Global warming "fixes > Canadian article

[JAXRS6]

This Detroit News link leads to a piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/NATION/607120338&SearchID=73250544813338

[Benman]

Propaganda...

An article from http://www.canadafreepress.com :

The National Academy of Sciences is flunking as the referee in the global warming debate
By Dennis T. Avery
Saturday, July 1, 2006

The Academy was supposed to referee an acrimonious debate in Congress and the science community over the infamous "hockey stick" global warming studies. Those two studies, published in 1998 and 1999, were led by Michael Mann, now at the University of Virginia. They appear to find dramatic 20th century warming, after 900 years of supposedly stable world temperatures. The study is controversial because it appeared to wipe out the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, two of the most widely documented climate events in history.

Nevertheless, it was widely published by the Clinton Administration and the UN climate change panel as "proof" of man-made global warming. And now, the National Academy has announced that it is "plausible" that today’s temperatures are the warmest in 1100 years, as Mann claimed.

Really?

Britain today has come out of the Little Ice Age which extended from 1400 to 1850, but it is essentially still too cold to grow wine grapes successfully. In 1068 AD, 938 years before today, Britain’s tax officials reported in the Domesday Book that nearly 50 British vineyards were growing wine grapes. Nor are German wine grapes grown as high on the hillsides today as they were in the Medieval period. Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature in the pre-thermometer era.

More important, the Romans also reported growing wine grapes in Britain when they occupied that country in the 1st century. Thus we know that both the 1st and 11th centuries were warmer than today. Mann was wrong about the 21st century having "unprecedented warming."

The bigger scientific sin of both Mann and the National Academy is trying to hide the natural, moderate 1500-year climate cycle.

The top science journals since 1984 have widely reported on the 1500-year cycle, which was first discovered in the long Greenland and Antarctic ice cores in the 1980s. Since then, the 1500-year cycle has also been found in the seabed sediments of five oceans, in glacier advances and retreats worldwide, in ancient tree rings, and in historic documents from both Europe and Asia. It goes back at least a million years.

The 1500-year climate cycle has no correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere. It has had a strong correlation with the length of the sunspot cycles on the sun.

CO2 may be adding to the Modern Warming, but its impact is apparently not large. Remember that our warming started 90 years before human CO2 emissions began to surge about 1940. When human CO2 emissions did surge after 1940, global temperatures went down for 35 years! The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren’t doing it. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, except for the tiny Antarctic Peninsula. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.

Is the National Academy of Science fearful that if the public understood the natural climate cycle, the science community would lose the billions of dollars the government now spends on the CO2 climate scare?

The National Academy has a massive conflict of interest that is truly disturbing.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and is the Director for Center for Global Food Issues (www.cgfi.org). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.


Ben:addict:

[JAXRS6]

Interesting stuff; thanks, Ben. I've heard a lot about scientists who don't believe global warming is underway, but this is the first time I've seen a piece from one of them that wasn't a scientific abstract too long and complicated for me to read. I truly hope global warming is not underway, but I've read, heard and experienced too much to yet believe it.

Examples:

1. In 1993 I went on an Alaskan cruise with my late mother, an experience greatly enhanced by lectures from rangers. According to them, yes, some glaciers were expanding, but even then they were greatly out numbered by those that were receding. Secondly, they said the waters in which we were cruising had become quite a bit deeper in the 20th century ... due to melting.

2. Ice cores also have been used to document global warming, in probably a half-dozen articles & TV documentaries I've seen. If some scientists say they show the opposite ... well, I'd like to see both sides debate that issue in the same room at the same time.

3. This statement seems suspect for other reasons, too:

" The Greenhouse Theory says the Polar Regions will warm first, but they aren’t doing it."

One five part Canadian TV series I purchased shows native peoples placing their homes on skids and moving them back 150 feet from their crumbling coastline in the hope that their homes would be safe "for another month." Additionally, recent reports include a doubling of the melt rate for the Greenland ice cap since 1990, plus a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island falling off from Antarctica.

4. Near my home in SW Florida, scientists from MA recently discovered markers placed in the 1940s and 50s. Since then, they have concluded, waters have risen about nine inches. Because development along the shoreline of Charlotte Harbor (which empties into the Gulf near Fort Myers) has been very limited, and virtually banned since removal of mangroves became illegal in 1986, these scientists believe Charlotte Harbor is an ideal place to measure sea level changes along Florida's Gulf coast. (I may be able to find a link to a local newspaper article if anyone is interested.)

5. Finally, yes, one needs to beware of possible biases, but that can work both ways. If a scientist is relying on future government funding, then, yes, he might be inclined towards findings of global warming. On the other hand, if the scientist's paycheck derives from an institute, foundation or private company that has a lot to lose from global warming -- especially any entity depending on transportation, industry or utilities for its own funding -- then the bias could just as eaily go the other way.

For those interested, here's a 2:30 min trailer on An Inconvenient Truth. As one with libertarian leanings I am no fan of Al Gore, but I have yet to hear someone claim that the many scientific findings he documents are bogus. Plenty of people have disputed Gore's own conclusions, yes, but not the scientific data he presents. I do wish he had identified more of his sources, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE

[Benman]

Originally posted by JAXRS6
Interesting stuff; thanks, Ben. I've heard a lot about scientists who don't believe global warming is underway, but this is the first time I've seen a piece from one of them that wasn't a scientific abstract too long and complicated for me to read.

No kidding! Most of their writings might as well be in Greek! :D



Originally posted by JAXRS6

For those interested, here's a 2:30 min trailer on An Inconvenient Truth. As one with libertarian leanings I am no fan of Al Gore, but I have yet to hear someone claim that the many scientific findings he documents are bogus. Plenty of people have disputed Gore's own conclusions, yes, but not the scientific data he presents. I do wish he had identified more of his sources, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE

This one does: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

As a Libertarian (me too :D), you may find this site most refreshing: http://freedom-force.org At 23 countries strong, and growing. :thumb: Especially usefull is the "Unfiltered News" section (although George would debate me on that one... ;) ).

Also, www.mises.org for Libertarian Economics. Fantastic stuff. :cheers:

Ben:addict:

***edit*** speaking of Mises, here's a hilarious article on "Superman" and libertarian economics! http://www.mises.org/story/2242 :applause:

[gjg]

Plenty of people have disputed Gore's own conclusions,

who would dispute the undisputed father of Internet? :D

[Benman]

Originally posted by gjg
who would dispute the undisputed father of Internet? :D

He really did make it you know! :applause:

Ben:addict:

[Benman]

Speaking of Al Gore... This is just bloody brilliant!



Gore's Senate testimony
Gore refuses to take personal energy ethics pledge
By EPW Blog

Thursday, March 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.


Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Click Here for Link to Chart
Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.


It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.


“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.


“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.


Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

As a believer:

that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”


Gore refused to take the pledge.

So much for him being a great environmental "leader".


:applause: :applause:

Ben:addict:

[AndyBG]

:doh: What a **&^%$#

[Leadfoot]

The BBC ran a programme of the Great Global warming scam.

Al Gore's graph that he always refers to does look compelling until it was sampled in a tiny piece like say 10,000 years which revealed that Carbon increases happened not before the temperature rise but 800years after. The sea stored to carbon as the heat raised and only released it 800 years later when to temperature was on the decline.:doh:

As a great big graph over millions and millions of years Al Gore's chart did look like the two happened together, it's a shame he didn't check the evidence properly.

Anyway CO2s are only a very part of the green house gases, something like 0.005%, the really big one is water vapour. Get rid of it and everything will be peachy.;)

[Benman]

The BBC ran a programme of the Great Global warming scam...


Had the priviledge to watch the first 1/2 hour of that. Excellent, excellent stuff! First rate. Now if every human on Earth could be shown that...

Ben:addict:

[Lateknight]

Anyway CO2s are only a very part of the green house gases, something like 0.005%, the really big one is water vapour. Get rid of it and everything will be peachy.;)

:D Doesn't water vapour also cool the earths (lower) atmosphere? ie clouds and rain.
Maybe all 6.2 billion of us should stand outside and all blow at once that should get rid of any nasty clouds. Although that in turn will increase the Co2 content of the earths atmosphere by 1 billionth of a percentage point. :bigeyes: (and their is a small risk of the earth being blown off its axis !)

Anybody read this (crap) post on a P.C should turn their machines off NOW. Don't you realise how much energy your wasting Godammit. !! etc, etc:D