Scientists: Global warming is real (check out this absolute GEM from CNN/Reuters

CNN (Reuters) ^ | 2/18/2005

[cyberdasher]

An astounding piece of crapaganda. This made it from Reuters thru CNN without ANY amount of critical editorial thinking.

[finnman69]

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

[sheik yerbouty]

All this can be offset by uclear winter...

[sionnsar]

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

You know they're lying when they pull this one.

[Kirkwood]

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

What an IDIOT.

[thoughtomator]

Tim Barnett, eh?

Check this out:
Scientists Back Superstorm Film

Despite government pressure on NASA not to support the scenario in The Day After Tomorrow, scientists are backing the science behind the film. The part of the film most of them object to has to do with the compression of events that they think will happen gradually. Marine physicist Tim Barnett says, "What happens will frankly be worse than what they show, in the long run. Our lives and all our systems will get stretched and stretched and pushed and pushed. The conflicts that will come up will be remarkable."

Same guy?

[thoughtomator]

If it is the same guy he's been hawking these computer models for years.

[pepsionice]

Ask Mr Barnett if the climate of the earth over the past 50 million years has remained the same? He may surprise even himself with the answer...but then he might decline to even answer that question.

[kidd]

Good find!

This guy has no credibility

[TChris]

...climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

Ohhhh. So, the Global Warming^TM effect of CO₂ now magically bypasses the atmosphere, warming only the oceans! Nifty trick, that.

[Publius Scipio]

New computer models...

Garbage in, garbage out. ~yawn~

[thoughtomator]

Another interesting find:

A new study in the Journal of Climate (February 1999) throws doubt on the validity of these types of studies. According to the author Tim Barnett, of the Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, modelers "have taken their estimates of natural variability from long control runs of CGCMs. This would be a valid procedure if the internally generated variability in the models was a realistic estimate of natural variability. Whether this is true or not is at the moment uncertain."(emphasis added)

That was in 1999. I wonder what changed that he now believes his models are realistic estimates of natural variability? Does he honestly believe he has every possible factor taken into account?

[ZGuy]

Their new "evidence" is new computer models! "I programmed the computer to say the world is getting warmer and that it's our fault, and by gum it did it!"

[untrained skeptic]

it has been clearly proven that in past history the world has gone through stages where it was both considerably warmer and considerably colder.

Saying that human being are the cause of his proposed findings without any real evidence is a clear indication that this idiot isn't a credible source of information.

[thoughtomator]

Ping and request for subject matter expertise. Is it possible to take a look at these climate modeling programs? Or are we being asked to, "trust Microsoft", so to speak?

[taxcontrol]

Did you catch the irony?

"A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said.

The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold winters. "


That was what 12,000 years ago? Those SUVs and coal burning power plants must have really be hell on the cave man.

[Crazieman]

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

Those damned caveman SUVs killed the ice age, you know...

[thoughtomator]

The Ward Churchill of envirohysteria?

[Marauder]

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

He implies that we humans are responsible for this change, such as it is? Then what about all the glacier cycles that occurred before the emergence of humans?

[polymuser]

Kyoto good, US bad.

And all that molten magma under our thin crust, and the superplumes of hotter magma that rise to the crust, have nothing to do with surface temps. Nor does solar activity. Or oceanic activity.