Posted on 05/25/2008 11:54:39 AM PDT by RogerFGay
The end of civilization as we know it, is not at hand. Dire warnings on climate change issued by Al Gore, based on an extreme set of computer predictions, are a dead issue. So is the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the UN committee that tried to bring credibility to the predictions with claims that its views represent a consensus among scientists on global warming.
The problem with the alleged scientific consensus is that it has always been a half-truth; or less than half, depending on how you calculate. We are in a natural warm period. That's true, but Gore, and other activists – including the IPCC – stepped over the boundary when giving the impression that scientific consensus supported a list of scary predictions intended to promote political action, as well as the claim that the primary cause of global warming is human pollution, especially in the form of carbon dioxide – CO2. Ice has been melting; but since a warm period is pretty much opposite an ice-age, that is what one would expect. Polar bears are still killing and eating seals, happily I suppose.
In the scientific debate, the straw that broke the camel's back was the last decade of real temperature data. Reality just hasn't held with the IPCC predictions. Not only has it not gotten hotter at an increasing rate, as Al Gore's presentations with absolute certainty predicted, it just hasn't gotten hotter. CO2 has been increasing but there's nothing to suggest that it's a dangerous substance. The evidence actually contradicts the idea that it is a major contributor to warming. There's more CO2 but it's not getting hotter. You don't have cause and effect if you don't get the predicted effect. The so-called “global warming skeptics” have won. Al Gore and the IPCC are wrong.
Data over the past decade is not in fact, the first to be out of sync with the IPCC models. Scientists have been pointing to cooling periods as well as data inaccuracies, poor analysis, and misrepresentations for years. These scientists simply weren't counted in Al Gore's idea of scientific consensus. It's been understood for decades; in order to matter in the politics of global warming, you had to get on-board. That of course, created a conspiracy rather than getting to the truth.
The IPCC's credibility has been shattered. The debate can no longer be thought of as involving two groups of well-intentioned scientists with different data, theories, and predictions. If that were so, the IPCC would be admitting the significance of new data and assuring the public that they have no real evidence that the climate future will be as scary as they had previously claimed. That is exactly what scientists have asked them to do (see related article) The IPCC instead claims their predictions have not been proven wrong; they have just not yet been proven right. Nature's expected behavior has been delayed, according to the IPCC. Why it has been delayed is another scientific mystery awaiting billions more in funding to solve. They've given reality another ten years to catch up with their predictions. If we have a very hot summer or two during the next decade – the sort of thing not unknown to human history – one might expect they'll claim vindication.
And what of Al Gore – self-appointed soothsayer and modern leader of the environmental movement, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, an Emmy, and other awards for frightening school children with tales of doom? Publicly, he struggles to explain why there are so many determined detractors in discussions of his far-reaching and expensive vision for political action. But, reportedly making millions from his environmental activism, he should be able to contemplate this and other questions in luxury after this swan song of his political career has finally ended.
ROTF!
We must act immediately. No amount of spending or adjustment to use of resources is too much. Everything is at stake. All resources must be aimed directly at controlling the relationship between the sun and the earth.
That's the scary part for while good minded, free and profit driven people see such as a concern, they scratch their heads and lower their standard of living via fear and promote such gibberish financially.
LOL!
Proof of Global Warming! Proof of Global Warming!
/SARC
Same here in WA. We had two HOT days last weekend, and that’s it. Today it’s 64 degrees.
WOW, that's one he!! of a trend!
Got your wallet out for the cause? ~snort
THANK YOU PREACHER.
AWESOME. And yep, that is Lake Kacheelus just past Snoqualmie Pass, two weeks ago. Frozen.
the mini picture is the at the summit (the top for leftists) showing just how high the snow banks on the side of the road are in MAY! LOL.
I love you preacher.
Proof of global warming isn't the issue.
The fallacy that man made global warming is the reason and will destroy the planet and can only be resolved via change of lifestyle and much needed transferring of personal wealth is the concerning issue.
A week ago, the thermometer on our back deck read 106 fahrenheit. Today it's barely breaking 50. I've had to stoke up the woodstove at night again. But this is really fairly typical California weather for this time of year.
ya, money will solve it. a state rep here, Geoff Simpson has written a bill for a carbon tax. he told me we are in imminent danger. I asked him why he wants to scare his neighbors with that kind of language. No response.
The mountains above LA County are snow covered down to about 5,000’ since some are up to 10,000’ that is a lot of snow. And this is Memorial Day!
Carbon tax...
Well, I guess we are all destine to be taxed for our bodies too. ; )
oh, and FYI, the location of those pics is approximately 1 1/2 hours east of Seattle, where all the dangerous hot air is coming from.
I guess you missed my “SARC” Tag.
I didn't, however rare, I forgot mine on the reply! : (
Hey Chard, fancy seeing you here!
—EE from Ballbusters!
The end of GW is Bush’s fault it hasn’t warmed since Bush got in office.
Saddly enough your comment sounded so much like what we hear today that you needed one!
I saw an "ice core" chart of CO2 Vs temperature going back 800,000 years or so. It was posted on FR a couple of days back. The graph showed the ice ages clearly and the warming periods between them also quite clearly. It was obvious that there was a good correlation between CO2 and average temperature. The problem with the graph was that by presenting such a large period (nearly a million years) it was impossible to to tell which factor was leading the other. That may have been the intent of those publishing that extreme range of data, it obscures the cause and effect relationship between CO2 and average temperature.
Graphs that show shorter periods have established that increasing CO2 concentrations lag the average temperature by about 800 years. That definitely labels CO2 as the effect caused by increasing temperature. There is evidence that CO2 is sequestered by the Earth's oceans as a natural process and increased solar radiation reduces the ability of ocean water to hold it in solution. Thus our esteemed climate scientists have merely exchanged cause and effect. A natural mistake and easy to overlook.
NOT!
Regards,
GtG
What ever happened to FRs chief climatologist? Wait, he did not claim to be one, but he was good at reading graphs, and posted many here on FR. Or, maybe he played one on TV ;)
Somehow he missed the lesson in school about “garbage in, garbage out”
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.