorializing. The film highlights the case of Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action. Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.[13]


Like I said, this can be a confusing topic.

[JRB11]

Tracy, I didn't say that, but I did hear a former Gov. from texas say that he believed in GW. I can google GW and spend the rest of my days reading pro/con on the issue. I was neutral on the subject, but Gores movie did make me more aware. I've also read that all the Ntl. Academies of Science from all the industrial nations agree, although not all scientists who belong to them agree on all the points. I do believe it's an important issue, one that could impact my children and their children, whichever way it goes, and won't disregard it for political reasons or because I think someone is out to make a buck.

[Sigi]

The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions.

Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature....."I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."


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

For years we have been told that CO2 drives rising temperature. Now we have the chair of IPCC stating - matter of factly - that Co2 HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO DRIVE RISES IN TEMPERATURE.

So WTF?

[ukbrit52]

Just watched the Global Warming Swindle video and found it fascinating and a tad more balanced that the Al Gore movie, however, that may be because I dont like the massive drama that seems to surround his picture. I tend to tune loud yelling people out especially when there seems to be no real avenue for debate without people getting into a slanging match and making it personal.

[Greenhat]

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

For years we have been told that CO2 drives rising temperature. Now we have the chair of IPCC stating - matter of factly - that Co2 HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO DRIVE RISES IN TEMPERATURE.

So WTF?


Funny, isn't it? And Al Gore in his presentation is very, very obvious in making the claim that CO2 drives the temperature changes, not the other way around... but regardless of what flaws are in the UK documentary, it's rather interesting that the piece of data that gets left alone... is the one that shows that CO2 increases follow rises in temp, not the other way around.

Nor is there any real contradiction to the statement that the theory of greenhouse gases should indicate a much greater rise in temp in the Troposphere.

Forget everything else from the documentary... the political arguments, the economic arguments, the alternative theories...

Those two pieces of data alone should invalidate the Global Warming theory. When a scientific theory doesn't fit the data available, scientists look for a new theory that does. The fact that they aren't, indicates that a lot that the documentary had to say was right on the mark.

[JRB11]

Actually, they have looked for a theory to explain it, and come up with one.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Theory is just that, theory.

[Sigi]

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

This article did nothing to lead up to this conclusion, so either I read the article wrong, or I am supposed to take a giant leap of faith I am not willing to do.

[Greenhat]

Actually, they have looked for a theory to explain it, and come up with one.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Theory is just that, theory.


I read that three times, and all I can see is that it is saying: "It's complicated". And it does not explain the lag of CO2 behind temperture increases, only tries to explain away the lag at the start (but the lag isn't just at the start, it is continuous throughout the ice core record).

They could have just as well said: "As the planet warms, more animal life is able to live, which produces more CO2. In addition, there is an increase in body heat generated by those animals which warms the planet even more."

And just as much evidence exists.

Hypotheses? OK. Theory?

In scientific terminology, a theory must be able to be tested or disproved through empirical observation.

This strikes me more as spin.

[JRB11]

I'll run up the white flag now. Not because I now believe that GW is a hoax by Gore and some commie lefties trying to make a buck, but because I doubt anyone here is going to change anyones mind (and I'm a 2 fingered typist and this crap takes me forever). I believe that there is plenty of empirical evidence/observation to support the strong possibility that GW is being speeded up by man made emissions, you don't. Truthfully, I hope you're right. But I wouldn't bet my childrens future on it.

[Sigi]

And it does not explain the lag of CO2 behind temperture increases, only tries to explain away the lag at the start (but the lag isn't just at the start, it is continuous throughout the ice core record).

.
Ok then it is not just me.

[Tracy]

I'll run up the white flag now. Not because I now believe that GW is a hoax by Gore and some commie lefties trying to make a buck, but because I doubt anyone here is going to change anyones mind (and I'm a 2 fingered typist and this crap takes me forever). I believe that there is plenty of empirical evidence/observation to support the strong possibility that GW is being speeded up by man made emissions, you don't. Truthfully, I hope you're right. But I wouldn't bet my childrens future on it.

Are we affecting the environment? Oh hell yes.

Here are the key questions:

Is the current global warming caused exclusively by human action? No.

Is CO2 the leading green house gas causing global warming. No.

With regards to betting, either way we're betting all of our futures. What Gore and coterie do not explain is how to satiate our energy demands. The Third World will becondemned to their life forever if Mr Gore and his agenda take effect. This Global Warming effort is anarchy repackaged with pseudo-intellectualism.

Sorry. My bet is with numbers and the people who study this for a living.

I'm sorry you feel that way; but show the facts and numbers. Not consensus. Show me the climate model that can prove human interference is the direct, major cause of Global Warming.

[JRB11]

Tracy, GH, did you read the line about the 1.07 GPA from HS? I wasn't kidding, but fortunately got my shit together and lead a very comfortable life. I say that because me showing you a climate model that PROVES GW probably isn't going to happen, just like you can't PROVE it isn't. This thread started about a weatherman from Chi. (my old home town), who did great, started the WC, etc. But he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, as are many of the skeptics. I've done more non-porn googling than I ever have, and tried to understand what the hell I was reading. I read some Vincent Gray, and was almost changing my mind, until I read that he was a meteorologist, and just happened to start working with the carbon based fuel industry about 7 years ago.
I would hope that at the least, we would spend more time/money on developing new sources of energy. I believe more than I disbelieve, and you don't. I'm cool with that.

[SN]

But he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, as are many of the skeptics. I've done more non-porn googling than I ever have, and tried to understand what the hell I was reading. I read some Vincent Gray, and was almost changing my mind, until I read that he was a meteorologist, and just happened to start working with the carbon based fuel industry about 7 years ago.
I would hope that at the least, we would spend more time/money on developing new sources of energy. I believe more than I disbelieve, and you don't. I'm cool with that.

What kind of degree does a climatologist start off with?

Hint, it's not climatology.

[Greenhat]

Somewhere earlier in this thread, I posted that I favor the development of alternative (and hopefully cleaner) fuels. I favor that not because of any issues about climatic change, but because of economic dependence and security issues.

The undisputed fact that humans have survived both colder and warmer climates (and thrived when the warmer cycles occurred) indicates that the whole hoopla about the danger of global warming is much exaggerated.

Climates change. Whether we are contributing or not, there are legitimate reasons to pursue alternative energy sources, cleaner fuels, etc. There is absolutely no need for the FUD that is an integral part of global warming media coverage.

I also favor the building of new nuclear power plants, which the tree-huggers by and large are irrationally afraid of.

The point is that the global-warming argument doesn't help those things get done. Instead, it distracts from real reasons to do those things and gets people focused on the global-warming theory, gives people an opportunity to bash big business (especially the energy companies, despite the fact that they often lead the way in alternative energy source research) and is a real danger to developing countries that don't have the political clout (like China) to ignore the hype.

[P38]

I was doing some vehicle research today and ran across the following link by accident. It seems timely for this discussion. Here is a "A complete list of things caused by global warming" :

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm ;)