Picture of a potato farm in Greenland: 
Posted on 02/21/2007 8:41:11 AM PST by TBP
It is ironic that as a major cold snap sweeps the eastern and central United States, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations, has released a report warning us of global warming and insisted that it was caused primarily by human activity.
The United Nations does not have a high record of reliability. The Los Angeles Times reported when one of the UN's agencies wrote a report a few years which disagreed with conventional wisdom on second-hand smoke that the UN suppressed the report. The UN is also well known for its anti-Americanism.
Nobody denies that the climate is changing. It has been changing ever since Earth came into being. That is why there are no longer dinosaurs, mastodons, and other life forms that used to roam the planet. But over the past 100 years, the average temperature has gone up seven tenths of a degree Celsius, or about a degree Fahrenheit, most of that before 1940.
As Jonah Goldberg writes in the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times, "The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate." He goes on to say, "Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat." So would I.
But the Marxist Luddites of the "global warming" movement don't see it that way. They would prefer to subject the United States to the restrictions of the Kyoto protocol (which the U.S. Senate defeated 95-0 during the Clinton-Gore Administration), despite the fact that China, India, and other Third World countries are exempt and that pollution is much worse in the Third World then in the industrialized world.
In an excellent article published February 5 at the Canada Free Press website, Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, wrote that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." He notes that 30 years ago, we were being warned about global cooling by the same interests.
That is not even taking into account the fact that the polar ice caps are melting on Mars and there is even some melting on Pluto. Now, I wonder how the human race made that happen.
Interestingly, these changes coincide with an increase in solar activity. According to scientists with the Max Planck Institute, sunspot activity is at its highest in 1000 years.
It also fails to account for the fact that there was a significant warm period in the Middle Ages (roughly 800-1300 AD) in which the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine grapes grew in Nova Scotia. This was followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance, lasting from about 1350 until about 1900. Since then, we've been in a warming cycle. Like the current warm cycle, the medieval warm period (which was warmer than today, by most reports) coincided with increased activity on the Sun. Columnist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that "The Medieval Warm Period was a time (mostly) of peace and plenty; the little Ice Age (mostly) of starvation and war."
But, but, but...there's a scientific consensus, the "global warming" advocates say. Well, it was that kind of scientific consensus that got Galileo imprisoned. You can't do science by consensus. Dr. Ball writes, "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact."
Besides, there isn't really all that much of a consensus. The actions of the "global warming" activists underline that fact. Note the recent controversy at the Weather Channel. Heidi Cullen, a self-proclaimed "climate expert" for the Weather Channel, called for silencing any meteorologist who questions man-made "global warming" by decertifying them. Cullen said, "It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement." Of course, she apparently did not know that in the Southern Hemisphere, hurricanes do rotate counterclockwise. On December 17, 2006, her program, "The Climate Code," featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts calling for Nuremberg trials for anyone who questioned man-made "global warming." Cullen is a contributor to the IPCC report. Yet all responsible meteorologists admit that the climate goes in cycles. But that apparently doesn't matter to Cullen and her friends.
The meteorologists and climatologists who promote the alarmist theory of global warming told us that the 2006 hurricane season would be dramatically worse than the 2005 season. It was not nearly as bad. If they were that for off on a short-term projection like that, why are we supposed to take their word for it on a long-term theory such as anthropogenic global warming?
When physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton suggested that climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine, he was verbally vandalized by Senator Barbara Boxer. Senators Susan Collins ("R"-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have demanded that Exxon Mobil stop funding research that questions man-made global warming, something it hasn't been doing at least since 2005.
Former Vice President Al Gore cancelled an interview with a Danish newspaper (one which had been long scheduled) rather than appear with Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace who is a global-warming skeptic. Yet Gore remains a major stockholder in Occidental Petroleum.
Why do the advocates of the man-made warming viewpoint have to resort to these intimidation tactics if there is a scientific consensus? The answer is because there isn't.
Recently, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery wrote a book called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years in which they show that there is evidence of 600 warmings in the last million years.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia is one of a group of hundreds of climate scientists who question the man-made global warming hypothesis. Another is Canadian Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University. He says, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences argues that the small increase in temperatures may be caused by atmospheric changes not related to human activity. He notes that until early in the 20th century, temperatures were going down. Shaidurov explains that the most common greenhouse gas is water and very small changes in the water vapor in the atmosphere can contribute to significant changes in the temperature of the Earth's surface. We have little control over the amount of water vapor.These are just a few of the hundreds of climate scientists who diverge from the theory of man-made "global warming." Yet the effort to force us to embrace extreme solutions to this problem, solutions that could damage our standard of living, continues. Are we getting all heated up over nothing?
"And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."
This says nothing about skepticism, and it says nothing about "decertification". It says that a meteorologist should understand the fundamentals of the science, and it suggests that such knowledge might be a prerequisite for the AMS Seal of Approval.
Let's say that there's a physician who doesn't believe viruses cause diseases. He believes that they are caused by evil spirits. The physician, however, is still treating patients. Should it be a requirement for legitimate certification as an M.D. that this physician should still be able to state the fundamentals of the theory of how viruses causes diseases? Should he/she at least have had the training required to be a physician and demonstrated standard medical knowledge, even if they don't believe all of it?
Variability in solar output is not causing the recently-observed climate changes on Mars and Pluto.
Basically.
bookmark
At least we are having the discussion now - "What is causing global warming?"
Conservatives lost years arguing that there was no global warming - it made us look like denying reality.
In the meantime, global warming, human causation and the need to cripple the economy have become linked to the public, possibly permanently.
This has been a serious error.
The temperature has gone down since 1998 (slightly) and that seems to be a normal occurrence.
Tehre is no global warming in the sense that liberals mean it. While the Earth havs warmed overall in the last 30+ years, again slightly, there re parts of the world where the average temperature has actually gone down. And "global warming" as some sort of out-of-the-ordinary, cataclysmic event, doesn't appear to be a real event at all. Many of those propounding global warming theory know that, too, IMO.
We do appear to hvae been in a warming part of the cycle for a while now, but the Earth has always gotten warmer and cooler, warmer and cooler. The same people who are screaming about global warming were screaming 30 years ago that an Ice Age was right around the corner.
Probably warmer, since we hvae reports of farming in Greenland and wine grapes growing in Nova Scotia.
Well, I got them mostly from your posts. They wree all from posts on your side of the discussion. And the sources I mentioned for the article I got from the article. The difference in quality of sources is staggering.
>>The temperature has gone down since 1998 (slightly) and that seems to be a normal occurrence.<<
That's pretty much what I was talking about. No scientist is ever gonna get past the line of your post.
That's because all the major relevent scientific groups from The American Meteorological Society to The National Academy of Sciences are so far past that dispute, it does not help anything.
At a recent global warming conference 75% of the papers were about whether humans were causing global warming with 100% of those agreeing that humans are a major factor. The other 25% were about likely effects of global warming and/or possible plans to mitigate the effects.
So when somebody comes along and says "there is no global warming" -they simply get dismissed.
A much more helpful approach would be to point out that the temperature rise is small and therefore we can take time for more study before doing something drastic to the economy.
And please understand I'm not trying to tell anybody what they can say or can't say. I'm making a suggestion for how best to approach legislators and the scientific community.
Still can't deal with the facts, eh?
Picture of a potato farm in Greenland:
That's pretty much what I was talking about. No scientist is ever gonna get past the line of your post.
Never mind that it's true.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml
Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.
An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?
She writes:" Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."
Wait - don't hurricanes (cyclones) rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and counter clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere? Hope that question doesn't get me 'decertified.'
After slamming her critics and politicizing the process of global warming by trying to silence anyone that disagrees with her, the 'expert' then closes with this gem, "I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!"
Sorry, 'doc' - it appears that you only wish for those that agree with you to talk 'science.' Folks already lampoon the poor forecasting of weather folks and I'm certain I don't wish to get a dose of propaganda with my bungled weather forecasts - can someone tell me what's going on at the Weather Channel?
The first response to her blog entry says it very well. A person identified as Jordan writes:
"This is a bad idea. I am now retired but was a member of the AMS for many years. AMS could no more speak for all meteorologists than could the AMA speak for all doctors. This is another barely disguised attempt to silence the skeptics. It fits nicely with the Weather Channel's practice of presenting only one side of the issue. If you are a good scientist you will not only welcome questions about your conclusions you will insist upon them."
Science by consensus will always fail. 'The Weather Channel' should stick to forecasts and leave the propaganda and political debates for the cable news channels.
The article I posted is loaded with facts and it's well-sourced. The responses have been based on essentially nothing and weakly sourced. That is the reason I pointed out he staggering difference in sourcing. Who is it that can't handle facts?
Interestingly, these changes coincide with an increase in solar activity. According to scientists with the Max Planck Institute, sunspot activity is at its highest in 1000 years.
The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change
Show me the increase in solar activity, fact-man. Sbow me any proven, significant linkage between increased solar activity and the warming trend which began in the mid-1970s.
First of all, I cited a scientific institute, quite respected, and all you come up with is some snidely sarcastic remark.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19oct98_1.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/HL758.cfm
"Scientific facts gathered in the past 10 years do not support the notion of catastrophic human-made warming as a basis for drastic carbon dioxide emission cuts.
From 1900 to 1940, the surface warms strongly. From 1940 to about the late 1970s, a slight cooling trend is seen. Then from the late 1970s to the present, warming occurs. Briefly, the surface records show early 20th-century warming, mid-20th-century cooling, and late 20th-century warming.
The mid-20th-century cooling can't be a warming response owing to the air's added greenhouse gases.
Now, most all the computer models agree that the human-made warming would be almost linear in fashion.
Records of sunspot activity reach back to the days of Galileo, some 400 years ago. Scientists then could project an image of the sun and draw these dark sunspots that were seen through early telescopes. We know sunspots to be areas of intense magnetic activity, and from NASA satellite measurements in the last 20 years, we know that over time periods of decades, when the magnetism of the sun is strong, the energy output of the sun is also more intense. That is, the sun is a little bit brighter when magnetism is high, and the sun is a bit fainter when magnetism is weaker.
The ups and downs of each record match fairly well. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change. For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940s, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well.
The mid-20th century cooling, and some of the latter 20th century warming also seem matched to changes in the sun.
To review: The surface warming that should be occurring from human-made actions, which is predicted to be accompanied by low troposphere warming, cannot be found in modern records from balloon and satellite platforms.
Thus, the recent surface warming trend may owe largely to changes in the sun's energy output."
As I said. The atajust doesn't support heavy man-made warming; it supports a cyclical warming, and sunspot activity appears to be a factor, just as it has been before.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters."
NASA has a vested interest in anthropogenic warming (more $$$$$$), yet even this NASA study says sunspots are heavily involved.
Old thread; still relevant.
The Warmist cult is on the ropes.
The summary of the IPCC report, which is what the media cites, draws different conclusions than the actual report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.